Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts Wikipedia:WikiProject reform Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis

Unencyclopedic and reads like an essay. Possibly original research. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can prove that it isn't OR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what a strange little page. It feels like a content fork (legitimate or not) from somewhere else. Anybody got any guesses? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, violates OR. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, looks like OR to me. Realkyhick 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Delete Unencyclopedic per nom. It is a strange page yes, maybe a copy vio of a scholarly theoretical publication. At any rate, it looks a little like a copy vio. --Paloma Walker 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, violates WP:OR, maybe even a copyvio. Sr13 (T|C) 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete if the !vote for this results in delete, the deleting admin needs to take a long hard look at Creole Monogenesis Theory, Imperfect second language learning theory, Foreigner talk theory, The Language Bioprogram theory, Superstrate Theories, Substrate Theories and Evolutionary Theory as well, all of which were originally created by the same author as part of the same walled garden. They all also appear either to be the same piece of OR and/or copyvio as well. "Evolutionary Theory", in particular, I cannot imagine anyone searching for in this context. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like pretty clear OR to me. Ford MF 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, along with the other seven articles Iridescenti noted, as possible original research and/or copyvios, and very unencyclopedic. Some of these are valid linguistic topics, but we already have articles like Superstrate and Substrate and Creole language and Syntactic similarities of creoles, so these suspect articles are redundant. --Miskwito 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- (changed to Weak keep and cleanup, per Lambiam, below) --Miskwito 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. In light of Lambiam's points below, I guess it might be reasonable to keep the article (assuming it's completely rewritten), or recreate it with new text after its deletion. But is "slave trade and nautical language theory of creole genesis" the term encountered for this theory in the literature? The name of the article should be the most common term for the theory, I think. --Miskwito 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  
  I agree that there are several less felicitous aspects about the article. But these can be addressed by the usual wiki process of gradual improvements. I don't know of a "canonical name" for the theory, but "slave trade" and "nautical language" are certainly key elements; see for example this slide presentation giving an overview of the diverse theories of the origin of pidgins and creoles. In any case, names can be improved by renaming the article, infractions on the MoS can be dealt with by wikification, and so on. None of this requires article deletion. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This theory and several others (for example the monogenesis theory) are quite well-known and notable among scholars of creole languages, even though most (but definitely not all) have relinquished these in favour of Bickerton's theory (see Syntactic similarities of creoles). I have even heard a lecture in which it was argued (without much evidence) that the nautical lingua franca acquired during the transport was Portuguese-based, which supposedly explained the large number of Portuguese loan words in the lexica of Carribean creoles. I don't have access to a library and so I can't check or prove this, but I'm fairly certain that these theories are discussed in several of the references given in the article. The argument for deletion that we already have articles on possibly related, but clearly different theories does not wash with me. Possible copyvio is also a dubious argument. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Why would this be original research? It is an important linguistic topic, and the article is obviously a review of research and publications by others, and clearly attributes the views and hypotheses expressed to the scholarly publications listed in the bibliography. The article and the others by the same user may need restructuring and merging, but I fail to see any basis for deletion. Pharamond 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, if it is such an important topic, why do no articles or portals link to this? Also, an article with sources may still be OR through synthesis. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  - That linguists have published and debated extensively on the issue of the origin of Creole languages shows that it is an important topic. The reason that there are no articles linking to this could be, um, perhaps that the article is brand new, written by a complete Wikipedia newbie and has a cumbersome title. As for the issue of synthesis, well, please tell me in what way this text comes up with something new beyond summarizing the cited publications. Should your mere suspicion that it does be enough to have the article deleted? Pharamond 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The article reads like an essay? Hell, the damn title reads like an essay. The few references that are there, if real, might denote that this could be a useful section of another article about the slave trade. Maybe. Otherwise, nukify it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The topic is a linguistic topic. The article reports on a linguistic theory about the genesis of creole languages. Why do you doubt that the references are real?[1][2][3][4] --Lambiam ^Talk 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Yukichigai. Unclear, messy, and poorly sourced. Arbustoo 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced with 4 references for 3 paragraphs of text? --Lambiam ^Talk 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have to say that this debate shows the Wikipedia community at its very worst. Unfounded claims of original research when the article clearly appears to do nothing more than summarizing existing and cited publications and research, speculations about plagiarism from some unspecified source nobody can bother to name, and even one user implying that the references are invented... Sheesh! Pharamond 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up. This is a relatively young article. The charges that it is original research or in violation of copyright are largely at odds one with the other, yet are above sometimes both being made by single editors, and no evidence other than speculation is being offered in defense of these charges. —SlamDiego 19:41, 4 April 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 --Bubba hotep 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause 4 Concern

Delete per WP:BAND. A Google search failed to reveal their significance. While they initially signed onto a somewhat notable label and released two minor albums on it, the majority of their material is on their own label. I see one non-trivial magazine article about them. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I could go either way on this one. I found a decent amount of fairly trivial newspaper coverage (band x is appearing at venue y on day z), and one article mention in the NYT that's locked behind a pay wall. They have a band entry and partial discography in the All Music Guide, but no biography or album reviews. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No indication of any records (not counting self-published records) or significant touring. Notice of "band x is appearing at venue y on day z" applies to any band that has actual gigs. Record reviews would help. The NYT reference can't be viewed and thus can't be used. Herostratus 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable group. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Insufficient evidence of notability given. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep They've been mentioned in the NY Times and Time Out magazine as well as some other sources (per a google/lexis nexis search), and they've had a song in GTA III as well as have info on allmusic... that seems to me to fulfill at least some of the criteria of WP:BAND. I would love to see some external sources/refs to show that they're notable. Rockstar915 04:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I usually vote for deletion on these band pages, but if they rate a mention in the NY Times, that's enough for me. (It would help if the link were shown, even if it is a pay-per-read. Realkyhick 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hopefully you all can see this: here's the NY Times mention (in the context of a larger article, it name-drops the group): [5]. There's also an article in JIVE Magazine about them here, and New Zealand's The Nelson Mail wrote an article about them here. Hope that helps. I think there's more but it looks like the group is defunct now (?) and the articles date back a long time. I have access to Lexis Nexis if you all want me to go digging for more, but all those mentions, at least to me, point to a keep. Rockstar915 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There really are no non-trivial articles here. The sources listed all mention the band, but the requirement is that there be articles about them, where they are the featured subject. A million bands are mentioned in newspapers when they play gigs or release minor albums - nothing sets this one apart. --Mus Musculus 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm always open to changing my mind on these sorts of subjects, but JIVE Magazine's article is about the band, and only the band. Rockstar915 05:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's one.. but WP:BAND reads, "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." --Mus Musculus 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

True, true. But those sources I found were just a preliminary search. I'm sure that there are more available... but then again, I don't really care nearly enough to go on a witch hunt. And if I'm going to be the only person banging the drum to keep this article, then let it be deleted. I have no personal ties to it; I just want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be. Rockstar915 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, wait a second. Forget the non-trivial sources argument. The band was featured on a video game, GTA III. That seems to fulfill criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, the band has released two albums on Perspective Records,[6] a notable indie label, thus fulfilling criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC. This band meets WP:MUSIC! I retain my keep vote. Rockstar915 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooo... good catch. Appreciate the effort. I have gone out of my way more than once to save articles, so don't think I'm just nitpicking. :) Change to keep. --Mus Musculus 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! I'm always open to changing my mind on these discussions, too. And I absolutely don't think you're just nitpicking -- I always love a good discussion. :) Rockstar915 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:Music (just) for all the reasons mentioned above. A1octopus 16:12, 4 April 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. Tagging for cleanup. Shimeru 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lin Chen

Reads like self-promotion without sufficient indicia of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

KeepIf you are in the finance industry doing cutting edge stuffs or you are in academia, you

should know Dr Lin Chen's model.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.84.82.3 (talk • contribs).

I'm no good with professors, but Dr. Chen does look to have a pretty good publication record in academic journals and such. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep clearly notable, tho not presented in quite the standard cut-and-dried format. It should not be necesary to be an expert in the field to recognize notability, and it isn't. The publications are sufficient. DGG 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:PROF? --Mus Musculus 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but it needs work. Some POV phrasing, and it definitely needs cleanup to conform to style. Notability is proved, however, to my satisfaction. Realkyhick 04:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete regardless of notability, this is blatant self promotion, and very probably falls under WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia does not publish personal CVs.--cj | talk 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- commentthe paragraph of self-advertising has been removed, along with some unnecessary duplication. The cure for puffery is editing, not deletion--though I will admit that the possibility of deletion is a powerful incentive for proper editing of bios. G11 is for material that cannot be edited into reasonable form. DGG 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, despite the comments above, notability per WP:PROF is not proved in the slightest. This is a garden variety professor who has published papers and books and spoken at conferences just like every other professor. No evidence of anything to set him apart from the rest. --Mus Musculus 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
comment,

I am afraid you don’t what you are talking about and whom you are talking about. Prof Chen finished physics PhD courses in the sophomore year. This is a fact documented in Chinese news. He is a genius of China. If he were born in the states he may have won a Nobel Prize by now. Your are right that all professors are writing teaching and speaking, but can you tell the difference? Do you know anything about his areas of research, term structure modeling. Term structure model is the cornerstone of modern finance. Many people work on it but few succeed. Are you familiar with other big names mentioned in that bio, Cox-Ingersoll-Ross, Duffie, Hull&White, Heath-Jarrow-Moton, Longtaff-Scwartz? Tell you what, they were all nominated for Nobel Prize in Economic Science. If you are not sure, verify it with someone having a PhD in economics or finance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qynrh (talk • contribs).

I do appreciate your position, but please understand that the article needs to explain how he is notable, per WP:PROF, and back it up with verifiable, reliable, independent sources. It does not do that. I cannot find the information myself, so I am contesting your assertion that he is notable for this encyclopedia. If you can prove he is notable using one or more of the criteria listed in WP:PROF before this discussion runs its course, I will be happy to change my position. --Mus Musculus 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me get the facts straight. The references of the entry Lin Chen consist of five items. The first two are Prof Chen’s publications. You can consider them not independent, even not reliable. How about the other three? They are written by renowned scholars in the field. Are what they said reliable, independent and verifiable? Have you taken a look at them? Let me tell you what they are about. The third item devotes a chapter to discuss Chen model; the fourth item, a review article, devotes a section to discuss Chen model. The last one, another literature survey covering the history of modern finance, lists Prof. Chen among the leading contributors to the theory of finance. The aforementioned facts should qualify Lin Chen all the criteria, not just one or two, listed in WP:PROF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qynrh (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Abstain. I elect to not vote in this case, but urge to respectful languages.Wen Hsing 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the article appears to assert sufficient notabiliy with respect to the prof's work on interest rate modelling, and sources are provided. The article clearly needs a lot of work, including additional verification of the claims asserted, but I think we need to give it a chance.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 6 April 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. WjBscribe 08:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timbaland & Danja

Timbaland and Danja are not a production duo. They have produced songs together, but they aren't a duo in the same way, for example, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis are. Timbaland produces stuff on his own, as does Danja, and Danja is Timbaland's protégé. Also, the discography on this article duplicates information in the Timbaland production discography and Danja articles. Extraordinary Machine 15:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as this is not yet an acceptable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete.--NeptunianDroid 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Are the things in this article collaborative works by the two? If so, there might be some added value from it, if it were re-titled something like "List of collaborations between Timbaland and Danja". If it's just a list of things that were done by one or the other, though, I agree that it doesn't serve much purpose. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Sets a precedent for articles on every pair of two people that have ever worked together. - Richfife 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete They're notable on their own, but an article about them together is unnecessary. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, we don't need a new article every time two artists collaborate. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 31 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 --Bubba hotep 19:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization (TAGorg)

Reads like an advertisement, created by someone named TAGITI (talk • contribs), so likely a WP:COI issue. No third-party coverage, not even pertinent hits on Google News Archive. Sandstein 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete The profusion of external links throughout the article is very suspicious. YechielMan 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I amended the article many times which is noticeable through the versions’ history. The article is still in the editing process. The page was built with reference to the articles published in the Wikipedia. We made sure that the format of the page is consistent with the way the pages are constructed and written in the Wikipedia. I think that this organization is essential for posting on Wikipedia. I would like to re-assure that we are still working on modifying it until it meets the Wikipedia policy. I don’t think that having too many external links currently on our page should cause a problem since there exists many articles on Wikipedia that contain many external links such as Aramco, Aurther Andersen and others. Those articles were not deleted or nominated for deletion. We preferred to mention the whole organization companies and give them the links from this page than create for each company a page on the wikipedia. We will also mention third party links that talk about TAGorg. If, for any other reason, you think that our article is still nominated for deletion; please assist us by providing the methods that we can use to develop the content better to certify your needs. TAGorg is one of the largest global organizations. It is very essential to have it published on the Wikipedia.

PS. please follow this link to see the pertinent hits on Google News Archive. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=tagorg&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Talal_Abu-Ghazaleh_Organization_%28TAGorg%29" --TAGITI 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of the Middle East-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete It may be acceptable for inclusion, but in its current form, it looks like an advertisement. If it is deleted, I would suggest trying again at the drawing board. As for "Aramco, Aurther Andersen and others" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason to keep. Each article is judged here on its own merits. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is acceptable after remove the external links and reformat it.--Janty 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) — Janty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete per criterion WP:CSD#G11. It exists solely to promote its subject.--cj | talk 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep provided some more real references are provided for tits many claims. At the moment, the only truly 3rd party source is Jordan Business Magazine. If the company has engaged in all the project claimed, then their should be sources from other countries as well. It is not links to customers and agencies which is necessary--it is some additional documentation providing support for listing them. I've done a little editing, but there is still much duplication. Each client or project should be mentioned only once. DGG 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, spam. --Mus Musculus 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Amendment I mentioned some of global resources (others than Jordan) in the references section, you can notice that most of the information mentioned here is cited from these resources. --TAGITI 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I'm a finance manager from Jordan, I know this firm. While it is one of the big firms in Jordan, and it does have branches in the region, the article contains many representations. To mention two: There is no way the firm has 1400 employees, and why would 50% of the fortune 500 leave international consulting companies and big four firms, and go hire a firm from Jordan! April 5, 2007 (Arab)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--cj | talk 17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptofolklore

No more than a Dicdef, possibly a neologism since I have been unable to find it elsewhere. Emeraude 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Very few GHits, mostly reflecting back to wiki mirror sites. This is a neologism. A quite sensible one, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is - perhaps it might find a home there? --Anthony.bradbury 15:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to paranormal or Fortean. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a dicdef of a neologism. Not sure is transwiki to Wiktionary is a good idea or not. I'm not familiar with their policies on things like this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no transwiki. It's a neologism right now. If it gains traction, re-submit later. I agree with Anthony bradbury that it's a quite sensible neologism, but it is still a WP:NEO. Realkyhick 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Low google hits, nn notable neologism.--Paloma Walker 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no transwiki. Cryptofolklore is the collection, archiving, and analysis of unusual oral history, generally in the areas of paranormal activity such as ghost stories, supernatural legends, and long dead eccentrics such as Emperor Norton of San Francisco. This definition leaves me at a loss as to how to distinguish cryptofolklore from regular folklore. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 31 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. Article has no context.--cj | talk 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOQL

This is just an ad, but a speedy delete tag had been removed, and Gwernol (the user who took off the tag) said, "Its not a G11 candidate, but an AfD might be appropriate." ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep I think this is reasonable, as being a description of an item of software currently available. Almost incomprehensible to the computer-illiterate, but reasonable nonetheless.--Anthony.bradbury 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded as it presently stands, nothing to indicate it's not a single company's internal-use-only software. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Anthony.bradbury. Epbr123 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is no context, it's not encyclopedic, and I don't see an obvious way that it will improve and incorporate outside sources. Adm58 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's like an ad, and not written for an encyclopedia. — Wenli 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no context or evidence of notability given. Too technical and written in second person. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge what little useful info there is into the main Salesforce article. Realkyhick 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:SPAM--Greatestrowerever 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete, probably on the less notable side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 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. WjBscribe 08:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Denton (gay activist)

I nominate this on behalf of Weggie, who says 'no notability - possible hoax'. Richard Cavell 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Probable hoax. Nothing about him on Google. Epbr123 23:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per Epbr123 - Also, potential serious libel over content as accusations of criminal activity Weggie 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Contest of Deletion. There is little to no internet documentation of this event simply because it happened in such as small area. The local press at the time in Harrogate consisted of small newspaper articles only. This will not be apparent on Google or any other search engine. I believe that this is the first step to get small events like this published on to the Internet; you have to start somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.109.163 (talk • contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is absolulely, positively, do not pass go, do not collect $200 not "first step to get small events like this published". It is the last stop after events have received notice. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. - Richfife 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everything said above. — Wenli 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per Richfife, maybe you do have start somewhere, but that somewhere is not here. Mwelch 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above. --Haemo 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable, misuse of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I love Richfife's comments; they truly say it all. This is an effort to promote something. Realkyhick 05:20, 31 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 Interactive video. Daniel Bryant 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive film

This is an article on a recently coined neologism. While "interactive film" is a commonly used term,[7] a Google search indicates that the term as defined in the article is not currently in common usage [8] [9]. The article may have been written by the person who coined the term, which raises potential WP:COI concerns.

I suggest either a) deleting this article as a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#OR, or b) redirecting without merge to interactive cinema or interactive movie until an editor writes a sourced article that accurately reflects the term's current usage. --Muchness 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the article. I have removed any reference to proponants of the interactive film term. I thought by including references to the proponants that I was "attributing reliable sources". I do not think that the term "Interactive film should be removed from wikipedia. As you can see there is already a "category" called Interactive film Category:Interactive film, which, infact, categorizes the term interactive cinema. If anyone has views on what the definition for interactive film actually is then I suggest they contribute to the article. But I think it would be a serious mistake to erase the term from wikipedia. Anyone who doubts the term "interactive film" as I have defined it should maybe check this link, and the examples it provides: 2007 Links to Online Interactive Films and Movies Most, if not all, of the examples supplied here fit into my definition of Interactive Film. Once again: I think I would be a gross miscalculation to omit the phrase from wikipedia. Neillodwyer 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is quite shortsighted to suggest that the term 'interactive film' is not in use and/or not suitable for inclusion in this wiki. I am the owner of an interactive film (shot on 35 mm FILM) which has 85 different permutations and was created with a $2 million budget. What should I call the final product, if not an 'interactive film'?

Neillodwyer 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION, CAN YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF? Neill

Weak Delete The term is not more than the sum of its parts and the article is still pushing the author's vision in a coy sort of way. - Richfife 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
redirect, no merge to interactive video. I think that, despite being a neologism, it is still way too generic; I first thought of it as interactive video. 142.58.101.27 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete than redirect to interactive video. Non-notable neologism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberjunkie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Delete. I can't tell if this is an OR essay or a clever way to direct traffic to a web site, but either way there is no evidence of notability of this term. --Mus Musculus 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am surprised at your ineptitude and inability to grasp this, that's right, NEW concept. It is not a neologism, it is a development a very real and quickly expanding sector, particularly in Canada, the UK & Ireland. I dare say that you have not even bothered to reference the examples I have provided you with.

I am hesitant to merge the article with interactive video because the article is comprised of boring, technical jargon and relates specifically to some format of laser disk, a technology which is now almost obsolete (interactive films run on the internet). Also, it refers specifically to video gaming. An interactive film is not a video game (NOT computer generated graphics). It is a film with multiple outcomes/possabilities, with which the viewer must interact. Again the Interactive cinema article is also written with a specific leaning towards video gaming, although is closer to the spirit of what i am trying to express. Interactive film, IS NOT video gaming. It is, as one of you has put it "the sum of its parts", films that are interactive.

I am new to Wikipedia, so I am unfamiliar with your agreed upon codes of writing articles and referencing existing work. However, I am trying to satisfy them. I would encourage you to help me with the article rather than writing it off as noelogism and Original Research OR. Also, in response to those of you who think it is weak, I feel that the article is stronger than much of what is already up there on wikipedia, and particularly some of the articles you are suggesting that I merge my own with.

Interactive film is a very real field of work, employing numerous people world wide. Please refer to the examples I have provided you with before writing your next response.

