Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 21

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus) (proposed cleanup and/or mergeto Extension (Mozilla)). Nabla 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Firefox extensions

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

Most of the content are just copied from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1 so delete it Plotdream 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This Afd is User:Plotdreams first contribution to WP. John Vandenberg 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plotdream, are you asserting large chunks of this article are copyright violations of the descriptions on addons.mozilla.org? If not, do you believe the Wikipedia article is unnecessary because the information can be found elsewhere?

I often visit this extension list before I go to addons.mozilla.org because the latter is overrun with all extensions, and I am most often only interested in installing the quality extensions. As a number of these extensions are notable in their own right, this list lets me jump to the extensions article so that I can read a fact-checked feature list. Also the list gives the reader a good understanding of the extensibility of the Mozilla Firefox framework by listing only a subset of the quality extensions (higher signal to noise ratio); this last point could be achieved in more encyclopaedic ways, so if the current article is not acceptable based on policy, Extension (Mozilla) will need to be expanded. John Vandenberg 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep What Jayvdb said. This is a very useful page and by no means is it simply copied from the Firefox site so i don't see the ground for deletion. God forbid that Wikipedia might actually provide something that people might want to see. Nick mallory 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't really see the point to this list... most of these won't ever warrant Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is probably not the best place to try to compile a definitive list of extensions. Category:Mozilla extensions works well to organize extensions for which we have articles. --W.marsh 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The point of John & Nick's comments was --as i understand them -- that this was a selective list of extensions; a list is one of the ways to organize material which is not individually N enough for articles. DGG 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep while "useful" is not a criterion for keeping an article, I also don't see any clear reason for deletion here. It's all closely-related material (not indiscriminate), it's all verifiable, Mozilla Firefox is a notable peice of software, and its extensions are probably also notable, they've been written about by tech columnists and other web sites and so have verifiable, reliable sources even excluding the homepage. There's no real reason to delete, and many to keep. Wintermut3 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Keep I think the article is quiet useful, I don't see any clear evidence that it was a cut & paste job. Therefore I don't think it should be deleted. ~~ Vagish ^{T C}_VPS 09:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with some regrets. I'm a loyal FF user with too many extensions loaded :) but this article isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Pace John Vandenberg above, if the list is only a selection of notable extensions from the Mozilla site, we're looking at OR. The list should have a home (someone's one website?) but this isn't it. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Almost half of the entries in this list have a relevant article. i.e. the extension has its own article (Adblock), the extension is tightly coupled to a website (StumbleUpon), it is covered in a section of an article (Joga Bonito#Joga.com Companion) or has a redirect to the list for other less notable extensions (1-Click Weather). Deleting this article undoes a lot of good work. It is also worth noting that a russian article now exists. John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While Firefox is notable, most of its extensions aren't. WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#IINFO. Notable extensions should be listed and described at Extension (Mozilla). Phony Saint 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  I dont follow this reasoning at all; it is the list that needs to be notable (i.e. is it worth noting these things together), not the individual entries. John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  You stated above that most of these extensions are notable; I disagree. An extension that has an article does not automatically become notable, and multiple objects listed together also does not automatically become notable. Those that are notable could be listed in Extension (Mozilla), as that article is not so long as to need a separate list page.