Neillodwyer 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Neillodwyer

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

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

The result was delete; the content to merge isn't adequately verified with non-trivial references, and there is a consensus here that if it wasn't properly sourced, then delete. Daniel Bryant 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeep wave

First of all, it happens with other vehicles too (eg. very often between motorcyclists, and occasionally between drivers of the same model of car). With some work, it might be possible to cite that, with more work possibly even with a global perspective. Even still, I don't think it deserves its own article. If there's an article that it would be appropriate to merge this to, then great; otherwise delete. Interiot 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - although it has a single attributable source, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE it merits deletion. It's not really encyclopedic since the article fails to demonstrate widespread usage beyond the one magazine. --Ybbor^T SURVEY! 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Owners of all sorts of motorcars exchange signals to others who own the same motorcar. I doubt this phenomenon is particularly notable. I am certain that invidual examples of it are not and should not be the subject of their own articles. WjBscribe 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Jeep if it will fit. Otherwise, delete. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with appropriate Jeep article. I don't see that it needs its own article, but I wouldn't delete, since there are multiple secondary source references. [10] [11] [12] in addition to the one listed in the article. Quite a few more if you search "Jeep wave" at newslibrary.com. Mwelch 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep While other vehicles may have similar customs and allegiances, I've never encountered one that had a name put to it. Secondary sources are present both in the article and also linked to here which refer specifically to this term. The Jeep wave was also the basis for a For Better or For Worse comic strip one Sunday about two years ago. I remember the strip but can't find an image of it online. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge seems right to me as there are few articles "about" the wave, although it is trivially verifiable [13][14]. I fear a full article will be 1% attributed and 99% original research. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Jeep, and I'm being charitable. Realkyhick 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Gang signs should not be discussed on Wikipedia, if they are too well known they may become useless as non-gang members are able to imitate themWunNation 12:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment User:WunNation appears to be a vandal account from his edit history. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge This is common to all drivers of distinctive vehicles.DGG 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have a suggestion of where to merge it to? Back seat driver is another social aspect of driving, but I haven't find many other articles to tie it into, and most other articles seem too high-level to satisfactorily include this fact. --Interiot 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a car enthusiast site. I don't see this being a sort of cultural phenomenon that merits reporting. (And if I ever get a chance, I'll explain just what I dislike about the Jeep Waving Rules/Jeep Waving Hierarchy, even though I own a Wrangler. Mine apparently doesn't rate well enough according to the rules.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. Currently I am abstaining from vote in this case, but I ask of you, perhaps i misunderstand, is this vandal/gang sign? I disagree with glorify reportage of criminal activity, as it not suitable for encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wen Hsing (talk • contribs) 05:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
- It isn't a gang sign or a vandalism thing. It's a friendly greeting between two Jeep owners meant to signify the uniqueness of driving a Jeep. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is no content here that can be proved notable by sources. The sources given are not sufficient. --Mus Musculus 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Jeep if sources check out. --Infrangible 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I remember an old Shoe comic strip that parodied this (Jeeps wave, VW Beetles flash a peace sign, old beat-up Caddy owners hold up their toolboxes). That being said, a Shoe strip probably doesn't qualify as a non-trivial mention. Caknuck 21:44, 6 April 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.--cj | talk 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ajai R. Singh

This article is about a non-notable subject, and although it falls as CSD-A7, it has previously been rejected for WP:PROD and WP:Speedy. It is suspected that the article is Autobiographical, and therefore, being NN, Bio and CSD Suitable, needs to be removed. Thor Malmjursson 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. Google search for "Ajai Singh" psychiatrist get 45 hits, many are tripod pages and WP mirrors. The rest make mentions of the guy really don't assert his importance the field of psychology. Right now, the guy is just not notable enough. Mitaphane _?|! 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Way too many primary sources. Realkyhick 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Should not have fall through the cracks of speedy. Pavel Vozenilek 06:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with the above observations. CosmoNuevo 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 12:51, 31 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. --Core desat 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casio electronic dictionaries

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Masterpedia 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my nomination. --Masterpedia 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I didn't realise you could opt to vote on something you had nominated, Masterpedia, but still I agree with it, so Delete. Thor Malmjursson 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see why not. Here is a similar example from RFA [15], the nominator is supporting his own nomination.--Masterpedia 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Covered in Electronic dictionary#Casio; a list of model numbers adds nothing. —Cel ithemis 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This looks like a list for the sake of a list. The article doesn't assert any notion why these series of electronic dictionaries are important. Mitaphane _?|! 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. Realkyhick 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Celithemis. Poeloq 08:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment It is a poorly written article but if there were more context I could vote to keep. --Infrangible 01:46, 5 April 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 by RHaworth as a copyvio. Luke! 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of hajj an umrah

Delete This article should be incorporated with an article on Allah or Mohammed rather than a stand alone.Shoessss 10:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - copyvio from [16]. So tagged. MER-C 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Partial Merge or put some portions of it in the article that Shoesss suggested and to provide the proper source and in quotations marks - otherwise delete per plagarism.--JForget 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite--Towaru 14:31, 31 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 --Bubba hotep 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Magic

Yes, this is a very successful amateur football club, but it's still an amateur/youth club and therefore not notable. NawlinWiki 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Red card. (That's delete to those of you not into soccer/football.) Amateur teams at this level are not notable, barring extraordinary newsworthiness such as a tragedy. Realkyhick 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep If extraordinary success is ignored, but tragedy rewarded with a wikipedia entry, we may see a wave of tragic incidents in amateur football clubs which could cripple the sport.WunNation 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~, 14 national championships seems notable. The league (as part of USL) has only been in operation since 1986.[17] The redlinked names are rather pointless as not even the bluelinked ones, that I could find, actually led to the correct person -- they're just common names. If any Magic players end up playing professionally that should be noted, but Wikipedia is not a sports roster. --Dhartung | Talk 14:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I take that back. There are individual teams at each age level from 13 to 20 and then boys and girls teams on top of that, so this is more like a group of teams and it isn't clear that the championships were won individually by any one of them. [18] --Dhartung | Talk 14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Tangerines 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - 75 Illinois State champions, 14 national championships, #1 soccer team (youth) 3 years running and per WP:V, 1,370,000 hits for "Chicago Magic Soccer Club" on Google. Seems pretty notable from where I am sitting. Thor Malmjursson 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There are a few too many zeroes on that number of Google hits; I see only 1,360. [19] --Metropolitan90 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The higher number (or something close to it) is returned if you search without the quote marks i.e. it picks up any page containing the words Chicago, Magic, Soccer and Club anywhere on the page, not necessarily together, for example this highly (ir)relevant page ChrisTheDude 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete youth level clubs generally are not notable. Qwghlm 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep due to the fact that school and college level sport is rather big in the USA. Pro-teams use a draft-system rather than a youth-system afterall. The article needs a lot of work though, and a lot of those red-links need removing. aLii 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This club isn't a school or college team, though. --Metropolitan90 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep: they're notable as said above. DCUnitedFan2011 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Youth side, might be recreated once they poduce a top player.--BanRay 18:30, 6 April 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. --Core desat 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enlighten

Contested prod. The subject fails to be notable per WP:CORP, and the article text borders on blatant advertising. In addition, the author of the current content replaced the existing content, which was about an entirely different organization, over the course of several edits. (The original article was re-posted under a better title.) Realkyhick 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, borderline spam, plus improper removal of previous content. Realkyhick 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, reads more like a bio. CosmoNuevo 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources. Ab e g92contribs 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clearly non-notable, based on its own description of its major product Just above CSD. DGG 23:08, 31 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, despite WunNation being blocked indefinitely. --Core desat 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rice Diet

I tagged this article to copy to Wikibooks Cookbook back in October 2006, but it is still here. The article does not mention a source, just a recipe. Per WP:NOT, instruction manuals and recipes should be removed from articles, but in doing so we leave this article empty. ReyBrujo 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most of this article bears a (bizarre) resemblance to the blogs of the eating disordered -Haikon 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 11:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Title is misleading, contains insufficient red meat to be classified as a realistic human diet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WunNation (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:56, 31 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. --Core desat 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefanie Stiles

The article does not assert the notability of the subject. Fails the guidelines of WP:BIO. No independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 04:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete I created this page. You can safely delete it. It was mainly meant for inside use at Pax Christi International, but it doesnt really serve a higher function. The informatyion is correct though. Inisus 09:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Delete (leaning towards speedy). Article makes little assertion of notability and cites no sources. Google comes up with 29 hits. Caknuck 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not sourced, no references. CosmoNuevo 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, also google books and scholar search for "Stefanie Stiles" gives 0 hits. No sources in the article. feydey 10:33, 31 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. --Core desat 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reginald Firehammer

The article is mostly unverifiable, a single non-independent source is cited and no secondary sources are cited at all. The article does not read as very NPOV, in fact I would say that it is very skewed towards the topics POV. The page is also an orphan. Parasite 05:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete - as his notability is supposed to be a result of his philosophy, but the article provides no proof of his notability from reputable, serious journals. If we keep this, then every basement thinker will deserve their own page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

comment - I have now added a link in the article to a book he wrote. I still don't think he's notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC

Delete The claimed book is self-published,. No indication of outside notice whatsoever. DGG 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
comment IMHO, more important than the lack of notability (if you buy into that concept) is the lack of references. Parasite 22:36, 3 April 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, not a notable organization. Note also that the USS Nokomis is apparently a United States Navy ship; the instant page is linked from the pages about Admiral Thomas Washington and List of United States Navy ships, N. It shouldn't be occupied by an article about a Star Trek club even if that club should have an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Nokomis

Non-notable fan club —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EEMeltonIV (talk • contribs) at 07:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Speedy delete per A7 Gekedo 11:27, 31 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. --Core desat 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Safarova

Non-notable Czech art critic. She wrote few essays, section of one book, manages a small art gallery and started her second PhD. No other information could be found. Text possibly written by her (user Barbara safarova), without care about diacritics or the correct letter case. Speedy delete disputed on the ground of having PhD and all. Pavel Vozenilek 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Self-promotion; not notable. Fails per WP:COI, WP:BIO Cioxx 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete An art critic with a PhD in the subject would possibly be notable, if there was any outside third party documentation. At present we don't even know the university. DGG 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless article is supported by 2nd party sources by end of this AfD. As is fails WP:A Alf^Photoman 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete As noted, fails WP:BIO and having a Ph.D. does not confer notability. --Gareth8118 20:10, 3 April 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. --Core desat 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina Ko

Minor porn actress, unsatisfactory sources. Deiz talk 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per not meeting notability guidelines for porngraphic biographies. Luke! 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I just stumbled into this because it was on another person's talk page. I have never heard of Katrina Ko. However, I think wikipedia should be more inclusive than to delete things willy nilly. Furthermore, someone put some effort into writing it. Of note might be that this person is Canadian and there aren't that many Canadian porn stars. If there are, how many are Chinese Canadian? I presume that the initial author is in support because otherwise he would have never written about it. In theory, I am for Support because of my inclusion philosophy but in practice I don't care. Book burning anyone?TL500 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: Regarding the "neutral" comment above: User: TL500 was found to be a sockpuppet of User: Dereks1x who is the creator and practically sole editor of the article under review. Dereks1x was on a 48-hr block when this AFD was opened; the sock TL500 was writing here in evasion of Dereks1x's block. User: TL500 was subsequently blocked indefinitely. Tvoz |talk 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There are plenty of porn stars in the world- just because you can't think of any famous ones like her, doesn't mean she is notable. J Milburn 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per J Milburn. Everyone talks about adding stuff to various articles, but many times the work doesn't get done. It's better off deleted. GreenJoe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Presuming that editors will be lazy is not a reason for deletion. As per WP:N, notability is generally permanent - if she passes WP:PORNBIO (and I'm not saying she does or she doesn't), then she deserves an article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:59, 2 April 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. --Core desat 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Aaron McGowan

non-notable individual, reads almost like an advertisement tiZom_(2¢) 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Very suspicious edit history, single user with small contributions to very close-knit related articles.

Also please consider Madeche vision, a related article that is written by the same people. ALTON .ıl 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Madeche vision is still CSD'd as G11. -- Seed 2.0 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. Mwelch 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. (Disclaimer: I had nominated the article for speedy deletion. See the article's talk page.) -- Seed 2.0 12:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NN individual; fails WP:BIO. --Czj 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedia worthy on the claimed accomplishments, plus it is totally unsourced, not even to a corporate or personal web site. There is apparently only a MySpace page at http://www.myspace.com/youneik , and a blog, www.bloglines.com/public/Madeche-Vision . DGG 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11.--cj | talk 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madeche vision

Company is not notable per WP:CORP Mwelch 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Company is not the least bit notable. External "references": two of them do not refer to the company in any way; the other two do a marginal job of establishing that the company does, in fact, exist. But that's all. Mwelch 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - fairly obvious spam. So tagged. MER-C 11:34, 31 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 11:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niblet

Moved to Wikitionary, not linked to anything notable, not in any categories Boochan 11:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Green Giant. It's a registered trademark and fairly notable product, but I can't imagine there's much to write about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a dicdef. Note to Andrew, the trademark that Green Giant holds is "Niblets" - the plural - but I don't know how that would extend to the singular, as IANAL. --Dennisthe2 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I always tought that a niblet was similar to a mashie, but Delete anyway. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:21, 2 April 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 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Angarak

I don't see much evidence that there's enough information on this fictional language to expand this article beyond its current form, and there doesn't appear to be anything here worth merging into Races in The Belgariad. JavaTenor 07:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete If the language had been as fleshed out as, say, Tolkien's elf languages, I could justify a keep, but it isn't. Old Angarak also fails to be a major or even minor concept as per WP:FICT. -- GJD 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No other sources. Ab e g92contribs 14:12, 31 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 blatant hoaxery. --Core desat 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pit Fighter: A New Blood

Looks like a hoax to me. Search engines reveal nothing. Metrackle 08:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Game's fake. There was never a release or announcement for this game. ReyVGM 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Google yields nothing even mentioning the game. mi km 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX. Search of IGN reveals no results but the original game [20] Suriel1981 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 23:59, 31 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. WjBscribe 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David R. Jones

This article entry violates several Wikipedia guidelines involved autobiographies and notability.

1. To be sure that David Jones wrote this page, you'd only have to look at the page history and his Wikipedia user page. He makes no effort to hide the fact that he is the creator of his own Wikipedia page.

2. He commonly goes by "Choronzon Club" or variants on the Internet. This can be verified by Googling and viewing his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/choronzon_club

3. He seems to fancy these alleged "criticisms" in order to achieve some sort of Crowleyesque notoriety. This can be verified on his MySpace page, where he posts a link to said "Black Lodge" PDF.

4. His citations in other Wikipedia articles, such as on the OTO page were added by him!

5. Note the guideline listed on the Wikipedia page creation header: "Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend."

6. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, specifically sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.2. Also, please review guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

PS: Why are the people involved in this article all coming from a Qwest DSL address in Eugene, Oregon (where Mr. Jones is also currently based)? :) LevelSolve 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - His "noted scholar" link points to a self-written autobiography, which laughably includes "Doctorate in Divinity from the Universal Life Church". Attention/notoriety-seeking, grand-standing person of no notable value. (Unintentionally) humorous, though. delete LevelSolve 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't look terribly notable. The referred publications all appear to be at fanzine level. Tearlach 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - he's a "noted scholar", noted by people of his own miniscule religion. I'm a "noted scholar" on strategy, noted by my own CounterStrike clan, with approximately the same number of members. I've written web pages, too, and I have friends who call me important for that. Keep him so I can type up a page on myself too! ...yeah, I kid. Delete of course. 78.48.70.152 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not think any of the books are published by other than the many non-notable organizations he has started or been involved in. It's hard to judge N for some of the figures in similar groups, but DRJ is clearly NN. . DGG 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. — Athænara ✉ 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, no reliable sources, violates WP:AUTO and WP:COI. EdJohnston 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:35, 3 April 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 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gayle_Nerva

Not a noteworthy contestant in the show Singapore Idol 2, article poorly written and is not encyclopedic. Got kicked out very early in the show and hence does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. Gyraforce 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per WP:BIO Gekedo 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Sorry, no sources. Ab e g92contribs 14:13, 31 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, who have a rough consensus and have put up and argued a much stronger argument in this debate, based on official policy. The responses to the delete comments based on NPOV and OR were less than satisfactory, and judging the article in the present and in the near future, I cannot see these concerns being fixed anytime soon, if at all. Daniel Bryant 05:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutva propaganda

Hindutva propaganda: I submit this article for consideration for deletion given that this flies in the face of WP:UNDUE,WP:ATT,WP:NPOV. The highly prerogative title of the page makes it obvious that page is primarily meant to be an attack page. Hindutva is described by its proponents to be a Hindu revivalist movement, it is has been often derided by its opponents to be an extreme right wing ideology. Whatever may be one's opinion about Hindutva, i believe terms like Hindutva propaganda are personal opinions and the title hardly conforms to WP:NPOV. Much of the article consists of cherry picked quotes from two Papers by Michael Witzel and Nanda & Sokal. Witzel is a Sanskrit scholar, which hardly makes him an authoritarian voice to pass judgements on Indian political ideologies. Mr.Witzel is also considered to be controversial for his supposed anti-Indian/anti-Hindu bias [21]. It is basically like writing an article on Republican ideology sourced from Noam Chomsky artciles. Undue weightage is given to Witzel and Nanda's opinions on Hindutva.

Whats more, on the lines of Hindutva propaganda we donot have Redneck propaganda,Islamist propaganda,Christian propaganda,Marxist propaganda. Also the article ends up making wild allegations like: during the 1930s, the Hindutva movement was influenced by Nazi mysticism, and pseudoscientific theories of racial supremacism. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader M. S. Golwalkar in 1939 he wrote that "Germany has shocked the world by purging the country of the semitic race of the Jews, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by".[2].

This serious allegation against a major Indian ideology is based on untracable reference (# ^ Ruthven (2007:10ff.) ) by an obscure Scholar whose interest/expertise is unclear. [22].

Also the main contributor to this artilce User:Dbachmann had added a statement (since revised):

Following the assassination of Gandhi by a member of the RSS in 1948, Hindu extremism was discredited in Indian society for some decades.

Its should be noted that Nathuram Godse (Gandhi's assasin) was NOT a member of RSS at the time and RSS was absolved by the Supreme Court of India of any hand in Gandhi's assasination. Addition of content like this by Users like User:Dbachmann is shocking. RSS in past has not hesitated to sue anybody accusing it of hand in Gandhi assasination. Such irresponsible behaviour puts Wikipedia in a position where it can be sued.

It should also be noted that admin User:Dbachmann who has created this article, has also sprotected it. Isnt this unfair use of admin powers uncalled for, especially when there has been no obivous trolling on the article... Given the condescending tone of this article towards its subject, this article falls squarely in the 'attack page' category. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Hindutva. On user talk:Dbachmann#Re:Hindutva propaganda, Dab claims that this is an article is an "exposition" of "fringe theories" in the realm of Hindutva and Indian politics. However, I fail to see how this article is anything but a collection of quotes and opinions from a bunch of authors. As a reader, this article sounds too judgmental and opinionated, consisting less of facts and more as an expose or a research paper. Nor do I think Wikipedia is a place to do "expositions." Rama's arrow 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

any article will rely on a "bunch of authors". The point is, these are authors published in mainstream studies on nationalism and pseudoarchaeology. As always, if you can find similar publications that object to the opinions presented so far, you can add them. The problem is that the case is really too obvious to contest, no scholar in their right mind would deny that fringe science is used for political propaganda here. Find us a criticism of the allegations by a neutral third party, preferably peer-reviewed and not published by the Theosophical Society, and we'll be able to document a controversy. So far, for lack of scholarly objection, we are just documenting a straightforward case. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can document that the BJP has been using the Indus script as a tool to get votes, there is absolutely no connection. Rather the synthesis of various unrel,ated thing, Theosophy, Vivekananda, various Indian authors, and conflating them to the BJP/VHP/RSS is obvious original research and implausible. Hindutva "propaganda" is more along the lines of "Muslims will be a majority in India in 3000C.E." or something like that, not the Indus script is Vedic post-Classical Sanskrit.Baka man 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I raise an objection on the talk page to the name of the article, indicating that I would prefer it to be at Hindutva and Pseudoscience or some such title. The subject itself seems to be notable; note that your objection here is merely that the article is not sweeping enough. This is a strange contrast with your delete below. Hornplease 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. There should be a article to outline every mix of rightwing (twisting of) religion and politics. Their use of propaganda to try to capture peoples minds, from the (pseudo) christian politics of George W. Bush to lure in evangelical christians, to the extreme in other situations, such as the luring of indians of hindu faith into anti-minority movements. Hindutva or christutva or whateverva are serious subjects that deserve their own articles as they are real and organized movements that need to be noted. I applaud this article and its highlighting of a subject that has continually tried to be hush hushed.--Kathanar 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but nobody is trying to "hush hush" anything. Please do not bring your own motives and conspiracy theories into this. Try and be as objective as possible when contributing on Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The article is a synthesis of sources, it is non-neutral and gives undue weight to the opinions of two people. For AFD'ing the predecessor to this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva pseudoscience (2nd nomination) I was in fact threatened by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) after afd'ing it. Rather than give in to such childish threats, I have edited this article to try and balance the view in accordance with wikipolicy, but this article is a lost cause.Baka man 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a lost cause? Please explain how any of the reasons you give above are (a) true and (b) a reason for deletion.

Note that this user has repeatedly been accused of misbehaviour by users other than dab, including me, and has featured prominently in several recent ArbCom cased. So Dab's comment is not out of line at all. Hornplease 18:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Users include BhaiSaab (talk • contribs), Szhaider (talk • contribs) and TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs) (all banned by arbomc). Two fringe non-banned users in a sea of a million or so do not constitute a consensus, and featured prominently is more along the lines of, knowing a lot on the recent India-Pakistan (which featured Rama's Arrow) and Freedom Skies (an India-China battle). Infact hornplease has been featured prominently on arbcom himself, noted for misrepresenting policy, and also noted as the only user bent on attacking productive contributors on arbcom in the sea of overwhelming consensus against him and dab and whoever else these "other users" seem to be.Baka man 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note (1) My only feature on arbcom has been in connection with presenting evidence against the above user; (2) I was not the only user presenting that evidence as a look at the HKelkar arbitration will establish; (3) The 'overwhelming consensus' that the above user is proud of is represented, in all its glory, by some of the contributors to this page; (4) The only person accusing me of misrepresentation is the above user. Again, have a look at the RfArb records for a good laugh. Note also this user's tendency towards useless argumentation; any discussion, even an AfD battle, is reduced to a personality or cultural clash. Even RfArbs on user conduct above are presented as 'India-China battles'. Sigh. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)You presented evidence against hkelkar as well. (2) Yes you are right, you were with noted trolls that later became banned trolls (3) that's a complete misrepresentation, and it merely shows the user is unable to move on (4) personality clash also includes attacking people for their vote, a practice you seem to be practicing above this "discussion" and below this discussion.Baka man 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)You're right, I presented evidence against you and the banned troll. (2) I was 'with' the noted trolls? I specifically said that I had no direct knowledge of their behaviour, so I wouldnt discuss it. (3) I'm not the one refusing to move on. I pointed out that for this user to pretend to be a Wikipedian in excellent standing was a little odd, as he's noted for his tendency to get into brawls of this sort. (4) I don't attack people for their votes! ON the other hand, thinking that pointing out that you had not been 'threatened' by anyone is an attack on your vote, that is a fairly accurate reflection of your attitude here. Hornplease 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite any consensus of editors in Good standing agreeing with you. Unless User:BhaiSaab, User:Ikonoblast, et al. are suddenly in good standing your definition of my edits stands a fallacy. Just like most other discussions with the above user, the onus is not on the issue at hand, rather it is ad hominem attacks on the editors intelligence "you are incorrectly quoting policy", "you are too dumb to grasp the intricacies of deletion" ,etc.Baka man 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete WP:POINT and POV nonsense. WP:POINT made, delete. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is a bad faith third nomination. rudra 05:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes this a bad faith nom? I've already elaborated my concerns regarding this article. Dont you have anything to say about that? Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AMbroodEy rudra is merely parroting dab's spurious accusations of trolling and "bad faith" on the part of any editor with sensible disagreements.Baka man 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

this is the 3rd Afd in three weeks. Granted, the first one was closed out of process because it had been submitted by a sock (which in itself is telling). After an unsuccessful Afd, you are expected to wait for at least two months, and then present the reasons why you think the original AfD was flawed, or why the circumstances have changed. If you were just concerned with the title, you would come to the article's talkpage and do a move suggestion. dab (𒁳) 10:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy keep, again, just like we'd speedy keep Politics of creationism, Pallywood and Soviet propaganda during World War II. There were also repeated attempts to delete Criticism of Islam with similar arguments, and look, the article's still with us and doing well. The pseudoscience is real and notable, hence Wikipedia can discuss it, even if certain editors would prefer it to remain undocumented. dab (𒁳) 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop drawing parallels with unrelated articles. For starters i believe we do have a Criticism of Hinduism article. Secondly, you have no concrete evidence to link the said scholarships with corresponding Indian political movement. The Hindutva squat usually goes like "Evil vatican cospiring to Christianise India" or "Muslim boys luring Hindu girls" stuff... Plus Swami Vivekananda wasnt a Hindutvadi. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also for other nominations. I have no control over how Mr.Kelkar chooses to act. 2nd nom. was for Hindutva pseudoscience and NOT Hindutva propaganda. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'No concrete evidence'? Have you even read the article?Hornplease 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)s

Not just undocumented, but introduced, or retained, as "real scholarship" in other articles. That's the real agenda here. rudra 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Real scholarship' is a subjective adjective. Read WP:FRINGE. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, WP:FRINGE is invoked here? It's inapplicable in this case, but I suppose if Nicholas Kazanas is nominated again, you will be among the first invoking it again? No? Oh dear, I wonder why. Hornplease 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The article currently has some issues but still appears notable. It should be kept for now, and improved. The Behnam 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that can happen? See the edit-war there.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Move - The article name is POV in itself. I suggest it to move to Hindutva scholarship. One can retain/work upon the content, which can very well reflect the incoherences in the scholarship and (un)acceptance by prominent/mainstream scholars.--Scheibenzahl 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete and Merge - The article is nothing but culmination of quotes from 3 authors, Wizel, Nanda, Sokal, with POV quotes and weasel words filled between. The whole article looks as if created by first time user. One should first decide what the article is actually about, and then create appropriate section under Hindutva article.--Scheibenzahl 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I find something unusual that referring to the discussion, the page has been redirected, perhaps violating - "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." This is really serious. Moreover, keeping the page locked during AfD process is also not prudent and appears to me an ownership syndrome of contents. --Bhadani (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The page has been moved, not redirected. I have frequently observed in the past that some pages are locked at the time that they are nominated for deletion. Finally, neither is an argument on the merits of the page, merely a veiled attack on an individual, and thus the vote should be disregarded. Hornplease 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than attacking one of wikipedias most prolific contributors (note recent issues of The Hindu) perhaps one must introspect into the blatant incorrectness of the view. Hornplease has unceasingly attacked those contributors not sympathetic to his point of view on things. It is rather unsurprising that he would choose to attack Indian admins, especially those that expressed opposition to hornpleases' unsavory behavior on arbcom.Baka man 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm attacking Indian admins? Wow, that's nice. Who? The only Indian admin I've ever had a run-in with isnt even here. Has Bhadani ever discussed my behaviour? No? Then you were mischaracterising facts again? What a shock. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell us why your vote shouldnt be disregarded... your explaination after all consist of theree words... as for Bhadani i believe hes quite an experienced admin, he knows his business, so no need for you to draw paranoid implications.Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, formed in stated ignorance. I am entitled to mine, based on observation. Hornplease 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather your observations are quite poor and have been criticized and defined as invalid by many users, most of whom are admins, and all of whom are knowledgeable on wikipolicy unlike you. The more despicable behavior is illustrated you since you seem perpetuating the "work" of Szhaider (talk • contribs), TerryJ-Ho (talk • contribs), Ikonoblast (talk • contribs) et al. And Bhadani is cited in [The Hindu]] see [23], and commended by Jimbo Wales.Baka man 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, rather than repeat myself, why don't you point to these 'many admins'? (I know better than to ask you to point to the 'rather poor observation'.) Better still, file an RfC rather than cluttering up every page I'm on with an angry rant. Hornplease 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per my nom. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, bad faith nom. Hornplease 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate why this article deserves to be kept? This article istelf appears to be a product of extreme hostility/prejudice of some editors towards a certain ideology/political school of thought. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The nomination should be in good faith. You say above 'three-word reason'; at least the three words are possibly relevant. The Guide to Deletion says clearly that nominations should be in good faith; in other words, that the primary aim should be improvement of the encyclopaedia. A strong suspicion that this is not the primary aim is a sufficient reason, according to the Guide. Happy? Hornplease 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The suspicions are unfounded. Having a page serving as a loudspeaker for Witzel and Nanda does not better the encyclopedia, deleting it does, therefore Ambroodey put it up for afd.Baka man 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The fact that there are several quotes, that this is a well-known problem - consider the NCERT textbook thing - does not feature in your analysis? Your antipathy to 'loudspeaker's does not extend to genuinely non-notable individuals such as Nicholas Kazanas? No? I thought not.

The point that neither the above editor nor the original nominator seems to realise that notability is the criterion, and POV is only relevant at an AfD if its a POV-fork, is why I felt justified in my three-word justification. Which is considerably more justification than this speedy-keep deserved. Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

9 google hits from wikipedia mirrors does not meet a notability threshold. Everyone that comments on AFD is aware of what notability is, and asserting that only certain editors do not serves to show a predilection toward certain views and editors and not a reasoned argument, which is not being presented above.Baka man 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not assuming Good Faith qualifies as Bad Faith? If yes then you are clearly in violation of that.--Scheibenzahl 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Hindutva, as per Rama's Arrow. I realize that Dab has strong feeling regarding Hindutva, but extreme generalizations such as this do not deserve an encyclopedic entry. _{Freedom skies| talk} 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For this editor's stated motivation, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies.Hornplease 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith are we? Do as you preach. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One can view the "good faith" with dubiety with more or less the correct assumption that this user 's conduct on this page is not served for discussion or the purpose of a consensus. Rather it seems the motives present are to use "arguments presented" to denigrate users. Ambroodey attempt to end the hypocrisy perpetuated by this user will undoubtedly fail.Baka man 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Hornplease 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep A well sourced informative article.IP198 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom --D-Boy 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete -

Scholarship associated with Hindutva movement or in agreement to Hindutva claims are generally associated with Hidutva propaganda.
How can scholarship be 'propaganda'? Propaganda is by definition preaching/pontificating of a POV by someone who is devoid of scholarship.

Such claims are generally disregarded by mainstream scholars as consisting of pseudoscience, pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.
So does that mean there is no Hindu/tva scholarship at all that 'mainstream scholars' dont consider as p-p-p?

It has been suggested that such scholarship is associated with the religious fundamentalism or ethnic nationalism, and are a product of Indian politics. Others have accused this allegation as being anti-Indian.

(INSERT:) Please be aware that the passages you are quoting were the result of a sweeping edit by Scheibenzahl (talk • contribs), and do not reflect the state of the article at the point that this AfD was registered. The edit was then reverted six times, effectively leaving it in place. The changes could even be interepreted as sabotage, especially when an AfD is in the offing and interested parties are likely to consult the current state of the article without too much attention to who contributed what when. You may see further discussion of this very paragraph on my Talk page. rudra 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Muck that a small group of people throw at each other cannot be used to paint entire populations with the brush dipped in the same muck. For all the hell that is being raised on wikipedia, the fact remains that 99.99%(I daresay) of practicing Hindus(that includes priests and sanskrit scholars) dont even know that a controversy of this nature even exists and are as oblivious to such names as Witzel and Sokal or whoever as they are about Frawley and Kak. 99.99% of them are even unaware that something called AIT was even proposed and the same can be said of their awareness of OIT. So in the absence of an audience willing to listen, branding a POV as 'propaganda' is far fetched. This issue if anything, is purely one that exists and is known only to people 'in the know' and should only be presented as such.

Just because all groups involved in this issue accuse each other of 'propaganda' doesnt mean we should have articles on their insinuations and counter insinuations. This is an article on such a POV and reads(as it was designed) as a POV fork. Just as having an article on, say, "Witzel's propaganda" is not right, having one on what Witzel characterises as "Hindu/tva's" propaganda is just not right. It is one thing to write articles by citing Witzel's(or Sokal's) scholarship and entirely another to write one by citing his gripe/angst/grievance/lamentations. In other words, to advance something like

any traditional Hindu idea or practice, however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honoric of "science" if it bears any resemblance at all, however remote, to an idea that is valued (even for the wrong reasons) in the West.[2]

I hope that, Sokal in his book, has

a) Established with notable and verifiable sources that there is indeed such a practice on the Hindu/tvavadi's parts to [....however obscure and irrational it might have been through its history, gets the honoric of "science"....] b) That this kind of claiming scientific sanction for their rituals etc., is not an isolated case and that it is more often than not, the rule and not the exception. c) That this pattern is found in an overwhelming percentage of Hindu/tvavadis.

If on the other hand, Sokal has only studied the habits of a handful of his adversaries(like say, Kak) for his 'sample size', then it is fair to say that his results are falsifiable. One of the reasons is also because he is supposing his sample size to be the true representatives of Hindu/tvavadis. Truth to say, there is no single person anywhere in the world who can claim that. Arya Samaj for all the currency it holds in these matters, is virtually a non entity in entire southern India and in several parts of the rest of India. Vivekananda fame stems not because of his opposition of AIT but simply as an 'elightened being'/saint and as Sri Ramakrishna's student. Infact, I daresay, even adherents of the handful of Vivekananda missions across India are not aware that he even had something to say about AIT. It will be news to them as will AIT/AMT/OIT itself.

Propaganda is what Hitler did during World War II. His theories, that covered the entire gamut of p-p-p and much more was certainly propaganda, in that, it was concocted for consumption of a public that would readily and happily gulp it down and ask for more. Propaganda was what periyar did with his visceral hate campaign against brahmins. In other words, there is an active propagandiser and a proactive propagandee. I could go on but I hope people get my drift and pardon for not putting all this very succintly. Sarvagnya 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I haven't read the article yet, but I certainly have read some benighted trash produced by Hindutva luminaries, among them Subhash Kak, B. B. Lal (once a great archaeologist, who alas, in his late retirement, parted company with rigor), and N. S. Rajaram. There is a latter-day cottage industry out there producing unmitigated cultural grandiosity in the name science. Readers need to be warned of that. Perhaps the name of the article could be changed to "Hindutva Pseudoscience" or something similar, but its usefulness is not in doubt. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only useful point that this article makes is that mainstream scholarship dismisses the claims made by Frawley, Kak et al. This point has already been made on several related articles ad nauseum.

Simply stating 'matter of factly' and dispassionately that 'mainstream scholarship' dismisses that of Kak et al., is 'warning enough'. This article, apart from making the said point, goes ahead and includes quotes by Witzel, Sokal etc., in a bid to underline and emphasise the contempt that that 'mainstream scholars' have not just for the opponent's 'scholarship' but also for the opponent. This, it does by cherry picking and quoting verbatim what is simply ad hominem cruft. As a student of the subject, I am only interested in the subject and not the ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place between people. An encyclopedia is simply not the place for such cruft.

Simply make the point of what the issue is, who holds what view of the issue and whose view has 'scholarly sanction' and whose does NOT and leave it at that. Readers are intelligent enough to read everything and make up their mind. We are here only to present the facts and not to engineer opinion.

Also once all views have been stated, there is no need to keep updating these articles with the latest scores everytime Witzel and Rajaram exchange fire. Newspapers and magazines and books and blogs will keep those scores for us.

And most importantly, characterising the views of a Kak and Rajaram as being the views of 'Hindutva/vadis' is a fantastic case of generalising to suit conveniences. Hindutva/vadi itself is a term that has no definition in black and white. It was coined by somebody who himself is not seen as representative of anything or anybody, leave alone Hindus. If Hindutva is defined simply as 'being Hindu' then I am a 'hindutvavadi'(sic). Needless to say, I dont see Kak or Savarkar or anybody as representatives of my faith. Not by any stretch of imagination. Nor do an overwhelming majority of hundreds of millions of other Hindus. Hindus have no high command like the pope or the catholic church. So ascribing to all Hindus, a view of someone that not even 1% of Hindus have even heard about, is simply nonsense.

Coz, truth be told, for all the zillion hours of editing and cpediting and 'POV fighting' that editors of these articles have put in, all these articles read as confused pieces with hardly any value for the dispassionate reader. Many of these articles have derailed so badly that it makes almost no sense to somebody who has no clue of the history of edit warring that has gone in to put the article together. In other words, believe me, these articles make no sense to anybody except the dabs and the Bakas. The very purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedia is being defeated and compromised by both parties insisting on adding every ad hominem exchange of fire that takes place.

I think its high time we all get together at the village pump and hammer out a policy to explicitly deal with 'controversial' articles. The policy in a nutshell should read something like "Keep the facts in, keep the commentary(also read as 'ad hominem' cruft) out". Sarvagnya 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with some of the things you say. However, "Hindutva" is not the same thing as "being Hindu." Nor is it "Hindu nationalism." Although the word has supposedly been around since the 1920s, it is political word, linked very much to the resurgence of the BJP in India in the 1990s. In the 1960s if you had asked someone what the word meant, you would have likely elicited derisive laughter, not because of the political implications of the word which no one knew then, but because the word 'Hindutva" is a portmanteau of a Persian/Urdu word "Hindu" and the Sanskrit "tatva," which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar) could have put together. Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE), but has also aggressively insinuated itself into school curricula and so forth. This last issue is worrisome. I think we need an article that keeps tabs on the mischief Savarkar's intellectual descendants are wreaking upon us. I am sure the article can say at the outset (if it doesn't already) that "Hindutva" is a political word and is not the same thing as "Hindu" etc. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

....which only a shabby scholar (like Savarkar)... - here lies the problem. It shouldnt be of any concern to the editor or the reader of an encyclopedia whether somebody is a 'shabby' scholar or a 'great' scholar. All that should matter is the facts. Leave the commentary out. Also if 'Hindutva' itself has no fixed meaning and depends heavily on the context and/or whose mouth it is coming from, how can terms like 'Hindutva propaganda', 'Hindutva p-p-p' or derivatives like 'Hindutvavadi' etc., have any meaning?

...Hindutva scholarship has not only continued this tradition of combining implausibles, and created fantastic nonsense (like the Vedic Aryans solving quadratic equations in 5000 BCE)...

'Hindutva scholarship now! Even if we were to assume that Savarkar was the high priest of Hindutva, how did you conclude that Kak and Frawley, for example, are carrying on from where Savarkar left off? It is not like say, Karunanidhi carrying on Periyar's work(that is a case where Periyar was the high priest and annadurai, karunanidhi et al form the unbroken shishya parampara). Kak and Frawley for heaven's sake were not even born when Savarkar was around! If Kak says something, ascribe it to Kak and nobody else. If Frawley says something, ascribe it to Frawley and no one else. If supporters of Kak's views want space for it on wikipedia, start an article for say, each of Kak's books where he has presented his views and present them there. Same holds for Frawley. Same holds for Rajaram. And in the AIT article, put all these articles in the ==See also== and also a SS prose under ==Criticism of AIT==. Now if you ask why Kak, who in your view is a quack should be given space in any of these articles, it is simply because he is a 'notable' critic of the AIT and associated theories. And how did I accord the status of a 'notable critic' to Kak, you may ask. I accorded the status because 'scholars' like Witzel have 'dignified' what you dismiss as drivel with responses. Witzel and co have unwittingly given Kak and co the 'notability' required for a wikipedia mention by choosing to respond! every bum has an opinion but then not every bum's opinion gets the audience and critical analysis of experts! go figure.

And btw, why should any claim that vedic aryans or their chinese or egyptian contemporaries or anyone for that matter solve quadratic equations be fantastic nonsense? If homo sapiens of modern day can solve quadratic equations, I dont see any reason why homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could not have. The science of logic and probability tells me not to dismiss the possibility as fantastic nonsense or even nonsense. Yes at the same time, do I believe that they did? No. Not until I see some proof. Do I believe that it might/could have been possible? Yes(I dont see any reason why not). So, for purposes of an encyclopedia we would have to leave commentary like fantastic nonsense out of the picture and simply state the facts. The facts in this case should read something like - "A claim has been made by so and so... that homo sapiens of 5000 years ago could solve quadratic equations. However, in the absence of any proof to support the claim (or because the proof provided in support of the claim do not measure up to scientific rigor), the claim has been dismissed by the scientific community at large." Sarvagnya 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fantastic nonsense because the notion of negative numbers (a sine qua non for a general solution of a quadratic) didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE, and because special cases of quadratics like: $x 2 - 9 = 0$ are not called "quadratics," but simply "square roots." Even they require knowledge of negative numbers for a complete solution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the notion of negative numbers didn't exist anywhere until the first millennium CE - that is per the historical evidence we have at hand at present. Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Sarvagnya 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

comment, can we close this AfD as undignified mudslinging? It does nothing but parade our resident and well-known "pov brigade" voting "delete" in unison. Not interesting, not the point of AfD, not flattering for anyone involved. Support your cherished pov by citing academic sources, not by on-wiki campaigning. dab (𒁳) 09:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dab, considering some of the insulting comments ('pov brigade' is a relatively benign example) you've made recently about Hindu editors, your accusations of undignified mudslinging are surprising. This discussion obviously needs to continue, per Wikipedia norms for hotly contested AfDs. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I support closing the AfD. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely the cabalist mentality of those voting "keep" is self evident.Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous suggestion - yes a few editors usually have routine issues being constructive, but this debate is legitimate and not a "mudslinging" venture. Have the patience to sit out the debate. Rama's arrow 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate of what? The article as it was when the AfD was started, or the article as it is now, after edits by people who have voted to delete? What a joke. rudra 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be woefully unaware that this is in fact a wiki, and that unless the page is full protected, the page can be mercilessly edited by you, me, George W. Bush, and any life-form capable of using a computer. There is no special reason to stop editing just because one's pet page is up for AFD, and that neither you nor any other editor owns the article.Baka man 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit I wasn't aware that sabotage by delete-voters during an AFD to sway later votes is perfectly acceptable, so much so that attempts to set the record straight for orderly discussion, far from having any merit, could in fact result in warnings if not disciplinary action. rudra 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Madhava 1947 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, naturally; an interesting and sourced article on the links between politics and religion.--Aldux 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge wherever required to Hindutva, or Vedic Maths or Saffronization. The article does not give any clear indication of propoganda as such. If this article is recreated or kept, it should try to match the quality of info as in Nazi propaganda --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Changing my vote to keep. I do think the author should be given more time to improve the article. The main article is a bit complex, but it can be improved on the lines of using Voice of India as an example.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

- indeed. The editors at Nazi propaganda having the advantage of being able to build the article in peace without a bunch of Nazis pulling it down and indulging in general trolling hoping to confuse the unsuspecting reader. If our merry Hindutva band could behave for a few days, maybe we could make some actual progress. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  - You could create an article in your own user page and when the article does give evidence of propoganda, you can recreate it. Right now, the article is quite complex with very little evidence of propaganda--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete or a Major Rewrite I have no interest in, or knowledge of Indian politics, so I cannot comment of the actual issues addressed in this article. I can say that after reading it, I have no additional knowledge save that there is a acrimonious disagreement about whatever it is that this is supposed to be about. The article is laden with lengthy quotes backing up short statements, which seems to be bordering on WP:SYN and WP:OR.

The out of India hypothesis of Indo-European linguistics is a priori unrelated to Aryan mysticism, but has been conflated with pseudoscholarship.

Voice of India and Aditya Prakashan are at the center of the allegations a cottage industry indulging in historical revisionism put forward by Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer in their debunking of the "Harappan horse seal" hoax of The Deciphered Indus Script

What the hell does that even mean? I am an educated person but I cannot parse the meaning of this article. There is a dearth of succinct declarative statements. There is also a tone to it that borders on a diatribe rather than an encyclopedic gathering of data. A reader with no preknowledge, like me, is left bewildered, and I cannot see how anyone with knowledge of the issue could be other than pissed off or proud. The debate on this AfD, the endless back and forth POV by a few obviously interested parties, is further confusing the issue. killing sparrows 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant when I said that this article(and a host of other related articles) make sense only to the dabs and the bakas who have been active participants in this fiasco. Sarvagnya 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rename to Hindtva Philosophy or Hindutva Ideology . Rewrite content to mainitain Netrality. Offer both sides of the story: explanations and crticisms, for each item . --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete or merge with Hindutva article under critism section - One can not have an article based on some quotes by Witzel , Purpola etc. who themselves are facing attacks on their way of interpretation of Indian history from newer scientific findings which supports traditional legends. ( refer Troy legend and it's findings ). Troy findings is Greek legends specific but findings in India will have major impact on world history and it's AIT based historical views. And, hence such opposition from a Sanskrit professor or an archelogist who support AIT/AMT , should not be the base for this article. I am not denying to write critism , but it should be placed under sub-section ( and not a whole article itself full of quotes from such people who are themselves accused of bais ). WIN 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Few comments Without carefully reading the article, I have come to couple of conclusions. Some of the deletionists in this nom have made valid points though others have let their emotions totally influence their decision. These are the few points I would like to address:

The title Hindutva propaganda almost implies the entire Hindutva movement in based on propaganda. Regardless of whether it is or not, I ask those who voted keep to consider a more neutral title at least such as Propaganda/Pseudoscience in Hindutva Just like with every ideaology, there are moderates and extremes. Saying propaganda is central to a former ruling party in India is quite harsh, no matter who you are.
If this article is kept, it will allow the creation of other "XYZ propaganda" articles. Possible which may be created is Indophobic propaganda, [[Islamofascist in opposition to this one. And here is something interesting. What does everyone here think of the Nazi propaganda article? Does it suffer the same problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV? I doubt anyone here approves of Nazism here but the WP:NPOV policy states all views have to be represented equally, no matter how evil they are. The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire once said, <quote>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it</quote>
I encourage both sides to simply state their reason for deletion/keeping rather than accuse the other side of stupidity. It doesn't matter whether the "other side" is stupid and politically motivated. Neither The people voting delete are all zealots nor The people voting keep have an anti-Indian agenda are sufficient arguments. It is best just to say I believe the article should be kept/deleted because it (/doesn't) adheres to Wiki's policies of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Leave it there. Any additional information is unneeded and probably not relevant to the discussion.