  The list is inherently unmaintainable: there are a purported 2874 extensions, more are continually made. The list is also essentially a collection of short descriptions and links. WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK are quite applicable here. Phony Saint 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per notariety comment above. Scott.wheeler 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Per comment by whom ? John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This might make a decent category, assuming there are extensions that qualify for articles on their own merits, but as a list, I'm afraid it's a bad idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Did you look at the list; did you click on the individual entries? Why is it a bad idea? John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the list, in fact, I prod'd it several months ago. I think it's a page that's likely to attract folks looking to use it to link to their favorite extension, and not provide informative content. That is something I'm sure the developers of Firefox find interesting, and important for them to include on their own pages. Is it truly encyclopedic? No, I don't quite agree, especially not in its current form. Maybe that can be fixed, I don't know, but right now, it's not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok; your original comment was quite odd given there is already a category, and many of the extensions listed already have been deemed encyclopedic enough to warrant there own article. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. John Vandenberg 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - While informative and probably useful, I don't really see the encyclopedic value or notability. I mean, what is the restriction on inclusion, here? Is it just the ones that editors like the best? If it's notability, then I question whether all of these are notable. I could maybe support a list that had a clear inclusion criteria, like "List of notable Firefox extensions," but in its current state, I have to go with deletion.Chunky Rice 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have rearranged the article and culled a large percentage of the extensions. John Vandenberg 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response How are any of the remaining ones notable, aside from the official extensions? There is nothing in this article which can't be merged with the rather short Extension (Mozilla). Phony Saint 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and apply WP:EL, as we would with any other article. Andy Mabbett 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kaspo 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - but add more intrawiki links. --Remi 08:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If anything needs changed, merging it into Extension (Mozilla) could be a thing to do. Rtucker 23:13, 28 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 upon failure to present reliable sources for verification and notability.--Wafulz 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koufax Awards (second nomination)

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

Non-notable web awards. The article has no assertion of notability and the expansion tag has been in place for three months. I do not see any coverage from anything besides other blogs. Pablothegreat85 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, as an editor of the article I have hoped that better sources would arrive in due time, so to speak. Unfortunately, it's run so lackadaisically -- nominations were opened up over three months ago, but the 2006 awards aren't out yet, and the last post on the board is filling up with linkspam -- I don't think it's ever going to become unequivocally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless notability via sources given. Arbustoo 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — to ask that an award for blogs have wide repute outside the blogosphere seems, to me, a little excessive, rather like asking anyone other than a Pokémon fan to care about the vast majority of information in Pikachu (GA) or Bulbasaur (FA). The profile of Koufax winners looks rather high: PZ Myers, Amanda Marcotte, Daily Kos. Mark Chu-Carroll calls the Koufaxes "one of the really serious, prestigious web-awards, aimed primarily at the left-leaning blogosphere." Anville 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not excessive to ask that these awards have coverage outside of the blogosphere, as that is a requirement of WP:WEB. Pablothegreat85 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- since when does "I don't see any coverage outside of blogs" consistitute a valid reason for deletion? (Should all articles on marginal professional baseball players get deleted because they have no relevance outside of baseball?). Bloggers are part of real life aren't they? Does 73,900 hits for "koufax awards" at google count for anything? -- Sholom 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Coverage from blogs is not sufficient to meet WP:WEB. Pablothegreat85 17:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete insignificant navel-gazing that fails to comply with WP:WEB. Eusebeus 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment in the earlier AfD. --JJay 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: what has changed since the last AfD? That one was keep. Why is this being nominated again? -- Sholom 17:10, 23 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 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of companies that make organic foods

List of companies that make organic foods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Even though I think this one's indefensible, I haven't bothered with prodding it since someone's bound to contest it. At the moment, this article is a uselessly short list, which if left will grow like a magic bean into an unmanageably long one. Since virtually every food company on the planet has an organic division, this is basically a List of all major food companies, most of the medium sized ones and quite a few of the smaller ones. And if the basic food groups are really Soup, Cereal and Chips, as this article seems to imply, I think we may have located the flaw in the whole healthy eating concept - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as massively indiscriminate, as outlined in the nom. --Haemo 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above Lemonflash (talk • contribs • count)
• Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-21 01:16Z
• Delete per nom. A list that can never be finished and will end up unbelievably long... what can I say :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Having this information in list form isn't particularly encyclopedic. The articles on the companies can include this information in context.--Xnuala (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Good grief. Per nom, who argues this well. --Charlene 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible to maintain in a sufficiently comprehensive form to be worthwhile - and if it were possible the list would be infeasibly long. BTLizard 09:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Adambro 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Inevitably it will grow into an unmanageably large list. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - so that's where I'm going wrong in my diet! Cricketgirl 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Add "Diet Coke" to that list, and it pretty much sums up my diet - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Me thinks this is snowballed. Sr13 (T|C) 02:25, 22 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 10:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AccuFund