At the moment I am leaning towards a Merge to Hindutva, though still likely to change, mainly because I believe the term "propaganda" is too subjective. Propaganda is defined as providing misleading information to influence the opinion of people but what is misleading depends entirely on one's point of view. Similarly, I believe all propaganda articles should be deleted including Nazi propaganda unless the idealogical group which believes that it is propaganda is explicitly stated throughout the article. Here it is Western academics and scholars who support the AMT and dismiss Vedic Science as pseudoscience. Thank you, lets leave our emotions aside in this discussion. Gizza^Chat ^© 08:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A appreciate the concern over wanton "XYZ propaganda" articles. But the precedent is already in place anyway, with articles like Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda. This is similar to "persecution of XYZ" or "criticism of XYZ": A certain amount of vigilantism is required to prevent the creation of unwarranted articles. One example would be Historical persecution by Jews, which, it was argued, was "not pov" because we have Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims. But, it simply turned out that there was practically no material that fit the article title. Thus, deletion of "persecution by X" or "Y propaganda" must have a case by case basis. The article under discussion here presents plenty of academic sources that document the rise of "Hindutva pseudoarchaeology" since the 1990s, so that there can be no doubt that this article is valid. Other creations like anti-Hindu propaganda would need to meet similar standards of an academic basis. Surely, such an article cannot be justified by citing the propaganda/counter-propaganda machine itself. But if the phenomenon is substantiated by Cambridge, Rutgers, and Routledge publications, there can simply be no debate over article validity. Before we harp on the question of titling too much, note that I have moved the article and was reverted by AMbroodEY for taking away his pretext for calling for deletion. dab (𒁳) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi & Soviet propogandas were not religious one.So, comparision is just not proper.See yourself that there is no article named Christian Propoganda or Muslim Propoganda on WP. Hindutva is IA term meaning "being Hindu" or Hinduness in English. And, to tell that `being Hindu' or Hinduness is propoganda ; is blatant lie for the world's oldest religion or spiritual force.

One should remember that it was `being Christian' feeling that got united to draw Islam out of Europe. Or it was `being Muslim' feeling that made all religious conversions out of Arabia. So, would you say that as Chritianness or Islamness Propoganda ? One can see that the creator & main writer is trying to do propoganda to denigrate Hinduism. First he should write Christian Propoganda article ( one who is not allowing traditional presentation of RigVeda and names section as `Vedantic and Hindu reformist views'. It misrepresents traditional Hindu views about Rig-Veda. And, telling traditional Hindu views as reformist is also misrepresenting the fact. If RigVeda is just ritual based text then Hindus would not have revered it as a seed of all Indian wisdom, be it spiritual or other sciences. Veda itself means knowledge in Sanskrit. So, I strongly object mis-undestanding & hence mis-representation of Hindu texts by materialistic goggles wearing western eyes. WIN 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda are not valid analogies here. Both 'Nazi' and 'Soviet' are well defined entities. And there, the propaganda stemmed from the establishment. That it was propaganda is also well attested. Not just esoteric academic journals but every single newspaper and magazine and tabloid and TV channel has called it 'propaganda'. That said, an article about it in an encyclopedia should be balanced and present both/all sides.

otoh, here, neither is 'Hindutva' itself unambiguously defined nor has it been established or demonstrated beyond doubt that it is propaganda. And I cant imagine that it ever will be. For, if it is propaganda that Kak and Frawley are upto, they're doing a very bad job. Nobody outside academic circles even knows their names.

Further comments here Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A sad state of affairs; one which is being skilfully remedied by those using Wikipedia to vote 'delete' on this article, and 'keep' for Nicholas Kazanas. Hornplease

Keep, Some parts can be toned down but overall the article is referenced and factual more than opinionated. Those asking for a merge or delete on grounds of incorporating this as criticism in other articles should first attempt to do so. The fact is that the same team of "delete" proponents would block that ( and have done so in the past). Haphar 08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To: Sarvagnya: Present historical evidence cannot preclude the possibility that new evidence may be found tomorrow. So your shrill pitch of fantastic nonsense can only be seen as stupid and misplaced bravado stemming from curling up nice and cosy behind 'scholarship'. Since I can't copy edit your English (on a talk page), let me just say that "preclude" means "to remove the possibility (of an event, etc.) occurring (OED)," so it is enough to say, "... cannot preclude that new evidence could be found tomorrow," or more correctly, "... preclude the event of new evidence being found tomorrow." Also, "might" is generally preferred over "may" when referring to events of such uncertainty. Given your poorly crafted first sentence, I will be more understanding with your pleonasm-ridden second sentence, which another editor might interpret as a personal attack. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

aah.. semantic cruft. as usual. should have known the moment you voted in support of a ridiculous call to close the afd. Nichalp, saravask, ragib and now dab. You've got yourself covered. Good for you. Sarvagnya 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep but improve, and rename. The title is PoV, and should be changed to something more neutral (and "Hindutva and pseudo-scholarship" won't do either). The article has adquate sources for the most part, and the attempt to delete it is clearly itself PoV and in bad faith, as are many of the reasons given in keep votes. This AfD should really have been speedily closed, I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. I am tired of voting against all these hate article sprouting regularly from the usual fountainhead of anti-Hindu propaganda machine. Count my standing vote against all such venomous articles, for all time to come. Sisodia 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- the only hate I can see here is that of the rag-tag band of nationalist pov-pushers preferring to troll AfD over doing actual work and constructive editing. Count the single-topic or dozen-edits editors voting "delete". Then count the same voting keep/merge/rename. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. as per the nominator Shyamsunder 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. as per nom Sbhushan 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. This article violates NPOV as far as I can tell. There is no attempt at making a balanced presentation. Witzel's scholarship in areas outside of Sanskrit (which is what he has studied) has been disputed on many forums. Further, many statements are made w/o citations. Yet when corrections are made, they are often reverted because they also are not cited... Kkm5848 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- This user has ten edits excluding this one, all but two at the article under discussion. Hornplease 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep/and other options interesting article and is sourced. For all those concerns raised by some of the delete voters: Rename if neccessary to have a better title and Work on the article to make it NPOV. As far as the merge discussion concerned, I don't think that AfDs are healthy environnements to discuss it, and should be handled in the talk pages of article concerned. However, if things come to a standstill then AfD can rule on a merge (I am assuming that is the case here). I am not against a merge since the article seems to confuse criticism of Hindutva with Hindutva propaganda - the only true "propaganda exposé" I could make out was the last section (about education). In that context, it can be renamed or merged - it just depends on if the editors will be able distingiush criticism (which belongs in the main article) with "propaganda" (act of proliferating the ideology and the tactics used to achieve that end).. It would be better if the regular editors could iron it out between themselves - however a delete seems unnecessary. Baristarim 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep because the article is well referenced and provides some details, among others, about the history of the emergence of the Aryan Invasion Theory in modern India. The references given are accurate, and display the complex interweaving of politics and history that gave rise to an ideological movement. TwoHorned 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Confounding the uninformed eh? There is nothing i repeat no evidence except Witzel's shrill rants to link the revisionist scholarship with Hindutva parties. You guys cant even define Hindutva. AIT or historical revisionism dont even figure in Hindutva ideology per se. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case the support of NAIT by many Hindutva proponents is just accidental, true, "well informed" ? Many VOI publications are devoted to "revisionism" from Elst to Danino and others. It would be difficult for you to deny that. TwoHorned 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- This article is a collection of quotes and text tangential to the subject. I could hardly find any so called propaganda and the history is vague. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Hindutva under criticism section. Unlike Nazi propaganda or Communist propaganda the so called Hindutva propaganda is not an established fact of life in India or abroad to be notable enough to have its own article yet. Only time will tell. RaveenS 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment At last, a notability claim. Could you back that up even slightly please?
  - Comment First sign your name or anon IP after your comment, second I am the one saying it is not notable, if you think it is then you prove me wrong that's how these discussions ago. ThanksRaveenS 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment First, sorry, that was me. Forgot to sign. Second: Errr- no, if you're making a claim that it's non-notable, you'd have to back that up with some reasoning or have it ignored. Hornplease 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment' Thanks yes, I searched and found very little serious research on this subject, now how can I present what is not there but that is besides the point. I gues you want me to change my vote to either delete or keep not merge, that means you have to do the hard work to convince me in the XFD. That's how it works :-)RaveenS 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Eradicate and annihilate. Anarya 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a Special Purpose ID, created only for voting on this article's deletion :-Anarya's contributions. Haphar 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Daleks are back ! TwoHorned 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom. Anwar 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Hindutva per Rama's Arrow and Ageo — Lost^(talk) 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Rename as Hindutva propagnda and pseudoscience. There does seem to me to be a certain amount of misuse of 'religious ideas' in order to achieve political ends; as documented by Sokal, Nanda et. al.. The article doesn't seem to me to be insulting towards Hindu beliefs - on the contrary it explains some aspects of misuse. (After reading about and recognising the political mis-use, my interest in Hinduism has been restored.) Given that the pseudoscience is unlikely to go away in the near future, and pops up in other articles, it makes sense to have an article which explains how and why this notable strain of pseudoscience comes about. Davy p 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote bank politics, Haphar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.145.231 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Well at least I do not hide behind anonymous id's , and did not see you comment on the vote bank politics here. Selective highlighting to twist things ? Haphar 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote bank politics? No, actually. Rather an opinion formed after coming across examples of the pseudoscience, which I think may seriously mislead some poor souls and which is a discredit to India, and after carefully reading what critics such as Sokal and Nanda have to say. Davy p 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Lots of POV, and Original Research present by the flow of the article. The structure is questionable aswell. Cosmos416 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I finally got a chance to read the article. It does need work, and I tend to agree with the remarks of user:Davy p, user:Baristarim user:Haphar, and user:Mel Etitis; however, I am perplexed about one thing: the first time any text was added to the article was on 26 March at 17:38 UTC. Less than 4 hours later it was tagged for deletion by a user who turned out to be a sock of banned user user:Hkelkar. No sooner had the sock been exposed and the tag taken off than it was nominated again for deletion (this time) by user:Bakasuprman. It was nominated yet again (for a third time in the present AfD) by user:AMbroodEY on March 30. In other words, the current AfD began less than 4 days after (effective) creation of the article. Does an editor not get any time to work on the text before the vultures start wheeling for a feeding frenzy? This can't be good for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt know deleting a cruft page was indicative of vulture-like behavior. Of course, nadirali (talk • contribs) would probably agree with you.Baka man 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Is it your English language skills or your inductive logic skills that make you so compelling? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont bother Baka... being called a 'vulture' by the lawyer of the Pakistani cabal is an honour. I've been slurred much worse.

Fowler four admins have voted delete, i trust them to know better than you abt what is good for wiki... Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 07:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a more cutting comment would be the religion of ALL voting for delete. Shows a certain communal cabal. That applies to the admins too. Haphar 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

True. Sysop is not a synonym for "more learned" in Wikipedia. It could be, but there is uncorrelation in the definition. TwoHorned 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You're right twhorned, dab is not more learned than us, and if you think its about education then no one gives a hoot about your credentials.Baka man 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the religion of ALL voting for keep? Shows a anti-hindu communal cabal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.76.15.119 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment: The article was initially a redirect page that I nominated. Before any decision was made, it was converted from a redirect to an article. The 1st AfD was by a known sock-puppeteer and was speedy closed. The second time, the article was moved. This caused confusion and no decision was taken anyway[24]. The article at the time of 3rd, so-called "finally correct", nomination was a bunch of quotes from unknown papers by Witzel and Nanda I couldn't find, and filled with POV/weasel words like, "the Indigenous Aryans ideology insisting on fantastic antiquity of an Aryan race in the Indian subcontinent". Gross accusations without a citation, disputed to be in violation of WP:OR. The article was in such bad shape as if created by someone who just found about a wiki. Kind of hard to expect from an admin. While still up for AfD, the article was moved and moved back. User:Rudrasharman and User:Hornplease didn't have a problem then, now they are blabbering about "article being edited after AfD by <insert POV defamatory terms here>", "bad faith nomination" etc. I edited it and removed such POV words. Wikified it as much as I could understand, and got tired in the middle of the article because of lack of citations. My request for paper has not been answered yet, instead people are calling me a part of "Hindutva brigade", "zeolot" etc for no reason except FUD. Then I was edit warred for "bad english". It is clear there is a cabal calling every one "Hindutvadi", "Nazi" etc. for no reason other than discrediting those who say "Delete". I personally see absolutely no reason to keep an article about a term which is not even used anywhere. Yes, NO WHERE. People here, in the disguise of having WP:RS, are trying to create a counter propaganda article, by coining a new term. I suggest delete for the violation of WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Although NPOV can be corrected by careful editing, the article itself calls for POV, and thus it should be deleted.--Scheibenzahl 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Super Strong Delete. I detest religious mudslinging of all kind. Article has been created in very poor taste. Having suffered religious persecution at the hand of sunni fundamentalists for decades, we Ahmadis cannot tolerate such afront to any religion. Article creator must be banned immediately. Wikipsycho 02:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, WP's not about preventing affront. Sorry. Hornplease 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Really!!! So has wikiepdia started allowing "open or intentional offense, slight, or insult" [25] now? This so cool, so sexy!! Wikipsycho 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But the article is religious mudslinging, and that is of course a vio of WP:NPOV.Baka man 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Scheibenzahl's Comment: Well, it may be that "Hindutva propaganda" is a term that is not widely used, but the subject of the article could still be noteworthy. Here is what I mean: the so-called Out-of-India or Indigenous Aryan perspective is to be found expressed (or at least attempted) on a number of Wikipedia pages. However, if you scour mainstream academic literature (peer-review internationally-recognized journals or internationally-known academic/university publishers) this perspective is conspicuous by its absence. None of the other tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia) say a word about Indigenous Aryans. Why is this the case? One could of course dream up conspiracy theories, that "Euro-centric" academia is anti-Indian etc., but from what little I know about the academic scene in the West, the competition for jobs, tenure, and the 15 minutes of fame is so great that if there were a realistic chance of the Aryans being indigenous, people would be lining up to write papers about them, regardless of the prevailing orthodoxy in the field. The alternate view is that the movement to claim the Aryans as indigenous to India is a partisan one, with more belief than hard facts on their side. That is what pseudoscience is. I quote from a paper of Sudeshna Guha that I just finished reading,^[1]

“

"Following the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992, the discipline of archaeology has been increasingly exploited for meeting the demands of religious nationalism in India, for offering material proof for the primordiality of Hindu dharma, and for substantiating claims that the "Vedic Hindu" had an indigenous origin within the subcontinent. Over the last decade, statements such as "new astrological and archaeological evidence has come to light which suggests that the people who composed the Vedas called themselves Aryans and were indigenous to India,"^[2] have not only propped up the doctrinaire of Hindutva, but have also acquired an official sanctioning from many within the professional community of Indian archaeologists,^[3] who are actively involved in a programme of promoting the premise that it is possible to unearth true histories objectively through archaeological means.^[4]

”

Sudeshna Guha is a Lecturer in History at the University of Cambridge and her paper is careful and nuanced. That means that at least some mainstream scholars are worrying about these issues. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

^ Guha, Sudeshna. 2005. "Negotiating Evidence: History, Archeology and the Indus Civilisation." Modern Asian Studies. 39(2):399-426.
^ Prinja, N. 1996. Explaining Hindu Dharma: A Guide for Teachers. Norfolk: Chansitor Publications Ltd. Page 10.
^ Lal, B. B. 1998. "Facts of History Cannot Be Altered." The Hindu. 1 July.
^ Gupta, S. P. 1996. The Indus-Saraswati Civilization: Origins, Problems, Issues. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Page 142.

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Rlevse as nonsense (CSD G1). Luke! 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skittledew

Unreferenced, non-notable. Has to be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - definitely something made up in school one day. MER-C 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per G1. Gekedo 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 12:46, 31 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 WP:OR. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildness

Wildness

This article as presented is almost entierly speculative, containing many subjective assertions about a variety of things. The final part of the article is particulary unencyclopedic:

"Due to its pursuit of unshielded possibilities, wildness encourages parsimony during the development and coordination of one’s understandings, instincts and emotions. It is a cutting process (like Occam's Razor) that exposes bare bones and truths, with no room for pretence and favourites. This feature can make wildness seem tough, but it also provides a stable foundation upon which nature can build. A sense of accomplishment or eureka can be the reward for using wildness, when it finds a simpler way through a complicated maze that was inhibiting life."

Essentially this is not an encyclopedic definition of "Wildness", it is merely a particular person's "Philosophy of Wildness". Orgone 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obvious OR. Not a bad impressionistic essay, in my opinion, but not appropriate for WP.DGG 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as interesting as it is, it's probably OR since it reads like a personal philosophy on the subject, complete with famous author quote. Darth griz⁹⁸ 01:12, 2 April 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 all. The nominator is strongly advised not to renominate articles that went through recent AFDs that resulted in "keep" decisions for at least a couple of months. 3-4 weeks (in the case of You) is not long enough. --Core desat 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, You, and We

This article is very much like a dictionary entry, and should be changed to a disambiguation page with a brief definition on the top, such as the No article. Also the You and We articles should be deleted in the same way. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 17:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Only 17 articles link to the page. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't vote if you nominated it. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion, and it's quite common and well accepted for a nominator to state a position after the nomination. Not as common as letting the nomination speak for itself, but common enough that any admin will recognize it, which is the only reason it could possibly matter. Xtifr _tälk 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, my point is if she has something to say it should be incorporated into the nomination rather than placing a new vote. --Deskana (ya rly) 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep These people have convinced me that they should stay. And Deskana's right. They are much more than dictionary definitions. A•N•N•A hi! 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word). Tizio 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Would support the suggestion in the nom of a disambiguation page with brief definition at the top. Gekedo 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The word itself is interesting, and I can see this article being usefully expanded. Rhinoracer 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep 'Yes' is not simply a word, it has significant cultural, historical and international significance justifying a Wikipedia entry, as long as someone writes a satisfactory article.WunNation 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment since posting the above, User:WunNation has been indefinitely blocked as a single purpose trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then he shouldn't be part of an AfD. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, echoing WunNation's assessment. The Notes on usage section requires a rewrite though. -- Seed 2.0 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I support any article of words that has a historical significance.--JForget 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Notice that if the word Yes is interesting, all words are interesting, which means that all words would have an article on Wikipedia. That would be fine, except for the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also notice that 'Yes' is simply a word, and all words have a significant cultural, historical, and international significance. And so far, in the long time Yes has been an article, no one has improved the article, and nobody cares to improve it, or else (like me) they don't know how to improve it. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r hello! 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep all, although normally I don't think dicdefs have any place here, I consider these three to be basic concepts of thought rather than just ordinary words. Besides, deleting them would leave a very odd looking "primary use of this term was here" hole on their disambig pages. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the disambiguation pages would just have a short definition of the word (not in dictionary format), and then the links under that. A•N•N•Afoxlove r hello! 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, strongly. Note that You was kept earlier this month, with similar results, and it would be hard to claim that anything significant has changed. Yes and we both contain information beyond a mere "dictionary definition," and yes also has aspects of mathematics and logic that could be covered even more extensively than they are now. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

comment - um, why are people even allowed to nominate the same article for AfD twice in one month? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep "you". As someone whose first language isn't English I find the subject of the article quite interesting, in particular the lack of singular/plural distinction and the related history. -- parasti ^(talk) 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep all three. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a few words can involve richer description than would be appropriate for a dictionary, and which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. These qualify (yes maybe just barely as the article stands). I personally found you useful. -R. S. Shaw 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
keep all per R. S. Shaw and parasti - these articles address the topics in much greater detail than a dictionary. Also, the nomination of You seems almost an abuse of process as it already had an AfD in March 2007, as noted above. ANNAfoxlover, even if Wikipedia had an in-depth article on the origins, grammatical peculiarities and idiomatic uses of every commonly-used English word, they would still be outnumbered by Simpsons articles. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per R.S. Shaw. JuJube 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
delete yes, keep you and we this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. You and we have encyclopediac content, but yes does not.--Sefringle 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article goes beyond a dictdef; personally came here looking for "aye," lots of room for expansion here. Why is this Parliamentary usage in particular (votes/lobbies?) Also some languages don't typically use "yes/no" in the way English does, maybe should be covered here. -- Blorg 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single word is used differently in other languages! Either improve the articles or delete them, and since nobody cares to improve it, it should be deleted. A•N•N•A hi! 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a wonky rationale. "Nobody'll do it, so delete". Shall we delete everything in Category:Wikipedia backlog? --Deskana (ya rly) 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

comment - yes, I find it very unfortunate when good articles are deleted in AfD because "nobody's improving the article". If you find the article needs improvement, why not tack on a cleanup tag instead of sending it to AfD? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an overexaggeration. But the ones that have not been worked on for quite some time (a few years) should be deleted. A• •F•O•X ¡u6is April Fool's Day 2OO7 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have several additions planned for yes, am compiling some sources for them, but it may take a week or two; not sure when they will arrive, or when I will be able to write them.

At any rate, I am pleased that our article on thou remains a featured article, even if it is "about a word". My opinion remains that all of the basic grammatical particles of the English language are rich in historic resonance and unusual features, and complications that want explanation in their usage, that go well beyond what a dictionary could supply: more than enough to sustain articles about each of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above. Confining "you" to a dictionary definition is limited and does not do justice to its cultural significance. Thou proves to be an inspiration. +A.0u 05:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. These articles are much more than dictionary definitions. --Deskana (ya rly) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Yes. We keep you. Yamaguchi先生 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep synonymous with other entries, its already been discussed, and if we were to delete all articles with less than 20 links, Wikipedia would SUCK. - Bennyboyz3000 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per above — Sarcha 45 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You is probably most popular word in the world Al-Bargit 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's The. A•N•N•A hi! 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - clearly notable words with enough history to have encyclopedic info. The grammatical info on You and We make them especially poor choices for deletion. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep all per everyone else who said to keep. Wasn't "Yes" nominated for deletion almost a month ago? Acalamari 23:11, 4 April 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 head crash. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buzz of death

Article not appropriate for encyclopedic entry. Phrase is not notable or widely known. Stoic atarian 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Head crash or Click of death. The reaosn buzz of death occur is due to head crash, which actually also include floppy due to the use of magnetic head. George Leung 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Personally, I've never heard of the term but the way the article is written, it sounds like it only applies to floppy discs. Integrating it into an existing article might very well work though. Seed 2.0 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Head crash per above. This is a real phenomenon, already covered elsewhere in the wikipedia. Collabi 10:50, 3 April 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. --Core desat 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Price

Vanispamcruftisement, subject has questionable notability. Contested prod. MER-C 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

♦Delete: Self-serving article of little or no importance other than to the individual.Shoessss 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

♦'Delete: Although outwardly appears to have sources, the only three given are his own professional profile, and two "Promised" sources that have not materialised. Vanity, not notable. Gekedo 11:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Delet'e: A new user's first article (so, let's please be nice - Wikipedia:Assume good faith), written without a complete understanding of what kinds of articles are and are not acceptable. The person this article is about does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not yet notable, no matter how well meant. I wish him every success. DGG 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Author indicates wish for deletion at the article's talk page. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Delete - Miles Price is about to be placed in articles for Business First as well as in eMarketing Vox and GuruDAQ (other blogs and such will likely be chiming in) -- Miles will likely be having a third-party member from the press write the article based on sources rather than me as a family-member placing any content. Thank you -- And how is it vanity when the author isn't even the person being spoken of? (actually a family member) Don't be rude, the rest of you are very commendable. Thank you again Rick =o) -- iMarketingGuru (talk) 20:37, 03 April 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 by RHaworth as a copyvio. Luke! 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of hajj an umrah

Delete This article should be incorporated with an article on Allah or Mohammed rather than a stand alone.Shoessss 10:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - copyvio from [26]. So tagged. MER-C 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Partial Merge or put some portions of it in the article that Shoesss suggested and to provide the proper source and in quotations marks - otherwise delete per plagarism.--JForget 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite--Towaru 14:31, 31 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. Satisfies the albums criteria at WP:MUSIC, though still no references.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Practice

Nothing notable about this per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I am the article's creator. I created it because it is an EP from a Crystal Castles. From WP:MUSIC:

"Albums

Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."

Seraphim Whipp 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Notable album (debut album) from a notable band. Completely fulfills WP:MUSIC. I don't see the problem. Rockstar915 05:21, 5 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic AC power safety notes

How-to guide on electrical safety that per WP:NOT this does not have either a place as a separate article or as part of another one. Should not have this sort of information here but just a link to an electrical safety website - Peripitus (Talk) 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Peripitus (Talk) 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and refactor into an article on domestic power safety. While the article in its current state is basically a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not, it should be possible to salvage this content into an encyclopedic article on domestic power safety, which is an important topic. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that as clearly there is a lot of spent effort here. I came to the conclusion that we would be better deleting and someone can write an article on safety from scratch. Looking through the history of the parent article it's clearly a section that should never have been spun off by itself, it should have been deleted from the parent article as innappropriate - Peripitus (Talk) 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think it can be easily rewritten to sound more encyclopedic. A change in title will help, once the AfD is concluded. I think it actually is sufficiently encyclopedic, and is not a how-to manual. A how-to article on the subject would go into considerably more minute detail, with --at the very least--socket wiring diagrams, as it would not be of much practical use without. The US-centric orientation of the early section should be specifically noted.DGG 00:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep DXRAW 03:47, 1 April 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 --Pjacobi 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete was disputed by User:JimJast but without addressing its reason (G4) --Pjacobi 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General time dilation

Page recreaded without going through WP:DRV. Results of previous debate was a delete (see below). --ScienceApologist 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, long time no see. You didn't even try to take part in a consensus about redirecting my latest, completely kosher page, titled "Gravitational attraction" to the Newtonian gravitation with attraction instead of curvatures and I thought you should be the first one to cast a vote. Physicists were represented only by one guy from Harvard who unfortunately was also against GR since he didn't even know that there is no gravitational attractive force in GR. He thought that there must be since otherwise gravitons would be unemployed. That's how prejudice controls science even at Harvard. At the end GR lost 9:1 in favor of Newtonian attraction. Now this consensus is about Feynman being for flat spacetime (like Narlikar) in which curvature of space compensate for time dilations. So I think Feynman is going to lose this one too since no one might have ever heard about the guy (I put a link to him and Narlikar hoping someone might click it to learn that they were/are no dummies, even if I'm one for wanting to save science against uninformed editors). Jim 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General time dilation. --Pjacobi 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unexpandable, unsourceable and unrewritable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete due to recreation in spite of the above noted action. --EMS | Talk 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- (If more reason is needed to delete this article, then I will point out that it makes reference to the "3-tensor of time dilation". This only shows that the author does not know what a tensor is and/or does not know what time dilation is. This material is totally OR and is wholely unsupported by general relativity theory and the Feynmann quotes cited.) --EMS | Talk 18:10, 31 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. --Core desat 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christo-Paganism

I couldn't find any sources for this article other than blogs and personal webpages, which aren't admissible on Wikipedia. (The best I could find is [27].) I looked for books, nothing. The article's never cited sources of any kind, so no help there. If we removed the unsourced material, there would be nothing here. I can't deny that there are lots of people out there who blend Christianity and Paganism in their religious practices, including good friends of mine, but "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 14:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, can't be verified. NeoFreak 14:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete - unsourced, so a possible neologism per WP:NEO; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish that the term is in widespread use. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Based on the very low traffic at the website referenced, it doesn't seem notable. In any case the connection between the amorphous religious tendency described there does not have much connection with the present article. A stub with nothing worth keeping, even as a place-holder. DGG 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete--I agree that it is non-compliant with policy, and if sources were found I would vote for a merge, not a keep.Lotusduck 03:50, 1 April 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. Perhaps a common term, but the article is essentially a dictionary definition with no references.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slapper

This page was originally marked as a dab page, but the information on there wasn't appropriate for a dab page. Most of the info should go/already is on wikt:slapper; the rest sounds like original research or juvenile. IMO this page shouldn't exist (any longer). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comment - If I'm correct, wiktionary is the place for (slang) definitions, not wikipedia. And that's where the page's weakest spot is at the moment, besides the lack of references, if there are any. If you take away the definitions and delete the unencyclopedic sentences, that page would be rather empty and might as well get deleted and/or be redirected.– sgeureka ^t•c 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ improve and keep. Normally I'd leap to the defence of any british slang term under attack, but the article for this one really is awful and perhaps it would be better off being deleted. That said it's been establishwed by afds like the the one for Wanker that the derivation, usage and cultural context of such terms can make for an encycolpedia article. What's really going to save it is finding some decent references, which I know from previous experience can be troublesome for this kind of article. Once we have that I would suggets cutting it back to the bare boines of what can be referenced and letting it grow from there. Artw 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weirdly enough this summary of an ofcom complaint (scroll down to "stupid") is the best discussions of the usage and relative offensiveness of the term I can find from an 'official' source. Changing to keep. Artw 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - although it looks like a neologism per WP:NEO, it is in fairly widespread use in the UK. However, the assertions need to be sourced to external independent sources per WP:ATT, especially the speculative section on the origin of the term. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - common slang in UK, just needs some better references added. --J2thawiki 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

*Transwiki anything useful to Wikitionary

Delete Nothing useful that Wiktionary doesn't have. The etymology attempted just doesn't cut it. Suriel1981 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
weak Keep--The etymology not only just doesn't cut it, but three totally different etymologies are given. But unclear derivation is not unusual for slang terms. The article on "Fat Stags" seems much more informative about the actual usage; The existence of other such comedies is asserted--if others could be added it would certainly be notable, and evenas is it is just notable enough. DGG 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not an encyclopedia article, nor can it be made into one. Use wiktionary for entries on words. Recury 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of articles on words. Including similar common slang such as Slag (slang) --J2thawiki 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it does, and most of them should be deleted. Recury 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wanker, and the deletion debates thereof.

Weirdly this line of argument about an article on a slang term not being worthly of Wikipedia and being relegated to wiktionary only seems to come up when it's not American slang. Artw 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm British, have used the term "slapper" a lot (I live in Plymouth you see) but am very unconvinced this article should stay. Wanker is a much better article than this and the fact of its existance is not necessarily a reason to keep this article. I would say the onus is on opposers of the AFD to expand the article and reference or at least demonstrate that it could be done. Suriel1981 17:25, 2 April 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.--Wizardman 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blübird

Rock and roll band of two 12 year olds with no album. However, they did get some third-party coverage because they appeared in a short HBO documentary about kid musicians. No hope to ever grow the article past a meaningless stub (at least for now). Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice; when the forthcoming album's released someone can recreate the page if the album's successful enough to warrant them having an entry. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - although they do technically meet WP:MUSIC, as the article demonstrates multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, I don't see that this article will grow beyond a permastub in the foreseeable future. We have to exercise common sense here. As Iridescenti says, they may merit an article once their album is released. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep As the above editors noted, the band fulfills WP:BAND. Furthermore, it has been around for ten years -- why can't the article grow from a stub? I don't see any substantial argument why it can't. We're not a crystal ball, even in the reverse sense. Just because it might not grow from a stub doesn't mean we should delete it. In just as many ways, it might grow from the stub. Rockstar915 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and re-create later if needed, per above and, mostly, below. Rockstar915 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get what you mean. We delete non-notable bands every day, yet, some day, one of these bands will become Arcade Fire. Should we then look back and say "darn, we should have kept this one when it was a permastub with a MySpace page and a single article in a local newspaper announcing their gig?" Also, you say the band has been around for ten years. I don't get that sentence: the band consists of two girls who are 12 years old so unless they were rocking in Pampers... Pascal.Tesson 20:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the page wrong re: the ten years statement. Onto more substantial arguments: I realize that we delete non-notable bands each day. My argument was that obviously the band is notable as it fulfills WP:BAND. Or at least that seems to be the consensus of everyone who has voted thus far. Why delete a band that all the editors above claim to be notable? It seems like deleting a band that fulfills WP:BAND just because no one's heard of it or because they haven't been in the NY Times is leading down a slippery slope. I've never heard of them but they definitely seem to fit the criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. Rockstar915 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument, as far as I understand it, is that they might barely meet WP:MUSIC although I'm not convinced that the band has really been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Pascal.Tesson 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

At least they meet WP:MUSIC. As far as I can see, the only reason for deleting is because people feel as though it *might not* become anything but a stub in the foreseeable future. But it seems that they're releasing an album, so why can't it become not a stub? If I am convinced otherwise, trust me, I'll switch my vote -- I have no personal feelings towards this band. But as it stands, the only reasons for deleting have been: "they meet WP:MUSIC, but the article probably won't be much more than a stub, so we should delete." That argument is not nearly enough to convince me to delete the article. But again, I am very open to have my mind changed. Rockstar915 22:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He he he... if you're open to change, let me give it another try! First, I'm not saying that they meet WP:MUSIC: it all depends on what one thinks constitute significant third-party coverage. If you look at the actual references, they're pretty minimal and uniformative and in my mind (but I do see how others might find otherwise) they fall short of what we need. As for the upcoming album, well we have no indication that it's anything other than a self-release. If you go to their website and actually listen to the two tracks they have there, you'll see that the production is pretty minimal and I think it's safe to assume that the album (if it ever comes out) won't be sold commercially on a wide scale and, consequently, it would be a stretch to think significant third-party coverage will result from that release. Of course, I wish all the best to the two girls but chances are we'll never get more than a permastub. I have no problem with re-creation if things evolve differently and deletion of an article is not a catastrophic thing, especially when it has as little content as the current one. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You won me over with that one, and I changed my vote accordingly. The more I thought about it, the more I realized you were right -- there's not enough context to keep the article as is. If the album release garners any attention or further press, then we should go ahead and reinstate the article then. Do you think we could possibly keep a cache of the page if the latter does in fact happen, thus making the recreation less of a pain? I should commend you, by the way -- I'm generally difficult when it comes to changing my mind. :) Rockstar915 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for keeping an open mind. As far as keeping a record of the current content, this actually is done automatically (in some weak sense) because admins still do have access to articles that have been deleted and their history. As I'm not an admin myself, I don't really know the details of t but I'm sure someone can fill you in on that and, like I said, any re-creation of the article in the future is bound to contain all of the pretty slim info that's already in the current stub. Pascal.Tesson 05:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, re: my open mind. :) In the end, you're right -- if we need to tackle the recreation of the article, then we can get an admin to help or we can just rewrite it entirely. I'm not that worried as is, considering the current content on the page (or lack thereof). Rockstar915 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I don't agree that they coverage is non-trivial, and thus I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. Two of the articles are properly about the TV show, and only mention the band in passing. (And I'm not sure HBO counts as an independent source for information about an HBO show.) The third article appears to be a very brief summary of a very brief interview with one of the girls in a local paper. Even if we stretch a point and consider that last an acceptable source, that's only one, and it doesn't seem likely that any more will turn up. I think it's pretty cool, but I don't think it's notable. Xtifr _tälk 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually... on that note -- I do think that their HBO coverage fulfills #11 of WP:MUSIC. They weren't the subject, per se, but they were part of the doc... But I still keep my vote as delete. Rockstar915 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a half-hour show featuring six different performers. They weren't the subject, so they don't meet the criterion. On top of that the HBO article mentions Úna, not Blübird (just like the Williamette Week article). What I'm sseing is that Úna Rose is almost-but-not-quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but Blübird definitely is not. Xtifr _tälk 17:36, 1 April 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. The sources added late in the discussion appear to address the notability concerns. Shimeru 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morfik

This article has been deleted several times as both a non-notable company and as advertisement. I don't know what those versions looked like, but it seems borderline to me, so I'm taking it here. At the very least, it's lacking third party sources. Leebo ^T/C 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and protected from creation. reason above means that atempts to create will cause it to be recreated from time to time. protect from creation. George Leung 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per George Leung.--Paloma Walker 03:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and protect Fails WP:CORP. --Infrangible 10:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Author To be clear, it was deleted twice (in January). I was having difficulty working on the page, as a Wikipedia novice. I also didn't understand what was going on - I thought I just didn't save the changes, so I just recreated it. It took a while to figure out that it was being deleted. Once I understood what was going on I worked on it in my user space, with initial suggestions from KillerChihuahua and Steel359.

I am not affiliated with Morfik in any way, and I am not gaining any benefit from working on this article. However, I believe the company is certainly notable, as they appear to have made significant strides in the realm of building Ajax applications, and as a result I feel that inclusion would be warranted.

Patent pending on compilation of high-level languages into Javascript/Ajax
Discussed extensively by Ajax magazine, including a couple of articles this week, also in Ajaxian, Redmonk, ZDNet, and Readwriteweb
Original appearance at Web 2.0 conference made the front page on Slashdot in 2005, among others
Other development tools are listed on Wikipedia, including some that are clearly ads, such as TIBCO, Adobe Flex, and ASP.Net Ajax, two of which aren't even officially out yet.

If you have suggestions or ideas on what I should do to make the article better, or alleviate the concerns, then please let me know so I can fix it. Thanks. MikeyTheK 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notability for companies is defined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Many companies have achievements that they can list (well, hopefully, or they're probably not a very good company), but not all of them are notable. Please read the guidelines and determine if Morfik can meet them. They are typically fulfilled by adding references to the article. The article has no references. Lastly, an article can read like an advertisement even if the company is not paying you. It's a matter of reader interpretation, not personal corporate affiliation. Leebo ^T/C 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Leebo, thanks for the reply. I'll work on incorporating more of the external sources that discuss Morfik over the next couple of days. However, the "advertisement" seems a bit odd of a reason for terminating an article. The pages on TIBCO, Flex, and ASP.Net Ajax don't seem to cite any sources, and they read pretty clearly like ads to me. Maybe it's just me. I'm trying to make the Morfik article objective and neutral. MikeyTheK 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the other pages - they may be eligible for deletion too. I have not yet looked at them. But try not to base the standards of this article on existing articles of the same type. It may be counterintuitive, but we can only address each article individually, in the way it relates to policy. Leebo ^T/C 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for the explanation, Leebo. Please give me a few days to improve the article, and thanks for the input. MikeyTheK 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. The discussion will remain open until April 1 (5 days after it was started). Leebo ^T/C 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Leebo - please give me THROUGH Sunday so I have the weekend to work it. Thanks. MikeyTheK 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, that will be at the discretion of the administrator who closes the discussion, but you've been cooperative and understanding, so maybe some extra time could be provided. I can't guarantee anything though. Leebo ^T/C 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm relisting this AfD to allow time for improvements. – Steel 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete but don't protect. Company doesn't seem notable enough at the moment but may well soon if their product(s) take off. --J2thawiki 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep possibly the lawsuit is enough for notability, and if anything can be found in the computer publications, then it would seem to be notable already. DGG 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a lawsuit - just an "implied threat" of one. --J2thawiki 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply from author Hi, guys. AFAIK there is no lawsuit. There is the patent issue that has raised its ugly head again, and the "implied threats" of defending IP rights (again, I don't work for Morfik in any way, shape or form, so I don't know this for sure). I was going to add the patent stuff today, though, since I'm out of time, and haven't had three seconds to rub together on the article until today, though. MikeyTheK 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The discussion was relisted, so you have another day or so. Leebo ^T/C 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply Thanks, Leebo. I'm trying to get this right, but I'm also new to writing articles for Wikipedia, so I still have no idea what I'm doing. MikeyTheK 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Update Guys. I think I've done as much as I can think of doing. There are numerous cites, and lots of external links. If there's something else I need to do, please let me know.

Keep: It has sufficient sources that assert notability. --Kevinkor2 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, note that some of the 22 references are blog entries, forum discussions, and press releases. The actual number of articles seems to be far fewer than 22, but it's hard to tell exactly. I'm not saying that the articles that are included don't assert notability, but it's dilluted a bit with sources that don't pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Leebo ^T/C 20:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Response (Anon, and newbie), note that 11 of the 22 references have now been converted to standard external hyperlinks. The remaining are reliable reference sources.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Cage

Tagged as speedy by anon who asked it be nominated for AfD if it wasn't a clear speedy. There is a claim to notability, however spurious it may be, so I have completed the AfD procedure for the anon. Their given deletion reason was: "not being important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, for having unencyclopedic claims (see entire Youtube section), and for being unreferenced?" This is a procedural nomination; I abstain. Natalie 15:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - there are several assertions of notability (making it ineligible for speedy A7), but these are not supported by multiple independent sources per WP:ATT, and, as the nominator suggests, the claims may be spurious. Delete unless appropriately sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non notable independent wrestler, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment At the moment it looks like WP:OR ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Assemblies International (2nd nomination)

WP:OR filled attack page, deleted last week and recreated/speedy deleted again since then, each time created by a different single-use account (as were all the keep !votes in the previous AfD). The creator's removed the speedy tag this time so bringing it here. While I'm loath to suggest it about an organisation which patently does exist and does at least have the potential for a legitimate entry, then (assuming this AfD !votes delete) this may need to be salted to stop this recreate-delete cycle from going on forever - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same article from last week and is not an attack page it is just a fact page. There are numerous of links. Study before judge! If you are fair then give the sentences you do not find ok, pls.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.70.189.104 (talk • contribs). — 88.70.189.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Every single reference on this article either leads to a single forum which appears to consist solely of attacks on this church's leadership, or to pages from the church's own website which do not, on reading, back up the claims you make. The article is riddled with WP:WEASEL top to bottom ("It has been said", "Some claim", "It leads one to believe", "Many insiders claim" etc). It also makes potentially libellous allegations of sexual misconduct with no sources other than the aforementioned forum to back them up. Also, as far as I can tell this is identical to the article which was deleted last week other than the insertion of 'references'. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

further comment on actually reading that forum more closely, on the thread about this article the creator specifically admits it violates NPOV. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G4 and salt. So tagged. Hedging a bet here, but close enough in my opinion. --Dennisthe2 20:59, 31 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 fork off. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Human Rights: A Non-Turkish Perspective

Clear POV fork of Human Rights in Turkey - created by user who has six edits, all of them on this article. Should have been AfD or even speedied when it was created, but it was missed. Most of the content is already presented in that article in a NPOV way. If there is any other meaningful content, move them to that article - however there is little duplicate content. Baristarim 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Baristarim 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. If usual information exists, add it to Human Rights in Turkey. deniz^T_C 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. FORK-POV.--Yannismarou 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is POV article and since there is an article already named Human Rights in Turkey than this one should be deleted and if there is any important infromation in this article it should be moved to the other article. ROOB323 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Must.^T ^C 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV Fork --Free smyrnan 05:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rename and improve (reduce POV by providing alternative opinions/data). This article has only a relatively small overlap with Human Rights in Turkey. But it should be renamed as Rights of ethnic minorities in Turkey. Biophys 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- All those articles: Greeks in Turkey, Kurds in Turkey, Arabs in Turkey etc exist. Human rights in Turkey already covers that by nature, how is there little overlap? That is the article that should cover this by nature, so it is a fork.. Baristarim 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Total POV. Khorshid 04:22, 5 April 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 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost DVD releases

Content unsuitable for an encyclopedia Andres rojas22 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep, could you be a bit more specific? It looks fine to me and it seems notable enough. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the quality of the article,its the quality of the subject,i mean that the subject of the article goes beyond what is the fair covering of a tv serie in wikipedia:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox,the article about the serie is acceptable but creating an article about the series edition and comercializing is spaming.This kind of information belongs to Amazon.com or IMDB not Wikipedia--Andres rojas22 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like a soapbox to me. One of the links you mentioned has a specific list listing things that Wikipedia is not. Articles with subjects about DVDs are not on there, and, anyway, people are hardly going to go around deleting every article about a DVD they come across. "Lost", from what I have heard (I don't watch TV), is a popular TV series, and I don't see why the article related to the DVD sets should be deleted. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep due to vagueness of the nominator's argument. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Lost (TV series). Artw 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep I don't see how ths s indiscriminate / soapboxing. Anyways precedent exists for DVD releases to have articles mi km 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It isnt relevant to Wikipedia deal with merchandise and comercializing of a product,because as an encyclopedia and not a database of editions on distribution it is concerned whit the product itself and not its edtions.Like i said before that information is for online data bases like amazon,imdb...--Andres rojas22 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