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

This is a supplier of accounting software. The article has been written by the company's VP and is very short on independent references. Many Google hits, and probably the existing reference, are press releases. It appears to fail WP:CORP. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. Perhaps just a cleanup would do it, otherwise Delete. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, there isnt much about the company or product on the web, so unless neutral reviews in magazines can be found, the subject isnt encyclopedic. Sadly, I know of this product due to its grants management capabilities. John Vandenberg 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to provide reliable references which would help assess notability. As such, I am inclined to think it fails notability criterion of WP:CORP. It also is written like an ad for the accounting software, not an article about the company. And if written by the VP, its WP:COI. --soum (0_o) 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now. No sources. Arbustoo 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to establish notability, and looks suspiciously as if it has been placed here for publicity purposes. BTLizard 09:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP --Infrangible 04:36, 22 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. I seem to remember that there have been debates over the notability of recurring pairings in wrestling tag team matches; I also seem to recall that in those cases notability was established by media coverage. If such media coverage for the trio of players noted here emerges, that would be an argument for resurrection via Deletion Review. However, presently, consensus and notability requirements indicate that deletion is the proper course. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Line

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

This line of Anson Carter, Daniel Sedin, and Henrik Sedin didn't last long enough (one season) for it to justify having its own article. Delete. (There's nothing worth merging that isn't already in the respective players' articles.) --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Daniel Sedin or Henrik Sedin. Anthony Appleyard 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Or just delete. I highly doubt anyone is going to type in Brothers Line in a search. Lines get changed all the time. At most, include the information in the players' individual pages. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are cited for the name and notability established. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, or make it a section under Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Anson Carter, or Vancouver Canucks. Then what about West Coast express (ice hockey)?

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - sorry, I'm a huge Canucks fan, but this isn't properly sourced or referenced. I'm not even convinced it's notable, since no one outside of a Vancouver fan will have heard about this. You can make similar articles for pretty much any team in the NHL - also, delete the above article as well, for the same reasons. --Haemo 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources for this term can be found. John Vandenberg 02:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:20, 21 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 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Fabric

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

Previous AFD is unrelated (relates to a different article of the same name). This article in its original form was pretty much advertising and nonsense. Same applies now that it is cut down, IMO an advert for a fairly small non notable company. Google shows a recent spate of 'spam' (here used to mean lots in a short amount of time :) ) posting all over the web about this company. Wiki article is second after Myspace... Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 01:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless more sources can be found. John Vandenberg 02:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be advertising, created by single-purpose account. BTLizard 09:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. One link is to their own site, the other to a content-null interview - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP --Infrangible 04:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Spam = Delete. Avalon 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as advertising *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:31, 24 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. Sr13 (T|C) 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Harris

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

Jennifer Harris was a Penn State basketball player who filed a controversial lawsuit against a nationally-known coach, Rene Portland. The content in Harris' article is a re-hash of information already contained in Portland's article. Harris, while a fine basketball player, is not nationally notable beyond her involvement in the lawsuit. My suggestion is merge content in Harris' article to Portland's then create a redirect to Penn State Nittany Lions. I remain open to other suggestions. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge — Works for me. If your intent is a merger, then I suggest using the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags rather than bringing it through for an AfD. — RJH (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• either Keep or redirect to a separate page for the case - although the existing article is badly referenced, this got a lot of mainstream coverage. Having the case covered on the main article for the team will massively skew it, as that one section will be bigger than all the rest of the article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - as she is a widely known college basketball player and is of great talent that she is on her way to enter the WNBA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnguyen (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and propose merges on talk pages. John Vandenberg 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep several current gNews hits.[1] As an ongoing issue, likely to be useful given the coverage. Maybe reAfD down the road. Arbustoo 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep News coverage satisfies notability criteria. --Infrangible 04:39, 22 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 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basil White

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

Second nomination. Result of first was deletion, and I do not see much reason this time around for the result to be any different. He has contributed to several joke books, but as one contributor among many, that does not make him notable, nor does playing the role of "Witness" on a television series. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He hasn't written a book. He has an album, but it's given away free so it can't be on a real label. His three film/TV roles are "refugee", "witness" and "bartender". No evidence of third party writeups. There's no there there. Herostratus 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I hear him every now and then on XM Comedy. Stevetursi 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have no references, but I can tell you that I've personally heard him on XM multiple times. When I wanted more information on him, Wikipedia was the first place I came. At any rate, it seems to me that if XM thought he was notable enough to put him on their finite amount of air, we should think that he's notable enough for Wikipedia, so I was surprised to see that people want this article deleted. Stevetursi 14:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless credible reviews come to light. Google News archives indicates there are a few leads that could be followed to bring this article up to scratch. Note that the entries in the books section of q:Basil White are probably copyvio's. John Vandenberg 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only minor notability in small circles. Stevetursi, please give us some references to consider. Arbustoo 05:34, 21 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. WjBscribe 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Potty and the Pet Rock

Henry Potty and the Pet Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was "published" last year by WingSpan Press. According to their website, WingSpan offers a variety of self-publishing options. No references for the article (other than the page's official website). Zero notability. I have some WP:COI concerns as well. janejellyroll 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Vote" withdrawn based on Edison and DGG's points. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak KeepIt gets 15,800 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. The book is in the top 85,000 titles sold on Amazon.com, somewhat higher in sales (but lower in Google hits) than a similar parody "Bored of the Rings" which also has an article in Wikipedia. I would like to see published reviews in addition to the numerous highly favorable fansite reviews. Edison 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak Keep It is possible , after all, to self-publish a book that becomes notable. doesn't happen often, but this seems to be an example.DGG 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Edison and DGG. John Vandenberg 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. --soum (0_o) 04:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable enough parody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Edison --St.daniel ^talk 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. It may seem like nonsesne but seems notable enough to deserve an article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:27, 22 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. --Coredesat 07:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Manners

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

no explanation on why the person is notable, not much written in the article despite it being there a long time, no explanation on how or what he did to the water in Jersey, mentioned that he had a journal but didn't say what he wrote. I have a journal, should I be in wikipedia? From wikipedia: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors (NO), The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (NO), Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures (NO), Googling the name gets nothing except for wikipedia! A880M 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. His journal (available online) is a valuable primary source for historians, and Princeton University still has a fellowships fund endowed by Manners. --Eastmain 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. A journal and a fund does not, by itself, seem to satisfy the notability requirements. Lacking other evidence of notability, I recommend deletion. Mmoyer 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --soum (0_o) 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, Eastmain and I have shown this article can be readily expanded by anyone who is interested in expanding the encyclopedia. The article currently amply indicates the man is notable for being an esteemed member of the Princeton University and Jersey City communities. I am sure with a bit more digging he will be found to be notable for much more. e.g. the "water in New Jersey" interests are mentioned in moderate detail in the external bio that can be found on his fathers article. John Vandenberg 05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Jayvdb, but I would like to know why his journal was/is so special. Arbustoo 05:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak keep seems midly notable --St.daniel ^talk 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep kinda sorta notable. --Infrangible 04:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per eastmain. i read some of his journal, its just a history of his life in and around new jersey. --76.80.210.38 06:21, 26 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 no consensus, default to keep. Sources exist, notability hasn't been firmly established one way or another. --Wafulz 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Bishow

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

Fails WP:BIO. Has a user-submited IMDB entry. No notability. Arbustoo 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I added a fair number of reviews for his films, and an interview. Also a New York Times filmography, which is admittedly trivial in its scope, but not just a user-submitted entry. An interesting bit is apparently that he was the original drummer for "The Mosquitos", which is not this band, but | this band. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notability is unclear; sources are in existence per Mouse. YechielMan 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability criterion of WP:BLP. --soum (0_o) 04:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability. janejellyroll 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the works are well distributed and reviews exist. John Vandenberg 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Filmography makes him notable enough. --Infrangible 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Filmography makes him obscure, lousy sources (the New York Times is simply a generated filmography), no real accomplishments (at least not enough for any self-respecting encyclopedia). WP is not IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 23 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Frieden