- Wikipedia is not spamming the DVD releases. What the article does is acknowledge that the DVDs exist and describe them. I don't see how that's any different / more "commercializing" than articles on albums or any other product you can buy. The article doesn't say anywhere that "you should buy this" or "here's where you can buy it". THAT is spam and should be edited or removed. DVD releases for a popular TV show are notable and encyclopediac. mi km 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then they should describe them on their respective season article rather than indepently.Season 1 DVD on the article of Season 1,and so on.A lost DVD isnt anithing by its own merit,its merit comes from the fact that its a DVD of the Lost series,therefore its not important separated from lost,by that logic it should(minimum)be merged--Andres rojas22 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Lost (TV series). It seems to be notable, as Lost itself is notable, but not quite notable enough for its own article. Maybe it could be moved to List of Lost DVD releases and be formated like a list. In that case, Lost (TV series) should link to it. Chaffers ^(talk)/_{(contributions)} 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article cannot be merged with Lost (TV series). As a featured article, it must be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - whilst the content may not be all that notable, we do have precedents, and in my opinion it's better the content remain here, than cluttering up the already long main article on Lost. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - with no merge. This is a reasonable content fork from the main Lost article, which is already long and likely to get longer. Otto4711 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - a page for Lost's DVD releases is fine. Bettyfizzw 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I see no benefit to deletion/merge.. valid article. Matthew 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- Wikipedical 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable, no need to merge, and will only expand. - Denny 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Same arguments as those before me: it's notable and is the same as the countless articles on individual music albums. Darry2385 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To counter that outrageous statement that its the same as a music album i'll say:a music album is art,because the word album does not refer to CD but to a collection of songs put together like a montage in a film.While this articles about DVD series releases doesn't refer to an artistic object wich would make a valid article,but to a products marketing.Besides when have you seen something like that in an encyclopedia--Andres rojas22 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The only one I see making outrageous statements is you ("Content unsuitable for an encyclop[a]edia"). You should see WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One could consider the collection of episodes on the DVDs an artistic collection. The writers of the episodes most likely consider them a form of art. Re: "when have you seen something like that in an encyclopedia", when have you seen a CD in an encyclopedia? Furthermore, the representation of albums here could just as easily be considered marketing. Most album entries contain track listings, genre, artist, release date, label, and other facts that could be considered "trivia". I see the same information on the Lost DVD Releases entry. Darry2385 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But neither it is UrbanDictionary,it doesn't mean anithing can be an article.To quote an user above this is "unnecessary detail"--Andres rojas22 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for "Urban Dictionary", to quote my self.. "valid aticle". Matthew 00:01, 5 April 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 --Bubba hotep 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 in Canada

I am not the nominator. The nomination was not completed before and I have merely finished the nomination process. Sarcha 45 is the original nominator. Luke! 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator. Has almost the exact content of the article 2010, the intro being identical. The remaining information could easily be added to 2010 with no need for this useless article. Like someone below said, wait until 2009. — Sarcha 45 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete for now and wait until the year 2010 actually rolls around. Why are we even discussing this? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- "For a reason, or just because you said so? BigHaz" Mkdw^talk 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  - See WP:CRYSTAL, and per Bearcat's excellent insight as usual. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I believe we already have an article about 2010, why do we need one about this year in a specific country (especially seeing that it isn't even 2010 yet). Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Delete per Bearcat. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Since right now the only things we know about 2010 in Canada are the Vancouver Winter Olympics and some municipal elections, delete without prejudice against recreation in 2010 or late 2009. Bearcat 19:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Every article starts somewhere. If someone makes a contribution to a stub and that stub is deleted. Then the next user with a piece of information will create the same stub and it'll be deleted again. Or... as paraphrased on the mandate of Wikipedia, its a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia of which will ultimately never be complete due to continous addition. Take a look at the Portal:Current events. Each month starts off blank and on the first day an addition is made to it. Do we delete it because it only has one piece of information? Do we delete all stubs? Perhaps these should be questions we ask ourselves before deciding to delete something that will obviously be contributed to in the future. Mkdw ^talk 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep DXRAW 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For a reason, or just because you said so? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NOT. You cannot delete an article with out cause and so far the only argument is that this article is about the future and that its a stub. Firstly, you don't delete stubs that meet Wikipedia:Notability, to which this article does, and you don't delete future articles for the sake that they are about the future. Examples include: 2010, 2010 in India, 2010 in sports, 2010 in rail transport and the full list Special:Allpages/2010. Other such stub articles about the future are 2040s and 4th millennium. I would say this article has a WP:SNOW chance of being deleted on the basis that 'it hasn't come yet'. Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It has its policies. Every article somewhere and its obvious this one will grow. Mkdw^talk 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarity, note that 2010 in India is in fact a redirect to the article on the Commonwealth Games of that year, which is slightly a different kettle of fish than just a straight-out article on that year in that country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  - In honesty, I don't think you could truly call them a different 'kettle of fish'. One is about a future event in a calendrical year, the other is about a future calendrical year in a country. I see a profound similiarity. It would be like calling the Portal:Chemistry and completely different 'kettle of fish' and asking for different criteria for the Portal:Physics. Their topic may be different, but if you say one cannot exist, then all the articles about a future event should be deleted upon your argument. Mkdw^talk 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    - That's a false analogy. My point is that there is in fact no article called "2010 in India". Type it in or follow the link and you'll end up somewhere different to where that article title would otherwise take you. You'll be in a related place, for sure, and it may well be that the only significant event currently programmed for 2010 in India is the Games, but you can't claim that "there's an article called '2010 in India' so we should keep an article called '2010 in Canada'". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      - 2008 in India, 2008 in New Zealand, etc. etc. So far I haven't seen a single point brought up as to why this article fails Wikipedia's policy which is the point of this forum. All the other votes have simply been of a personal opinion which are immediately elminated for the fact that future articles do exist (User:Royalguard11), and that stubs are stubs (User:Bearcat) Mkdw ^talk 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        
        Fair enough, there are more articles which do this particular sort of thing. However, two quick points. Firstly, 2008 is significantly closer than 2010, so such material as can be added is likely (at least in theory) to be more easily sourced than it would be for an article about 2010. Secondly, the fact that there are articles (many of which look in pretty terrible condition to me on first pass) which do this is not a good reason that a specific exemplar thereof should stay. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        
        Its lack of proximity to the present is not grounds for it to be deleted. If it were, then I don't see how that would be an advantagous policy in the spirit of knowledge as it seems shortsighted and articles such as 2025 would not exist. Also, the fact that an article is difficult to contribute to or source should also not be grounds for its deletion. Could you imagine? Many articles are in need of expansion of wikification: Category:All pages needing to be wikified, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, etc. etc. It has useful information, it can be expanded, it will be expanded, and I don't think we should give up on it because we think it doesn't look complete, pretty, or hard to contribute to. Mkdw ^talk 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        
        I'm not saying that it should be deleted because it's difficult to expand or source. What I'm saying is that because it's difficult to expand or source at this particular point in time (the better part of 3 years before Canada experiences 2010), it will run a greater risk of being used as a crystal ball than will an article on a point closer to us in time. The argument is thus that the articles on "2008 in X" are not quite on all fours with this particular article, although they're close. Regarding the lack of wikification etc, with respect I think that's a potential red herring. My point is that the existence of other articles talking about likely events in a given country in the future is not a reason to keep any specific article talking about likely events in a given country in the future. Neither is it a reason to delete it, by any means, but this isn't the clear-cut WP:SNOW case you were originally advocating, I'm sure you'll agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as premature. 23skidoo 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate since articles such as 2010 and even 2040s and 4th millennium. So if its a matter of proximity then you cannot say this article should be deleted and another 2,000+ articles about future events beyond 2010 can be kept. Again I say, this article meets all of Wikipedia's policies and criteria for notability. This process is not about people thinking one way or another with their own personal opinions, but to judge articles for or against the fact that it has either failed Wikipedia policy or not. Mkdw ^talk 06:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, neither 2008 in Canada nor 2009 in Canada exists yet. For another, while there are enough things already known about 2010 in general to justify an article, as of right now all we know about 2010 in Canada is that there'll be an Olympics, a fact which is already covered by the article 2010 Winter Olympics, and a couple of elections. Beyond that, the article otherwise consists of a list of conventions scheduled by non-notable organizations. "National Realtors Association Executive Institute"? "CMS Summer 2010 Meeting"? Why on earth would or should Wikipedia care? It's not that this should never exist; it's just that there's no particularly compelling reason for it to exist now. It'll certainly be valid in the fall of 2008 or early 2009, but there simply isn't sufficient encyclopedic content for it yet. You know you're on shaky ground when you have to list real estate agency conventions just to break ten items, you know? Bearcat 21:41, 3 April 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 April 1 joke. `'mikka 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biscuit throwing

Non-notable "sport," Appropriate for WP:BJAODN, but not an Encyclopedia. Leuko 17:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Hoax - unless the author can rapidly create some refs. -- RHaworth 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, unfortunately I don't think there is a WP:CSD for hoaxes. Leuko 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; rather silly hoax. Take out Jostev Cross-Otley too, while we're at it. WarpstarRider 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, added to to the nomination. Leuko 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoaxes, unless sources can be found. Speedy deleting suspected hoaxes is not possible, because a hoax is much harder to spot than anything else, so, theoretically, we need several pairs of eyes, along with time for the editor to produce sources. J Milburn 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment A Google search turned up the following BBC link [28] which suggests this is a real pseudo-sport and not a hoax... Suriel1981 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete article as it is is junk, if it can be recreated with good sources that's fine. I mean, we have Extreme ironing, right? JuJube 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep for the sport, based on the not-very serious BBC page & an apparent multi year existence;

Strong Delete for the one on the person, which is pure self-indugence.DGG 00:22, 1 April 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 10:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synaptic solutions

Non-notable company, does not meet WP:CORP. Probable WP:COI spam. Leuko 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete - spam. Artw 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - per above TheRingess (talk) 18:02, 31 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 --Bubba hotep 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JModPlayer

Non-notable software, possible WP:COI. Leuko 17:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how my entry is considered non-notable, if possible please suggest reasons as to why you have considered it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nielt6 (talk • contribs).
- It is not notable because it does not WP:CITE any 3rd party WP:RS that give it non-trivial mentions (i.e. reviews of the software in a well-known computing magazine). Leuko 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  - This software was just released recently, therefore it doesn't have any reviews by well known computing magazines. Not to mention that it is an opensourced project. Opensourced projects do not generally recieve magazine articles, nor software reviews. I have also noticed that CocoModX, another opensourced Mod Player, has an entrie (Actually a stub) despite it's lack of reviews. I fail to see the problem with mine. --Neilt6 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    - See WP:NOT. Plus arguing that just because another article exists means this one should is not valid.TheRingess (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      - I still fail to see why it is mandatory for something to be popular before it can be entered in Wikipedia. Opensourced projects generally do not gain public interest very quickly, therefore since my page has been flagged for deletion so quickly based on it's lack of public mention I also fail to see how any other software project has ever recieved mention on Wikipedia. --Neilt6 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable. TheRingess (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete as software is too new for reviews to exist. --206.47.211.83 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which is an invalid comment, since it violates the primary criterion of WP:N. Also, please don't vandalize other's comments. Leuko 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry, but can you provide me with any reviews for any of the other mod players on this site? Actually, no I'll re-praise that, any other open-sourced project on this site? I doubt if half of them have any mentions outside of Wikipedia and their project page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.47.211.83 (talk • contribs).
    - Please see WP:ININ. Leuko 19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    - "Any other open-sourced project"? Gee, how about Linux, Firefox, MySQL, TeX, Java, PHP or Openoffice.org? Here is a lengthy list of reviews for Battle for Wesnoth (an open source strategy game) that includes some fairly notable reviewers like macworld.co.uk, and clearly demonstrates an international audience. Show us some sources like those have, and we'll gladly consider hosting an article about your product. Xtifr _tälk 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above by Nielt6: "just released", "doesn't have any reviews". Clearly not notable yet. —David Eppstein 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, clearly not notable, just released, not attributable/verifiable. Xtifr _tälk 14:36, 1 April 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 as hoaxes. --Core desat 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afraid (Nelly Furtado song)

More hoax single articles created by Viven2 (talk • contribs), who I've just blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Also nominating:

Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro

Comment: Was not aware that it was a fake single. Bl a st 31.03.07 1937 (UTC)

None of the above songs are scheduled for release as singles. Viven2 has a history of creating hoax articles. Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Probably is a fake single, but even if it's not, there's nothing notable enough to justify keeping the article here until someone can produce some concrete evidence.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 10:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:14, 4 April 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 melt. --Core desat 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frosty and the Snowmen

Apparently an autobio/vanity article, recently had a "notability" tag removed and replaced with... a lot of trivia that's very suggestive of little notability at all, beyond being "well known" in the "Saffron Walden area". Delete Alai 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete - yup, vanity page created by band member. No notability, delete. Crap, I hate reading through the first-day AfDs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is no assertion of notability -- they're not even signed. They fall WP:BAND badly. Rockstar915 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Barely asserting notability at all ("well known in the area") to avoid CSD A7. Notability that is asserted is insufficient for WP:MUSIC, even if true. Zero sources provided to verify that even that claimed and insufficient level of notability is true. Mwelch 04:04, 1 April 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 spam. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New railway modellers

Article about non-notable wbsite. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:01, 31 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. --Core desat 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Miss You, In Loving Memory

Non-notable film per WP:NOTE. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete no notability proven, and since the page was created by Tocsin Films, it smells of a vanity-page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing from Google. Is there anything elsewhere? J Milburn 22:49, 31 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. --Core desat 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Munched

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Unsigned, no chart success, only local concerts, no reviews in reliable sources, ... Fram 18:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete - non-notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails every aspect of WP:BAND. Rockstar915 20:29, 31 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 main article and remove Neck hard. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaffney High School

Just another school article full of facts and figures, with no discernible content. Author User:DvDknight, who has been blocked previously for disruption, is spamming about the school. Also nominating Neck hard, a connected article. Expect a sock/meatpuppet flood. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete both Pages. The phrase "Neck Hard" is a perfect example of a thing made up in school one day, and the school page has no notable content. Banjo Fraser 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both. Sancho (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Neck hard as per WP:NOT and WP:NFT. Do not delete Gaffney High School because it is about an school, not a thing made up in school one day. I think most of the Gaffney High School article must be deleted, but this should not be sufficient argument for a whole deletion: in my opinion its Introduction and Mission are right... Some of the Facts may be included as prose / infobox; the result will be a stub that may be expanded later according Wikipedia policies. Rjgodoy 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Neck hard per WP:NFT - I originally tagged this for speedy as no context; the author expanded it, but it's still anecdotal and unsourced. Neutral on Gaffney High School, as I'm not getting involved in the whole schools debate. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Additional Comment - These two articles should not have been nominated together as one vote. They may be related, but the issues are different. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep school; Delete Neck hard neologism. School article is organized rather poorly, but if one actually reads it, the article does make explicit claims of notability and has won multiple state sports championships. Article needs improvement, nor deletion. Alansohn 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep school; Delete Neck hard neologism. I've looked here through the first 60 results of a "Gaffney High School" search at the Spartanburg Herald Journal Web site and found several articles that provided information for the article. Clearly the school is notable between the Spartanburg paper's coverage and the Great Schools Web site. That's multiple, nontrivial, reliable coverage. I've added four paragraphs of information.Noroton 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (self-edit Noroton 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
Query Do multiple articles from the same journal constitute multiple sources? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Clearly the school is notable between the Spartanburg paper's coverage and the Great Schools Web site. 1 + 1 = 2 Noroton 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  - What is the Great Schools Web site? Am I missing something? --Butseriouslyfolks 04:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep school, as it does make a decent attempt at establish notability. Strong delete neck hard. I'd delete it myself but it doesn't fit any criteria.--Wizardman 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep (but rewrite) school, per my suggestions at peer review, Delete Neck hard, which is completely unknown to most people. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the School is notable enough. Needs a big cleanup but that is not for the AfD. TerriersFan 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notability is conveyed within the article and meets verifiability standards. RFerreira 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree with TerriersFan. Hmwith 10:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Article appears to be notable. A cleanup and expansion would be a better option than deletion. Camaron1 | Chris 15:02, 4 April 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. Herostratus 04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk injuns

No sourcing to demonstarte notability or compliance with WP:V so Delete. Bridgeplayer 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

delete - completely non-notable and possibly vanity page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
keep - Satisfies point 4 of WP:MUSIC's secondary criteria, as their records have now been re-released by Alternative Tentacles, which is definitely one of the most notable independent labels. I'm sure if an editor here had a stack of mid-80's punk magazines, he would find they received feature press in their time, but you cannot be sure you can divine their actual notability at the time by looking on the net for articles from relevant (80's) press. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep: As bad as the article is, there seem to be a lot of sources available. We have an article here, a big mention in an article on 'skate rock' here, a small article here, a short review, citing concretedisciples.com here, and many more pages of Google hits to go. Drop me a line if you are not convinced this is enough. J Milburn 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

comment I'd personally accept an Ink Nineteen interview as press coverage, though I don't speak for anyone else; but what was there was simply an article about Alternative Tentacles re-releasing their earlier records. In indie rock terms, a record review (of a re-release) in a minor pub like that would probably be considered "trivial" here - it's terribly easy to get that kind of press. As for WP:MUSIC's secondary criteria, I guess they may count under point 4 (release of several records on a notable independent label), but nowhere else, and it looks like re-releases only, and I guess the secondary criterion only are there to identify bands who may therefore have had non-trivial press coverage. If you can find feature-sized interviews in the major indie press (not zines or websites but people who have to sell ads to survive), that would certainly count for a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Right, before I start saying this, please understand that I hadn't heard of the band before I came across this debate, and I am not into this kinda music, so I really don't read those kind of magazines. In defense of the Ink19 page- it wasn't a reprinted press release; as far as I can see, it was written by Stein Haukland, who appears to work there. Whether it is easy to get or not puts them well ahead of many band articles that we get submitted every hour, (as a new page patroller, I can voich for that) and, as far as I can see, it does meet all the requirements for one of the multiple, independent, reliable, non trivial sources required. It is independent of the band (and not a reprinted press release) it is from a good source, and the whole article is about the band, it isn't just some mention. This article interest me a lot. It gives the impression that they are VERY important in the skate rock/skate punk scenes, and, they are linked to from the skate punk article, but as Drunk Injuns, which is the correct title, not Drunk injuns. (This leads me on to another point- this needs to be capitalised, I'll do that when I have finished writing this.) I admit that the In Music We Trust article is COMPLETELY useless, it doesn't even mention Drunk Injuns, except in the title. The final article looks reliable to me, but it confuses me the way that it cites another website. In any case, I have now realised that this band is an older one, perhaps even not in operation any more, making sources hard to come by, and making Internet sources even more valuable proof of notability. Well, that's what I reckon, anyway. I'm standing by my keep vote. J Milburn 09:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

comment - as you say, a review in Ink19 puts this article ahead of most. (However, trust me, it's easy to get a record review in the second tier - I've had a couple, and my music won't satisfy WP:N.) Sure, you could argue they may have gotten a feature 20 years ago in Maximum R&R and we won't find it on the internet. I'm essentially on the fence with this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:13, 1 April 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 closed; no reason for deletion offered, as this is essentially a request for clean-up. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellowship of Friends

This is not so much for deletion, but for discussion. This article is rather bad, completly an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and has seems to be just self-promotion. I don't completely think is is deleteable, but needs a major reworking. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 31 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. --Core desat 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ezekiel Johnson

PROD removed by author. No sources given, does not meet WP:BIO, Google gives nothing to verify (tried with "Ezekiel Johnson" Ghana / "Ezekiel Adokwei Johnson"). Possible vanity. feydey 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete I've removed the copyrighted material from the article, but anyone who confused that with Shakespeare, Wordsworth or Yeats hasn't read any of their poetry. The only claimed sources for this person are three (broken) links to poetry.com, which allows anyone to submit poems. Having a poetry.com submission confers no value judgment on the submitter, so this is most definitely not a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms. As the nominator notes, there is nothing to sugest this is anything more than someone blowing their own trumpet. Unless multiple reliable sources can be found this should be quickly deleted. Gwernol 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not on the grounds of the poetry being bad, but of it being unnoticed and therefore NN.DGG 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as is fails WP:A Alf^Photoman 14:47, 1 April 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 per several editors' intentions to thoroughly clean up. The longer the closure takes, the longer it will take to get on with it. If the article still does not come up to standards after the clean-up, it can, of course, be brought back to AfD. It should also go without saying that any conflict of interest editing or disruption will be fully monitored and acted upon accordingly during this and any future process. Bubba hotep 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scuderi Split Cycle Engine

This article has turned into nothing but a promotional piece for the Scuderi group. Its is written from the perspective of the company and likely by members of the company. Its only source that is not the company's web site turns out to be a reprint of the company's own literature so is hardly reliable. The Scuderi engine exists only in theory, as a working prototype has never been produced. Acces to the computer simulations the company claims shows their engine is a major breakthrough are apparently only available if you sign an NDA first. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor is it an appropriate place to promote a speculative technology. Until independent and reliable sources have had the chance to review a working engine and report their findings, I don't believe we should be hosting this article Gwernol 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tricky one, and I'm glad you are watching this article. It undoubtedly is a technology that is being worked on very seriously, and for all I can tell may well be viable. (he said politely, I doubt it actually). As such, there is no doubt in my mind that it deserves an article. BUT. The behaviour of the current active editor is extremely poor, in a Wiki context. Obviously actions like deleting the AfD and No Sources boxes are completely unnacceptable, and many of their other edits have needed reverting. So, perhaps we have an editor problem more than an article problem? Deleting the article to punish a rogue editor seems spiteful more than helpful. Greglocock 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this one is tricky. I started working on this article in June 2006, so I have some history with it. Unfortunately it is increasingly becoming clear that the claims made in the article are currently unproved. It might be possible to reduce this to a stub, containing the bare minimum of verifiable information and removing all future predictions of performance, but I fear it would soon be overrun again by the Scuderi company. If the community would prefer that approach I'm happy to jump in and do the trimming work. The question is, would there even be enough left to have a viable article? Gwernol 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked up a quick draft of a minimalist version of the article. This would need proper sourcing, but I believe we could do that from the Wired article. Everything else would be removed. Is this worth having? Gwernol 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, but I think I stand by what I said below. That article does not actually assert the notability of the subject. J Milburn 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is no assertion of notability, and the article is in breach of WP:V, quote- "Salvatore Scuderi is president of Scuderi Group, LLC and has released all information above either at various investor meetings and/or on company websites. Some material such as Steam Engine Turbine capability does not have attributions online because the technology has not yet been published on their website because of how recently it was patented." J Milburn 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(comment moved from top of page): I would like for you to explain to me what exactly you are proving by having this removed from the system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sg300c (talk • contribs).
- What we are doing is trying to keep this an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is the summarization of work that has been published and reviewed in reliable sources. If you read the list of things that Wikipedia excludes you'll see that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". At present almost all the material in the article is speculation that cannot be verified from independent sources because there is no working prototype that has been independently studied. All the claims in the article are speculation and worse, most of them are speculation by the Scuderi group itself, hardly an unbiased source. Gwernol 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete "While no working prototype of the engine exists" -- if it ever does, and if anyone outside the group actually writes about it, then it will be time for an article. DGG 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand the position you are stating but please try to understand that because this is so new and there is no prototype completed YET! I cannot prove to you it's legitimacy. I was simply just trying to spread the word about the new technology becuase it has such great potential to revolutionize the engine market. I am not part of the company either I am engine buff that reviewed the technology and invested in it because I see a homerun on this technology. Having said that if you still feel it needs to be removed then so be it, but just remember what the Scuderi Engine is. Even though this is here say everything in document is correct and it will only be time before it can be proven to you aswell. Have a good day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sg300c (talk • contribs).