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

Auobiography, apears to fail WP:PROF Guy (Help!) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. The holder of a named chair is usually notable. --Eastmain 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, and they are notable because of the academic work they have done, which is this case amounts to several books, the continuous revision of a major legal treatise, and 40 or so articles. In addition Frieden has written less technical articles, and had a major business role. I wish Guy would explain for us on what reasoning he thinks this NN. For people to attain their position, they have passed a number of reviews by their peers, and all we need do to determine notability is to record it. The holders of named full professorships at major research universities are the stars of the academic world.DGG 02:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Lackl of cited independent sources, and the fact that nobody but the subject thoght to write about him. I have no problem with an article being aggressively fixed and neutralsied, that's a good result, but unsourced autobiographies should go. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:PROF Sleep On It 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, while he might be notable, we need refernces to the article. That aside, the Conflict of Interest is what is prompting me to suggest deletion. --soum (0_o) 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails prof test. No major works, just journal articles. Arbustoo 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment please check section 1 of the article: "Frieden has written several books, Managing Internet-Driven Change in International Telecommunications and The Cable and Satellite Television Industries co-authored with Patrick Parsons and awarded the 1999 Cable Book Award. Additionally Professor Frieden updates a major communications treatise: All About Cable (Law Journal Press)." (As I understand it, the editing and revision of a major standard law treatise is in prestige and work more akin to the editorship of a journal, than to the writing of a single one-time book) That's three major works, in addition to a very large number of articles. DGG 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag or trim. This is an autobiography of an individual that we can clearly assume has written an accurate autobio; it may have undue weight on aspects, and information that cant be sourced to published information, but that can be dealt with. Note that prior to the article existence, the subject had been mentioned twice on wikipedia articles: Network neutrality and TPRC. John Vandenberg 14:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Along with the other items mentioned above, Google news search reveals he's had appearances on NPR and NewsHour, is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor and Philly Inquirer, etc., so he's well known as an expert in this subject not just to specialists in the field but also publically. Probably the article should be rewritten to emphasize this sort of source a little more rather than looking so much like a vita. —David Eppstein 00:47, 27 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 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas J. Wilson

Thomas J. Wilson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

IMO fairly non-notable biography. Although it is sourced the source doesn't appear that useful. Do we need all the CEO's of every company there ever was?? Article created by single use account apparently for this purpose. I'm unsure whether it should stay or not so lets have the community decide :) Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unsure / Delete as per my nomination I don't know whether it should go or stay. I'd lean toward delete though. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BIO well established. As CEO of a publicly traded company, he would have been the subject of numerous independent articles, press releases, etc... Google news comes up with several hits. --Infrangible 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLPs of CEOs of companies on NYSE are to be expected. John Vandenberg 07:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep verging on speedy keep. Allstate is very notable so it's CEOs are as well. Plus Wikipedia has faced criticism, well earned criticism I might add, for doing poorly at covering the business world.--T. Anthony 04:33, 24 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 10:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harley Rain

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

Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Over 100 films, mentioned in article. Another time-wasting AfD abusing the term "notability." Dekkappai 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid being in over 100 movies doesn't establish notability, per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to have done nothing of interest at all. BTLizard 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability that satisifies criteria set out in WP:PORNBIO. Adambro 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Adambro John Vandenberg 07:11, 22 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 G1. soum (0_o) 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inserting Multiple Arithmetic Means

Inserting Multiple Arithmetic Means (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is non-sense. It basically creates a new, or seldom-used, term for "multiple" arithmetic means, and then gives some elementary trivia about it. In essence, it outlines a way to create an arithmetic sequence with n terms lying between two given numbers, and calls the intermediate terms the "arthimetic means" of the two numbers. Not only is this WP:OR, it's trivial OR. Any high school math student can do this, and such a process is covered in any basic math class. There's nothing unique, notable, or important about this process - and the "theorem" given there is not only a duplication of a well-known result on arithmetic sequences, but it's WP:OR to boot. Haemo 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. Even a redirect wouldn't work; this title will never be searched. Sr13 (T|C) 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nom that this is trivial original research. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I previously tried to speedy it, but my tag was removed by the creator without comment. --Haemo 03:04, 21 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. Bucketsofg 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best romance movies of all time

Best romance movies of all time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seriously NPOV violating title, also appears to be original research to combine these 3 unrelated lists on one page for such arbitrary reasons. According to this article, the 2006 Bollywood film Lage Raho Munna Bhai (?) is better than It's a Wonderful Life. Masaruemoto 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely fails WP:OR. Sr13 (T|C) 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename, biased title.--eskimospy^(talk) 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. JuJube 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, according to nom. --soum (0_o) 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per the fact that whoever wrote the article doesn't know the difference between a "romantic" movie and a "romance" movie. Romance is a specific genre that requires as its main principles a) a story about a relationship and b) a happy ending. Don't think Schindler's List qualifies, exactly. --Charlene 05:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Impossible to produce an NPOV article under this title. BTLizard 09:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Contrary to the article's claims, Schindler's List is not even listed under the Romance genre in the Internet Movie Database. --Metropolitan90 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Serious NPOV issues. It doesn't matter that these were rated by professionals, people still have their own opinions, regardless, and should not be in an encyclopedia. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete; non-maintainable POV title/article --Mhking 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Stong Delete; opinionated to the point of being irredeemable. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:14, 22 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 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of online databases about films in Czech and Slovak language

List of online databases about films in Czech and Slovak language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; a small directory of film websites complete with links. Masaruemoto 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; the list is more suited to a category as the inclusion criteria is too narrow. I have created stubs for Czech Movie Heaven and Czech and Slovak Movie Database and expanded Večerníček. John Vandenberg 05:53, 22 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 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henchmen MC

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

Non-notable motorcycle club. 375 Google hits, mostly blogs and lists. No refs, either. Mmoyer 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scott.wheeler 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete , as per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaufmanIsAwesome (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 April 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duchess (elephant)

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

Non-notable animal. This would be classified under WP:N, in which this would fail the criterion of "Multiple" sources should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources. Sr13 (T|C) 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not many sources here, and what sources there are...well, she appears to be little more than just another circus elephant, unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ELEPHANT --Infrangible 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:KILLUNSOURCEDELEPHANTS ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:26, 26 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 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian television ratings for headLand

List of Australian television ratings for headLand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate info #9. Masaruemoto 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Nielsen Company. --Charlene 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - ratings for a now-failed show don't seem to have any place other than a fan site for the show. Orderinchaos 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, wow, spectacularly unencyclopædic. Lankiveil 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. I am generally supportive of lists but fail to see the usefulness of this list. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. John Vandenberg 07:34, 22 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 per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribal Wars

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

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Yet another MMORPG with absolutely no reliable secondary sources. Gets a lot of google hits, but most of them are unrelated; the remainder are from sites relying on user-created content. Contested prod, and probably an a7. —Cryptic 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, fails notability criterion. Delete as per CSD A7. --soum (0_o) 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, obviously has a significant player base if user-created sites exist, but probably not notable compared to other MMORPGs. Lankiveil 06:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete per criterion A7. Sr13 (T|C) 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A google on "tribal wars" brings up many hits, of course; but looking at the first couple pages, a good percentage of them are for this MMOG. Considering how many different references to tribal wars there must be on the net, that is at least interesting, I think. It also claims "over 200,000" players just on the English server; whether that's a notable number on the MMOG scene I don't know, but it's more than the population of Dayton, Ohio. (There has been some screwing around with this page, with the AfD tag removed for a while and non-optimal versions of the page substituted, fixed for now.) Herostratus 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