Delete or Rewrite It does read like an ad, but the split-cycle engine concept does exist. The removal of 99% of the mention of the Scuderi Group would make this ad closer to being an article. A few independant links to split-cycle engine concept pages and news articles would make this article complete.--Lostcause365 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It may seem like an ad but that is not the purpose. The true reason why Scuderi Group is mentioned so much about this specific design is because out of all split cycle designs in the past this design has many different features that that cannot be compared to older split cycle designs. Their name is used a lot simply to show credit where credit is due. No other person has done what the Scuderi's have done and I think they should be given credit for that. News articles about this specific technology can be added if neccessary.--sg300c 03:41, 1 April 2007

Weak keep. Full disclosure: I did the diagram a while back, when I was hitting random article and looking for something interesting. Does it have more than non-trivial press coverage? Yes. Should the article be re-written, to make clear who's making the claims ? Yes. The article should probably have inline citations <ref> tags for all of the claims. I think it's a case of improve, rather than delete - however. I'll try to make some appropriate changes now. Megapixie 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

keep. I respect you Megapixie for your insight on this. Yes I agree myself that it is not fully referenced correctly but at this time it is a bit difficult to do so since it is such new technology. As time goes on it will get better and better especially with a prototype on the way. For the time being I have referenced all the claims as by Salvatore Scuderi to a video that explains the technology in a creditable way. I also agree Megapixie that for the time being your revision to the listing was well done. As the technology becomes more established it can be transistioned back into a more verified state.--sg300c 21:37, 1 April 2007

Do you realise that your persistent editing/vandalism is /increasing/ the probability that this article will be deleted? Please read up on wiki policies before editing again. Greglocock 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. WP:ATT is lacking; WP:N questionable. Morenooso 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment "As the technology becomes more established it can be transistioned back into a more verified state." So by this statement you are saying that the article cannot be rewritten from a neutral viewpoint with multiple sources not connected to the Scuderi group? ...almost like you're endorsing the AfD... just food for thought--Lostcause365 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response No that is not what I was saying. I was simply stating that as the technology becomes more established it will become more verified with information that can be referenced. I never stated who would be verifing it. I can tell you though at that point the Scuderi Group won't even have to be writing about it anymore.sg300c 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you though at that point the Scuderi Group won't even have to be writing about it anymore. So now you verify a conflict of interest? --Lostcause365 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response No it is not a conflict of interest. It is like anything else that is new, it's a process that needs to take place. You have a small company making such big claims about something they've invited of course there will be skeptics. The thing is most of the general public doesn't even know about this technology or understand how it works. So I was saying once again that as the technology progresses and becomes more known it will then get more creditable to the everyday person.sg300c 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It most definitely is a conflict of interest. Please read our guideline on conflicts of interest, note it says "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". The Scuderi Group should not be editing this article and particularly they should not be adding unverifiable claims to it. This is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Gwernol 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response Ok I'm confused when you say, "The Scuderi Group should not be editing this article...". No one person from the Scuderi Group has ever created or edited any part of this article. I am not part of the Scuderi Group and all my claims have come from media sources or their website. I'm also a little confused as well because your saying the information isn't verified but it is. All the information in this article are claims by the Scuderi Group themselves and is verified by themselves. No other sources can deny that so I don't understand why the article can't just be verified by the ones who created it and have that be the end of it.sg300c 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First please read the conflict of interest guidelines. They say "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you". You've admitted you have a financial interest in the Scuderi Group. That's a classic conflict of interest. On the subject of sources, material provided by the Scuderi Group does not count as a reliable source. Please read our guidelines on reliable sources. The subject of an article is not itself a reliable source. You have not verified the information because the only source are the claims of the Scuderi Group. Until there is independent sources that confirm these claims, they cannot be reported in Wikipedia. Again an encyclopedia is a summarization of the opinions and facts collected by independent authors about a subject. If an article could be "verified by the ones who created it" we would have to publish everything, with absolutely no quality control and no way for readers to find out if what was included was true. There are hundreds of free web hosts where you can add this kind of information. Wikipedia is not one of them. Gwernol 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response Ok fair enough. It's not a big deal whether it stays on or not I just thought it was cool to post it on wikipedia. I guess it's just not ready for an encyclopedia yet and I understand that. I don't want to edit it anymore because it would ruin the information I wanted to address so if it doesn't meet your standards do what you would like.sg300c 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems silly to delete the article because the prototype has not been completed. A respected think tank with expertise in engine technology (Southwest) has weighed in as has the industry press. The article needs to make clear a working prototype has not been completed but deletion is not the answer. If Wikipedia existed during the Apollo mission, would it have been inappropriate to have an article on it prior to landing on the moon because up until then, it was theoretical. No, the effort itself was newsworthy even though landing a man on the moon was at that point theoretical.--CSvBibra 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find third party verification of claims then those should go into the article as references. Promotional videos from a company that is raising money from investors are NOT reliable sources for technical claims. So, where is the industry press on this? I don't mean autoblog, I mean the automotive industry press - I've looked, and guess which industry I work in. Greglocock 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Greglocock Response to me: I always thought of Automotive Engineer Magazine, Motor Trend, and Wards Auto as part of the automotive press which are referenced in the article. --CSvBibra 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, Wards and AE should be in the library, but I didn't get a hit on "Scuderi", apart from one SAE paper that he co-authored (nothing to do with this engine). Well, if there are third party references in those two mags that is good. Greglocock 05:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to CSvBibra I agree with you 100%. I am in favor of the Scuderi Group and hope their technology takes off successfully but the other's on this site are very closed minded and want 100% clear cut data proving it before it's listed and are fighting to get it removed. I don't really care anymore since it's not important to have it on here for the success of the technology anyways. I was just trying to provide some more indepth information about what I know. They don't like that on wikipedia so I chose to stop arguing the fact of whether to keep it on or not anymore. I've planned to just go somewhere else where people want to hear about new technologies.sg300c 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Reasons: 1. It is clearly a future product. 2. The fact that there is no prototype is especially significant in light of the fact that it is claimed to be "easily manufactured using existing processes." If it would be so easy to manufacture in series production, it seems fairly strange that they have yet to manufacture one. 3. NPOV is impossible when the source of ALL the information on this engine is from Scuderi Group, and one must sign a non-disclosure document to even view the full range of this information. If one has enough information to criticize the model, one can't discuss it, so we're limited to all the news Scuderi's PR people deem fit to print. That's simply not what this venue is for; the Scuderi booster/investor crowd is confusing Wikipedia with PR Newswire. Until they finish their prototype and/or supply enough data to allow honest debate about the engine, it should go.Meersman 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Response Here is a magazine that recently posted information about split-cycle engines for April. The magazine is called Techbeat. http://www.scuderigroup.com/news_and_events/pdf/tlt_techbeat_4_07.pdf sg300c 14:35 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry to continue to attack your points, but they always seem to have flaws. The "independant source" you quote is on the Scuderi Group website. It would need to be linked from a non-scuderi website.--Lostcause365 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, the file is hosted at scuderi, but the original article is from an independnet source. I think that's OK Greglocock 01:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response Yes Greglocock is correct. It is only hosted on Scuderi's website because it is a scan of the magazine article, but yes it is an independent source. I also have an article from popular mechanics with their technology listed. I will try to get it on soon if I can. I'm taking all your advice by getting more independent sources listed because the sources are there. Sg300c 18:52 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the article may be said to come from Techbeat, it still does not meet the independant source argument because it is hosted on the Scuderi website. Anything posted on a company website can and usually will be biased towards that company. Just like you wouldn't trust a tobacco company to represent their products in a fair, unbiased and equitable manner, the Scuderi group website cannot be counted upon as a source of unbiased coverage. Who is to say that the article wasn't modified? Not that I believe is was, but the fact of the matter is that any website, company mailer, internal document, or other media with a direct connection to the Scuderi Group cannot be considered an independant source. I am still sorry that this response (and many of my others) sound like personal attacks towards sg300c. I apologize. It is just that all of your arguments are ripe for rebuttal. I still think the article is deletion-worthy, however your repeated efforts to improve the article may yet save it. It is still in need of major revisions and independant sourcing.--Lostcause365 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Response The name of the magazine is “Tribology & Lubrication Technology Magazine “ (Techbeat is the section) which is published by Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. The magazine appears to be available online to members of the society only so it appears impossible to link the article directly.--CSvBibra 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response I've read every article that's been linked to in relation to this article in talk or in this deletion discussion, including this "Techbeat" piece. Each has done one of two things, either: 1. Uncritically put out the Scuderi Group talking points, citing the easily solved "problems" with the concept while ignoring the more significant and obvious ones, or 2. Put out the Scuderi points and had a critic talk about how hard it will be to commercialize the engine because of how the industry is structured, which has nothing to do with the concept itself. The weight of Scuderi's tearsheet file isn't relevant to the existence of independent analysis of the concept; the ability of their PR flacks to get stuff placed doesn't mean an independent source has ever looked at it critically. (Again, the root of this problem is Scuderi's non-disclosure agreement. If you have the data to criticize, you can't do it publicly. Why such secrecy if the concept is so well patent-protected?) Meersman 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment So essentially this debate boils down to "There are independant sources for this article but you can't see them." If this is true, the article must be deleted as unencyclopedic. Any source cited should be freely available for review and verification. Thank you for the clarification CSvBibra. --Lostcause365 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am astonished to hear that the webhost is a consideration when considering whether an article can be considered as a source. Can you point to a policy that states that the website hosting a reproduction of an article in an independent magazine is important? FWIW at considerable expense I could order up that copy of AE and check that it does contain the article, but that is not the problem is it? Greglocock 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know for the longest time I thought your handle was Greg O'Clock? All I was saying was that it does not speak well for the independence of a source when it is hosted by the very comnpany we are trying to limit the influence of in the article. I apologise for making such a sweeping statement.--Lostcause365 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete the article After much thought I came to the conclusion that we should just remove the article to resolve all this conflict involving citing sources, ect. I would rather not have it on wikipedia anyhow since this site itself really isn't taken as a verifiable media to most people. Everyone who agrees to this response just respond below.Sg300c 15:30 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of deleting but if it is, I would like as a plan of action to agree to reinstate as soon as a working protype is complete.--CSvBibra 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair plan I think to satisfy everyone it will be removed from wikipedia now, and reinstated when the working prototype is completed.Sg300c 17:17 5 April 2007

Agree Good plan. I look forward to viewing the revised article.--Lostcause365 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Electronic Conspiracy

Not encyclopedic. Morza 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as pure original research. The article claims that "a secret group has attempted to reach, for centuries, worldwide dominion by means of controlling the computerised information of the planet." Given the computer was invented about 70 years ago, I think we can call this one a hoax even by the abysmally low standards usually found in conspiracy theories. Gwernol 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obviously. --Folantin 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. Google throwing up absolutely nothing. J Milburn 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The author tries to validate with this article an article on es-wikipedia with the argument that "it exists on english wikipedia". Primary source and pure fabulation. Hispa 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:HOAX or at the very least WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. Suriel1981 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks and about as notable/relevant as my left sock. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. El filóloco (The Mad Philologist) - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TRANSLATION: Pardon me for my limited English. Where you say, quote, "The author tries to validate with this article an article on es-wikipedia with the argument that 'it exists on english wikipedia'". Primary source and pure fabulation." is false: I do not try to validate this article by claiming that it is OK because it has been translated into English, because it is evident that the translation occurred much later (in addition, I did not do the translation, as my English is poor). I have not invented the theory, as it already exists in the books detailed within the bibliography ("references") section at the bottom (the same cannot be said of the other enumerated conspiracy theories on this Wikipedia). Translation by Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, unanimity scares me!--tequendamia 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I requested that the article's originating editor attempt to provide online references which may make verification easier. If the books are indeed valid sources, then despite the logical flaws of the theory: WP:NOT#OR is irrelevant, WP:BOLLOCKS is not policy, and its fit into WP:HOAX can be disputed as the line between hoax and real conspiracy theory is iffy at best, especially considering some other conspiracy articles on Wikipedia. I concur, however, that Google does not appear to yield anything in either English or Spanish. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, And why these other conspiracies are not hoaxes and are not articles for deletion?: [29] (...Perhaps because there is something of truth in it? ) El filóloco (The Mad Philologist) - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 07:26, 4 April 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 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lorentzian Relativity

Non notable fringe theory, see also Tom van Flandern. The (valid) history of science aspect is covered elsewhere and this article doesn't add anything to it. --Pjacobi 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Add Lorentzian relativity to the list. It's apparently intended to be a redirect page to the one listed above. --Christopher Thomas 21:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I made Lorentzian relativity into a proper redirect page. Anville 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional affected page: LR disambiguation page, which includes a link to Lorentzian relativity. The link may have to be updated or removed, depending on the result of the AfD. --Christopher Thomas 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Non notable perhaps in Pjacobi's mind, but not to this user, nor in in the mind of many others. Deletion of this entry will not add to the body of knowledge, but merely to the power of the "tyranny of the mob" of the self-appointed intelligentsia. If the theory is found lacking, truth will out. Until then, it is a competing theory to Einstein's.

It is also interesting to note that Pjacobi's objection to this article was posted *within minutes* of it's entry. --Dnarby 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for applauding the Wikipedia quality control efforts. --Pjacobi 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure how using a snarky, sarcastic tone is going to help make your case. It seems instead that perhaps a civil tone would be more constructive. --Dnarby 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge to Tom Van Flandern. A quick search gives about ~~500~~ 123 hits for LR, vs. tens of thousands for Van Flandern himself. --Christopher Thomas 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge to Tom Van Flandern I agree with Christopher Thomas. I'm not sure how LR can be called a theory. If, as stated in the article, it has the same mathematical form as STR, it follows that LR is nothing more than a 'rotation' of perspective. After all, the choice of clock synchronization procedure is a degree of freedom. Choosing Einstein syncronization leaves the form of Maxwell's equations unaltered which makes that choice compelling. Alfred Centauri 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:SCIENCE and its valid material is already better covered in aether theories. --EMS | Talk 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SCIENCE and WP:FRINGE. The subject may merit a sentence or two at Tom Van Flandern. Anville 19:16, 1 April 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 10:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VIRB°

Non-notable website, does not pass WP:WEB. "Awards" and mentions all from non-notable blogs. Leuko 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable per WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Original author removed the content of the page, so I tagged with appropriate db. Rockstar915 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed {{db-empty}} since it was blanked by a possibly unrelated IP. --Wafulz 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Although I think the site may eventually end up passing WP:WEB, at this point it doesn't. Without mainstream media attention, it doesn't pass notability guidelines. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 20:45, 2 April 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 04:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax protester conspiracy arguments

A mishmash of bizarre conspiracy theories with no reliable independent sources to confirm that these out-there theories are at all notable. (Example claims include that the USA secretly never achieved independence from England, and that all court cases in the USA are invalid because the defendant's name is in all capital letters.) No evidence is given to assert that these theories are at all notable or widespread. Krimpet (talk/review) 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep; most such theories are sourced and the ones that aren't can be removed. These arguments come up regularly and tax experts constantly have to warn their clients that they won't work. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep; This is one of several related tax protester articles and admittedly has received the least amount of attention when compared with all the other articles in the group. I believe this article has potential. The sourcing for the various theories needs to be beefed up. As ridiculous as the theories are (for example, the argument about the defendant's name in all capital letters), these theories actually are raised in real court cases (I've studied the cases). The fact that the theories have no legal merit or factual merit and are uniformly rejected by the U.S. courts does not mean that the phenomenon is not worth an article, at least in my opinion. Yours, Famspear 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep A summary article of this sort is highly appropriate. Yes, the quality of the article is variable, and some parts are better sourced than others, just as some of the WP articles summarized here are more complete or more accurate. But there are no lack of possible sources: everything discussed has been actively brought to public notice, and most of it to legal notice, and the new accounts and legal proceeding are available. I would urge a Speedy Keep.DGG 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep DXRAW 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep The fact that some theories aren't sourced is an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. The nominator's comments are curious—the capital letters theory is sourced, and the fact that this theory was mentioned and dismissed in a published opinion would seem to be evidence of its notability. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The only sources are a couple of anti-tax websites and court opinions. The anti-tax websites are not reliable sources, and while the court opinions may be reliable (it's hard to confirm considering they don't link to anything) they alone do not establish notability; plenty of people make outrageous claims in court on a daily basis, and there's nothing that asserts that these particular claims are noteworthy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I would gladly withdraw my nomination if reliable sources can be found asserting their notability, but as-is there's no evidence provided that this is more than a couple guys who made weird claims in court and documented them on their websites. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  - The article is not attempting to prove that the tax protesters' claims are correct; it is documenting that those claims have been made in court and have been rejected by the courts. Are you saying that that it is extraordinary to claim that those arguments have been made?
  - My previous paragraph notwithstanding, here is a reliable source I believe establishes the notability of the capital letters claim: IRS Revenue Ruling 2005-21, regarding "Frivolous tax returns; use of “straw man” to avoid tax." This argument is also referenced in IRS Notice 2007-30, which describes a number of theories ruled frivolous. These include some of the theories mentioned in our article, including the Admiralty Courts claim (item #33 in the IRS Notice), and the Federal-Reserve-notes-are-not-money claim (item #11 in the IRS Notice).
  - I definitely agree that the article needs improvement. Probably it would help to add those IRS notices as references to the article. — Mateo SA (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Keep Per above - Morphh ^(talk) 12:41, 01 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that anti-tax (tax protester) web sites are, by definition, not reliable sources for statements about what the law is. These sites are, however, reliable sources for showing that tax protester do raise these arguments. Regarding the separate issue of notability and the assertion that there is "no evidence provided that this is more than a couple guys who made weird claims in court and documented them on their websites" -- well, we agree that more sourcing needs to be added to the article. If only it were only a "couple of guys" who were making these kinds of legally frivolous claims, both on tax returns and in court proceedings. As I recall, only about 7% of all reported Federal taxation decisions in a recent year involved dealings with tax protester arguments. However, seven percent is still (in my view) a sizeable chunk of legal system time wasted on tax protester nonsense. This has been such a problem that in the early 1980s the Congress even enacted 26 U.S.C. § 6702 to deal with the problem of people raising these claims on tax returns. Also 26 U.S.C. § 6673 was enacted for the problem of people raising these claims in the United States Tax Court (imposing a penalty of up to $25,000) -- and the district and appellate courts regularly impose penalties for raising the arguments as well. Indeed, just a few months ago (in 2006) the Congress changed the law to increase the section 6702 penalty from $500 to $5,000 (note: the text of section 6702 at the Cornell Law School web site linked above has not yet been updated for the increase to $5,000). In enacting these Internal Revenue Code provisions, the Congress arguably is treating this as a "notable" problem. I think that's good enough for Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 1 April 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 10:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ctx

Non-notable band. They've only released one EP, and the original author has been adding linkspam everywhere -- needless to say, the page smells like a vanity page. Oh, also: their record label does not appear to exist (re: Google search), I can't find any secondary sources... anyway, all of this points to not fulfilling WP:BAND. Rockstar915 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources can be found, and may be speediable in its curent state. Article currently contains some real rubbish- I am not going to bother sorting it out, but it certainly isn't helping its case to be kept. J Milburn 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A7 (or G11) Speedy Delete Page is a blatant advert and also makes no claim to the band's notability - "currently working on first album" is not adequate notability for WP:Music. A1octopus 23:52, 3 April 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You and I (band)

Lacks notability, nothing shows up of any real note for either the band or its members. Piuro 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: I hate to see a notable band's article getting deleted, and I think these guys are JUST notable. We have a review here, a longer review here, a nice review here and all sorts of mentions in general verifiable locations (bands comparing themselves/being compared to them) and the typical billions of emo kids ranting about them. This was from the first four or five pages of a search for "You and I" Screamo. J Milburn 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, I'm a little dubious whether the sources provided by J Milburn count as reliable sources, but it's a start, and furthermore, the band has released six albums, two on Level Plane Records, which would appear to meet the definition of an "important indie label" in WP:MUSIC, and that would definitely be enough for the band to meet WP:MUSIC (albeit barely). Xtifr _tälk 14:51, 1 April 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. --bainer (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Bauer

Closer's notes

I should point out at the start the maxim that AfD is not a vote, but a debate. Whilst the weight of numbers will often be an essential part of a determination of consensus, particularly where questions of personal judgment are involved, mere weight of numbers will not overbear weight of arguments grounded in policy.