200,000 is a meaningless number - we don't even know whether it's referring to active or retired accounts, whether it's individual human players or duplicate accounts. --McGeddon 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete; as per notability criterion. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Big numbers aside, it has many worlds and servers supporting different countries/languages. That doesnt happen without active players. John Vandenberg 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how many active players it has if the only third-party sources are four-line blurbs and foreign language blogs. —Cryptic 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. This game is very much active. I play it continually and know what I'm talking about.--Weswammy10:17 PM April 22, 2007 (CMT)
      • This was Weswammy's eleventh edit. —Cryptic 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --McGeddon 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I just joined Tribal Wars as a player, and although I can see right away that there are a large number of players I don't see that as evidence of notability. On the other hand, Wikipedia is full of articles on computer games of all types, on musical instruments of all types, on motor vehicles of all types, on towns and streets and streams and ponds of all sizes. Only a fraction of these have notable external reference sites or publications. Where is the line drawn? Darcyj 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's drawn at WP:N - it just takes a long time to draw. --McGeddon 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Per notability and web guidelines. Darcy, WP:FISHING is a good little essay for explaining why there are non-notable articles still on wikipedia. DarkSaber2k 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far. Bjrobinson 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote Cryptic from another AfD: If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. If no sources exist you can't just say 'Oh let it on anyway, 10,000 people play it.' DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep and expand There are a lot of people on tribal wars, so this is quite an important subject, so we should keep it. But the article is not up to scratch. I am a member of Tribl Wars,

and with a subject like this, there is little point in citing scoures or references. Very few people write about these sites, so surely the users themselves are a reliable scource? As long as they are not biased, I cant see a problem. Lemming42 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing references and sources is EACTLY the point. If the article cannot provide sources, it cannot remain on wikipedia, Regardless of how many people play it, or create accounts to say keep in this discussion. Your complete ignorance of wikipedia polcies such as WP:RS is shown when you say 'Surely users are a reliable source'. I laughed out loud at this!DarkSaber2k 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

DarkSaber2k, please dont WP:BITE our newcomers. This is a work in progress, and we need fresh people and idea's participating in our discussions and content creation in order to continue to grow. Bear in mind that reliable published sources are often incorrect too -- this especially applies to newspapers. Sources are of course desirable, but an unsourced article that is obviously not contentious is better than no article at all. The former can be fixed; the latter is by definition not able to benefit anyone. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemming42, our policies and guidelines revolve around trying to keep the content hosted on Wikipedia within certain boundaries of accuracy and usefulness. A lot of junk is tossed onto the Wikipedia servers, and it takes a lot of work to keep the site clean. Take a look at Verifiability, No original research and Notability to gain a feeling of why this article is borderline. In essence, people are suggesting this article should be deleted because there are insufficient reliable published sources on the subject. Users and blogs are not considered reliable sources.

Personally, I think that if there are five independent blogs that assert the same fact about a game (and there is no contray opinion), I would have no problem saying, "Users of the game have said '<some random fact>' <ref> .. </ref><ref> .. </ref>...". That obviously makes it clear that the fact isnt reliable, but can help the astute reader come up to speed on the subject. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The article needs work but should not be deleted It should be treated as a stub. I find myself concerned with a trend I see to delete articles in the MMORPG category. Some of these games have been around for years and have VERY large followings. I understand the reasonings behind the nominations, as MMORPGs are notoriously difficult to cite and source, there simply are not a lot of well-known sources in the MMORPG community, especially when it comes to browser-based games. The sourcing consists mostly of user-review sites and word of mouth. I think we should cut some of these games a little slack. If we don't, we will end up not having articles on some of the major games out there, and that would be a shame. This is a VERY notable game, almost everyone who plays these things has played it, or at least heard of it. The notability guidelines are just that: GUIDLINES, and should not be treated like strict rules. The word "guidline" implies adjustment, and we should be adjusting slightly to keep some of these articles. It should be taken into account that there are very few, if any, MMORPGs more notable than this one. Is it the plan to decimate the entire category?? This article is well written and covers a notable game. It should be kept. Matt Brennen 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not conferred by the number of players, but by third-party sources (i.e. articles) written about it. If it is such a "major game," it will have reviews on it, and this one distinctly lacks them. (Side note: that guidelines aren't mandatory does not mean you can ignore them without a good reason.) Phony Saint 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not determined by third party sources; reliable sources can prove notability, and is vital for V, NPOV and NOR, but in the end, notability cant be codified. We develop notability guidelines to help establish consensus, but we are not automations, and these guidelines are not meant to override common sense. Deleting material should not be done lightly; we should err on the side of caution where notability is borderline, because the article we see is a work in progress (and is the result of the hard work of other contributors). Here we have a websites+game that has been translated into seven languages, the game has been covered in four of our sister language pedia's (Dutch, French, Spanish and Turkish); a number of the other pedia's also have an article about the company that has the international license (e.g. es:Gameforge), they have significant infrastructure (worlds) to support many players (which has been verified by Wikipedians going into the game to verify), and the web has many references to the game in forums and the like. It would be extremely odd if this game was not suitable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. With half an hour and a bit of help from Google Translate, I was able to find a review in Polish that appears substantial. I am sure that others also exist, but command of other languages may be required to find them. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you provide this source? --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • [2] (on the bottom of the article :-) ) fingers crossed. John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I will repeat what i said in Inselkampf: There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd (half of the articles) being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far.