In determining the final consensus, the arguments of all unregistered users were disregarded.

The main arguments in favour of keeping the article were:

that the article was adequately sourced,
that the subject was notable, and previous AfD debates had recognised this (some explicitly noted improvement in the article since the previous debates),
that the subject's lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation either made her notable, or was the cause of an invalid nomination for deletion.

The main arguments in favour of deleting the article were:

that Wikipedia demands a stricter standard of sourcing and neutrality of writing with respect to biographies of living persons than it does generally,
that the subject was of marginal notability, having attracted no major media attention, and the article was of no importance within the encyclopaedia, being essentially an orphaned page,
that the sources used were either broadly unreliable sources such as blogs, message boards or rumour-based websites, or primary sources,
that the article did not present a neutral point of view, in that it wasn't a "balanced biography" and was essentially "a recollection of a negative event".

There was significant debate over whether Writer Beware constituted a reliable source or not. This was regarded by participants on both sides of the debate as a crucial source. Arguments included that the SFWA organisation behind the Writer Beware project had an existence as a reliable source beyond the Writer Beware blog, and that the blog was a "pet project" of a small group within the SFWA used to advance an agenda, and that Wikipedia risked becoming a soapbox for that agenda.

In determining the final consensus, arguments in relation to the lawsuit were given no weight. Arguments in relation to notability were given some weight, but given the strength of the positions on each side with respect to this point, these arguments had little substantive effect on the outcome. The most weight was given to arguments about the quality of sourcing of the article, and arguments based on other key content policies (WP:NPOV and WP:BLP).

Distributing weight accordingly, the outcome was in favour of deleting the article. The concerns about the quality of sourcing, and issues of NPOV and BLP, were not answered in the debate, and outweighed any weight of numbers in favour of keeping the article.

--bainer (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Page was delete as an attack page in June 2006, overturned for AFD at the first deletion review. That AFD discussion came to a clear keep discussion. Shortly after she filed a lawsuit against several parties including the Wikimedia foundation (and the article was updated to reflect this), it was deleted again as "per WP:BLP article is a bloody disgrace. Full of 'allegations" of who said what on message boards . No mainstream media interest." Another deletion review was started and aborted to wait to see if the foundation/WP:OFFICE would take official action. When it was stated that they would not, at least for now, a third deletion review was started, and came to a clear overturn decision. There was enough concern about notability raised that the article is coming here for its second deletion review. There is quite a bit of discussion about reliability of sources in both of the two most deletion reviews. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strong Delete utterly not notable - no mainstream media interest. She got a bad write-up from a writer's guild? So bloody what? And look at the text "There have been a number of complaints on internet message boards ... Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats ... especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats. She is also alleged to have caused". 'Alleged', 'alleged', 'claimed' 'usually' 'reported' - it boils down to who said what on message boards. All on-line tittle-tattle, there is a great lack of real facts here, and nothing approaching verifiable notability. This is just not what wikipedia is.--Doc^g 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have now cleaned up the language, which was using unnecessary weasle words. The article now directly reports the allegations, including who (among others) made them. JulesH 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. SFWA is a reliable source; Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a reliable source. The statements in this article are properly sourced, and deleting it in response to a frivolous lawsuit would set a bad precedent. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The statements are all about allegations not facts, and the 'reliable sources' point to nothing notable. Keeping this in response to a frivolous lawsuit would set a bad precedent.--Doc^g 00:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Not worth the trouble either. --Tbeatty 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No real value is added to Wikipedia by having this; not notable and not worth the trouble. --Benn Newman 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete There is no RS for the matter at issue. The SFFWA site does not show anything except the inclusion of her on a list. Similarly for the NJ courts--the complaint would be a RS, but the site shows only the name on a list. This is not suitable under BLP. I think she is N, and I think the threat is N, and I think a well-thought of blog can be a RS for some things--but not for BLP. And there's no reason to think her N otherwise. There are still a few days for a source to appear. DGG 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The SFWA site makes general statements about all the names on the list, including Bauer. Those statements are quoted in the article, and are the basic source material. The Writer Beware blog is also a reliable source, being another publication of the same organisation, and supports the assertion that Bauer regularly makes legal threats and that her actions were involved in the (albeit temporary) closure of Absolute Write. These two sources are reliable and are adequate between them to support almost all of the information in the article. JulesH 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Suing WP alone makes her notable these days ... and as long as people don't do it to make themselfes notable enough for an article here, that is enough for a keep vote for me. Also, see the previous discussion. -- John Smythe 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Suing WP only makes her notable, if it indeed gets her noted. Where is the media interest? Where are the secondary sources? Being notable to the Wikipedia community internally doesn't count. Anyway why would suing WP make her any more notable than suing any other comparable organisation?--Doc^g 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible (though I don't think it's happened yet) that the suit will indeed make her notable through coverage in the media; not necessarily due to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia angle alone, but because of all the other defendants; if any of them put up a big fight it could throw off lots of sparks. The writer community will probably be interested in the outcome of the case against SFWA, for instance. *Dan T.* 02:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And at that hypothetical future point, she might be worth an article.--Doc^g 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. She was notable at the last nomination and is notable now. Lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Ann Crispin and other notable people and organisations can only make her more notable. JulesH 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Some reliable sources and notable lawsuit. --J2thawiki 11:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
delete Close the computer and read real newspapers. Being distantly affiliated with Wikipedia does not make you notable. Samulili 13:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Once papers are served news of this suit will most likely hit the mainstream media. The SWFA is a reliable source, and so is public record of a lawsuit. St jb

WP:NOT for things that will 'most likely' be notable later. We wait till they are. We don't break stories.--Doc^g 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. I can't really venture a definitive ~~vote~~ opinion one way or the other. A previous AfD found her (barely) notable enough, though it's fairly marginal. The lawsuit may increase her notability, but this hasn't yet actually occurred. There's a decent chance that the article will some day need to be resurrected if deleted, but we're not a crystal ball. However, she does have some degree of notability / notoriety, so keeping the article isn't a completely bizarre choice now either. Any deletion now should be without prejudice, given that circumstances may (even quite soon now) necessitate overturning such a decision. *Dan T.* 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Utterly unnotable. There is no indication of notability present in the article. Blog mentions are not basis for notability, and according to WP:BLP are not reliable sources and should be removed from the article altogether. A lawsuit that has no coverage by any secondary sources is not even remotely sufficient to make her notable, or we'd have to include every single person on the planet who has ever filed a lawsuit. The fact that it was made against the Wikimedia Foundation is meaningless. There are people who have sued far more important organizations and companies than the WMF who don't have articles. The top twenty listing does not in and of itself make her notable; in fact I haven't been able to find articles for any of the other 19 companies listed. If policy is followed and the information cited to the blogs is removed, than the only information remaining would be the mention in the top twenty listing and an nonnotable lawsuit. That doesn't even come close to warranting an article at all. If she becomes notable in the future than that is a different story, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor should it be.--Dycedarg ж 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, her lawsuits seem to make her notable even if only mildly so. Gateman1997 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable, article has reliable, verifiable, persistent sources. Edivorce 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep per JulesH (though I predict the lawsuit itself will wind up pretty much being a non-story). --Calton | Talk 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - nothing has happened since the last nomination to make her less notable. Js farrar 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Question: Can someone please list what published works, other than self-published blogs, have this person (or her agency) as their primary subject? Kla'quot 05:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The SFWA is not a "self-published blog". --Calton | Talk 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but the SFWA's article doesn't have Bauer as its primary subject. The article is a list of 20 agencies, each of which has some unspecified subset of a set of problems. With so little information in reliable sources, this is a perma-stub. I vote to delete until more sources are found or unless a suitable merge target is found. Kla'quot 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The page was created for the purpose of repeating the unverifiable claims made by by one website. In addition to being based on claims from one unverifiable website rather than "a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources" the article has been in clear violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for many months because of reliance on blogs and other rumor-laden websites; "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used". Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of repeating and amplifying unverifiable negative information from other websites. --JWSchmidt 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The lawsuit makes her notable. When she's not notable then delete. Davidwr 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lawsuit is totally non notable event. Bauer is even more non notable if thats possible. Nuke this and lets all move on to bigger and better things. Thanks, --Tom 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete The lawsuit is a direct result of Jules H. writing this article in the first place. It's defamatory on its face. He used Wikipedia for his personal crusade against non noteable literary agents who haven't legally defrauded anyone to date. That may be a small point to a partisan, not not in the law. This is all about blogland, Internet writing forums and cliques of users who want to score points with blogging editors at publishing houses under the guise of ridding the world of scammers who charge fees and perform badly in the business. This just isn't a crime or a notable person in the way Amanda Urban is a notable literary agent. My protests have been steadfast on this issue alone from the beginning. I was blogswarmed by this same blogging group. Jules H. has left me a warning of being blocked for reverting the page to the warning tag. That'a exhibit A of just how far he is willing to go.

"Can someone please list what published works, other than self-published blogs, have this person (or her agency) as their primary subject?"

None Marky48 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The SFWA is not a "self-published blog", no matter how you spin it.
The lawsuit is a direct result of Jules H. writing this article in the first place Uh huh. Your evidence for this is what, exactly? Unless you're Bauer herself, how is it that you know this? --Calton | Talk 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I predicted it from the start. Look at the history of the article. Same players saying the same things, yet it's in court isn't it? Yes it is. Marky48 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
- Mark, I know you don't like me, but could you please try to keep your comments civil? You know nothing of my motivations, and to suggest that this was done to "score points with blogging editors" is borderline on being a personal attack. The warning I left on your talk page is standard procedure when a user blanks the content of a page without consensus for that to be done. In this case it was aggravated by the fact that there was a notice at the top of the page specifically instructing editors not to blank the page while this discussion is taking place. Added to the fact that this is not the first time you have removed content without an apparently clear consensus, and I think the sternly-worded warning was appropriate. JulesH 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Is that so? No it isn't. The editor protected the article because of the lawsuit. You got wind of it and Calton reverted to showing thre article. I reverted to the authoritative version. Only a fool would advocate this in the face of a lawsuit. You're liability to Wikipedia. Strong language? You haven't seen anything yet. Stay away from me.Marky48 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

- Just for everybody's information, it should be noted that Marky48 vandalized the article under discussion, and was rude and threatening when warned about this behavior. *Dan T.* 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Source for "worst agents" is a writers' organization, not a "blog". --Sar e kOfVulcan 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The SFWA has been around for over 40 years. Writer Beware is their Committee on Writing Scams. Here's a non-blog link. [30]St jb 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Writer Beware operates as a blog and is Internet based only. There is no physical office and that isn't spin. It's two writers in their homes, one in Amherst, Mass and the other in Maryland.Marky48 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So they telework. Highly commendable, if you ask me. The use of blogging software as a medium of publication does not automatically rule out the use of the site as a source. It is process that matters, and Writer Beware are meticulous with their fact-checking processes. JulesH 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it make a reliable source on its face and since it's a volunteer job, it's not an actual business with telecommuters. It's a vanity effort, no matter how valuable and just. The fact in contention here is notability. Bauer is a small time agent with no clientele of note in publishing. Therefore, she is not notable. You saying she is doesn't make it so. Maybe Jimo Wales will thatnk you for getting him sued? By the way, these are all the very same players as before on the keep side. Expect more because they'll bury everyone else with their partisan club. It's a number game really, and all of one mind from the home office in Brooklyn. Wikipedia doesn't stand a chance. Marky48 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - We decided as a community to keep her before, and the only reason for this second delete attempt is the lawsuit. If anything that makes it more notable. --Shinto 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not impute motives to other wikipedians. I originally speedied this article, and as I've eplained before, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LAWSUIT.--Doc^g 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You speedied it (despite it having already been kept after one AFD) immediately after news of the lawsuit became public, and you expect us to believe that it's a coincidence? Js farrar 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is called assuming good faith - which proper wikipedians do. And, since I've told that I had no knowledge of the lawsuit when I deleted it, then your alternative is to call me a liar, which is a personal attack, and not what proper wikipedians do. You choose.--Doc^g 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The very strong implication that someone is not a "proper Wikipedian" could also be considered a personal attack, and is (in my opinion) unworthy of an Administrator. In any case, assume good faith only applies as long as there has been no demonstration of bad faith, and I personally consider the speedy deletion of an article which has already been kept at an AFD is acting in bad faith, as it shows an utter lack of respect for the AFD process. Others' mileage may vary, of course, and I lay out the facts as I see them so that each individual may make his own judgement. Js farrar 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A proper wikipedian may well have disagreed with my judgement and action, proper wikipedians often disagree, sometimes strongly, and that's OK. However, a proper wikipedian would not have stooped to calling me a liar.--Doc^g 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "improper" (presumably) Wikipedian called you a liar? It certainly wasn't me. Js farrar 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who indicated that I couldn't "expect us to believe" what I said. But, If you are now willing to believe me, I'll take that as an implicit retraction.--Doc^g 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite an incredible coincidence that, very shortly after the lawsuit got mentioned on Wikipedia project pages and the wikien-l mailing list, the article suddenly got speedy-deleted. *Dan T.* 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. And? --Doc^g 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks, can we please end the sniping here? If Doc says he did not notice the mention of the lawsuit when he speedied the article, then a protracted argument over what happened, when and why is irrelevant to the issue at hand (i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted on the basis of notability, WP:RS, WP:LIVING etc.), and needlessly pushes the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. That also goes for arguments about why it was written in the first place. Clearly, there is room for reasonable, intelligent Wikipedians to strongly disagree about whether the article should exist, and what it needs to make it acceptable if indeed it is retained. That's plenty to deal with without dissecting each other's actions and presumed motives. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's precisely why we have WP:AGF.--Doc^g 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I asked if you were expecting us to believe that; I did not state that you could not expect us to believe that. Please don't misquote me - it's easy enough to check up the thread to see what I actually wrote. Js farrar 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. - as others have mentioned, Bauer was considered notable in the first AFD, and since then the article has improved considerably, with more balance and reliable sources. The most important source is SFWA's Writer Beware site, which although it has an official blog as an outgrowth is not a blog in and of itself. The fact that Bauer has sued WF, SFWA and others is part of her notability, since her reported past attempts to suppress unfavorable attention with threats of legal action were what originally set her apart from the other agents on the Twenty Worst list. I suspect it is early days to expect mainstream coverage of the lawsuit, and I understand that we cannot decide on the basis of a prediction of future press attention. However, the sources already given in the article should be more than sufficient to establish notability. As for much of the article being negative, it is nevertheless scrupulously sourced, stated as neutrally as possible, and offset by as much positive material as could be reasonably found. WP:BLP is not, I think, intended to require that no negative material ever be mentioned under any circumstances. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable lawsuit -Mschel 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hail Hail the gang's all here bla bla bla...Oh yes Karen it's oh so neutral. Just like Jed Clampett's observation on the LA River: Pitiful, just pitiful.Marky48 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Js_farrar And you expect us to believe you aren't a sci-fi wannabe like the others hoping to impress Teresa Nielsen Hayden one of the litigants? Puleeze.Marky48 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope the rest of the flood of comments you've made (mostly in the wrong places, natch) have more basis in fact that this ridiculous diatribe. I'm only here because I get pissed off when admins start speedily deleting articles that have already been kept after AFD, as it makes a mockery of the system Js farrar 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan T want to see rude? GFYSLF. I vandalized nothing. I'll tell you what though, I'm going to nuke this SOB once and for all. Consider this administrative actionable. Like Doc said some Wikipedians are idiots. You qualify.Marky48 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As per policy: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest All of these supporters are part of the cummunity in question. It's a pet issue and Wikipedia is being played for forum fodder.Marky48 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Exhibit A as provided in the above link bears repeating in this light: "keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The stated purposes of wikipedia is to collect information from reliable sources into a single work to make them more readily accessible. The fact that the reason for creating this article was to include some particular information from a particular reliable source is reason to delete it how? Again, I repeat my comments from the deletion review: Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide hard data. It only requires them to have checked the data themselves and be reputable and trustworthy. The condition you mention was not actually imposed as a condition of the previous AfD discussion: the result was "keep" not "keep pending improvement of sourcing". JulesH 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Others in the series created in the wake of the Absolutewrite forum shutdown alleged to Bauer were the reason Jules here did this. Others in the series have been deleted. Gee what a shock. I can't imagine why? In fact there couldn't be a better illustraion of why democracy can't work in its pure form. Consensus in science means something. Here's it's just friends voting for friends. What a sad joke and frankly the reason most professors don't allow Wikipedia as a source. That IS well-reasoned. This is why.Marky48 03:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete as NN. This is easy: I read the discussion here, and thinking this is a big deal, then I go read the article. I read it and the result is "Why is this here?" I think, no, wait, there must be a reason. So I click on "What links here". 40 links, only one of which is not from a talk or project page, and that is from a disambiguation page, Bauer. In other words, this page is of absolutely no use to the encyclopedia. Not even enough notability to be linked to from any other article? Shenme 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See anyone familiar here? Talk:PublishAmerica It's a pet project too of the same groups. I'm against them too, but I mean really, how much more proof of life on this one nore samba do we need? Marky48 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Previous AfD said keep, previous DRV said keep, the article's been improved since then in response to criticism, and now we're supposed to delete it? Hey, whatever complaints are left, try fixing it instead of blanking or deleting it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just thought editors here might like to know that User:Marky48 has been blocked for one week for vandalism and incivil behaviour. JulesH 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable enough, and sufficiently sourced to keep the srticle. I see no reason to delete. -- Eugène van der Pijll 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Does pass BIO notability requirements, easily enough for a short article . - Denny 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I think being in the SFWA's top twenty worst agencies list is sufficient notability. The article looks like it's well-sourced too. Bryan Derksen 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per the above. --69.33.181.2 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep references provide enough depth to back this. I've personally heard of her referred to as "satan in a skirt" in conversations during NANO. That makes her pass my personal bar of notability. She also appears to pass our WP:BIO guidelines. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this person meets any of the standards set out in WP:BIO. Inclusion on a list does not establish notability. Filing a lawsuit does not, by itself, establish notability. While some of the references used are reliable (a college alumni magazine, for example), they don't establish notability. The simple fact is that literary agents are not generally notable unless they've been the subject of articles. There are twenty entries in the "Writers Beware" list, and I don't think anyone would argue that we should have articles about each one. This person has only been the subject of blog entries that aren't reliable sources. Regarding a comment by user:Crotalus horridus, I dispute his contention that Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a reliable source. She is an expert on the topic of editing, not on the topic of literary agents. Furthermore, she has used Wikipedia as a soapbox to disparage some people in violation of WP:BLP (See Roger Elwood [31]) and to promote others, including herself and her husband, in violation of WP:COI. For those reasons we should be very careful about using Nielsen Hayden as a source or a judge of notability. -Will Beback · † · 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of somebody's past infringements of Wikipedia rules (presumably due to ignorance of them and a simple desire to improve Wikipedia: the content I see introduced seems not to be disputed by anybody, only the lack of sourcing is inappropriate) to whether or not something they have published externally to Wikipedia is an acceptable source. JulesH 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Blogs are not normally considered reliable sources. Some folks, here and elsewhere, have asserted that Nielsen Hayden is an exception and I disagree with that assessment. Her agenda-driven behavior on Wikipedia mirrors her blog writing. While her blog is certainly a good reflection of her opinions, it should not be used as a source for objective truth. And the fact that she has written about this subject does not, by itself, make this subject notable. -Will Beback · † · 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable, controversial person. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this article is why we have NPOV. It is, like the Essjay article prior to the AfD, a recollection of a negative event, and it in my opinion fails BLP as not presenting a balanced biography. Decency and common sense, please. Daniel Bryant 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, violates WP:BLP and is far from NPOV. The sources are mostly unreliable or are irrelevant, as well. --Core desat 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis

[edit] Cause 4 Concern

[edit] Lin Chen

[edit] Timbaland & Danja

[edit] Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization (TAGorg)

[edit] Cryptofolklore

[edit] SOQL

[edit] James Denton (gay activist)

[edit] Interactive film

[edit] Jeep wave

[edit] Ajai R. Singh

[edit] Casio electronic dictionaries

[edit] Importance of hajj an umrah

[edit] Chicago Magic

[edit] Enlighten

[edit] Rice Diet

[edit] Stefanie Stiles

[edit] Reginald Firehammer

[edit] USS Nokomis

[edit] Barbara Safarova

[edit] Katrina Ko

[edit] Michael Aaron McGowan

[edit] Madeche vision

[edit] Niblet

[edit] Old Angarak

[edit] Pit Fighter: A New Blood

[edit] David R. Jones

[edit] Gayle_Nerva

[edit] Hindutva propaganda

[edit] Skittledew

[edit] Wildness

[edit] Yes, You, and We

[edit] Buzz of death

[edit] Miles Price

[edit] Importance of hajj an umrah

[edit] Alice Practice

[edit] Domestic AC power safety notes

[edit] General time dilation

[edit] Christo-Paganism

[edit] Slapper

[edit] Blübird

[edit] Morfik

[edit] Matt Cage

[edit] Christian Assemblies International (2nd nomination)

[edit] Turkish Human Rights: A Non-Turkish Perspective

[edit] Lost DVD releases

[edit] 2010 in Canada

[edit] Biscuit throwing

[edit] Synaptic solutions

[edit] JModPlayer

[edit] Afraid (Nelly Furtado song)

[edit] Frosty and the Snowmen

[edit] New railway modellers

[edit] I Miss You, In Loving Memory

[edit] Munched

[edit] Gaffney High School

[edit] Drunk injuns

[edit] Fellowship of Friends

[edit] Ezekiel Johnson

[edit] Scuderi Split Cycle Engine

[edit] Theory of Electronic Conspiracy

[edit] Lorentzian Relativity

[edit] VIRB°

[edit] Tax protester conspiracy arguments

[edit] Ctx

[edit] You and I (band)

[edit] Barbara Bauer

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search

In other languages