To quote Brennen in the Inselkampf debate: I totally agree except that we are not talking about policy we are talking about a guideline. I think we should all keep that in mind. The reason it's a guidline is to leave room for us to use our better judgment. I don't thing destroying an entire category is an example of good judgement. Each one of those speedy deletes should be up for review, IMHO. Matt Brennen 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC). - Bjrobinson 09:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bjrobinson, you are aware you have 'voted' (for lack of a more accurate word) twice in this AfD now? DarkSaber2k 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a policy is not "taking it too far". verifiability and no original research have always been core policies for every article. I don't see why exceptions should be made for online video games. --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:V and WP:NOR do not present a problem as this article doesnt contain facts that cant be attributed to primary sources, blogs and gaming directory entries. However the list of European online games in Wikipedia is being gutted because people are requiring RS, they want them in English, and they want them now. (see the comment above by "DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007"). John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and gaming directory entries? Try reading WP:V#Sources of questionable reliability and WP:ORG#Primary criterion. We aren't questioning whether the game exists or not, we are questioning whether it is notable or not. Out of the sources shown, only one is not a blog/fansite, a trivial directory entry, or from the game site. Even the one that isn't, the Polish article, looks to be nothing more than a rehash of what the game is, not a review. Phony Saint 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"a rehash of what the game is" is all that we need it to be. It says two things: 1) someone bothered to write about it in a media that is read by a large number of people, and 2) the facts we provide in our article have been said by others first! "notability" doesnt equate with "memorable". Notability is just a guideline; do you think that Wikipedia is better off without this article? If so, please explain your position using your own words. John Vandenberg 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's the job of the keepers to explain their position, not mine. As per the policy WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:

"A rehash of what the game is" in MMOG directories, which contain hundreds of MMOGs and do little more than repeat the game's description, is trivial (and possibly non-independent) coverage. That notability is "just a guideline" does not mean you can blow it off completely just to have an article on a nonnotable game. Phony Saint 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The polish article is not a directory listing.

I have already explained in my own words why this article should be kept; why wont you follow suit? I am not blowing off notability; my point is the notability is not codified in the guidelines, which is why they are called guidelines rather than policies. Specifically issues to consider, 1) the existence of an article in wikipedia's for regions that are more familiar with this subject (indicating that our notability criteria are excluding it due to systematic bias), and 2) the existence of plenty of discussion on the subject on the Internet (indicating that our notability criteria is not gauging the notability adequately).

So far you are voting to delete every Afd you have commented on; take a moment to consider how many of the manga/anime articles you normally edit are up to scratch right now? How would you respond if five or six of the less developed articles in one genre were nominated for deletion all at once? I for one would be in there doing my best to demonstrate that those articles should be kept because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we should by default assume good faith in the contributions of others, as that is what has made Wikipedia grow to be a top 10 website. In conclusions, marginal articles should by default be kept, as they build the web. John Vandenberg 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What I (or others, including yourself) choose to edit elsewhere isn't relevant to this AfD. The others and I made our arguments based on the article, not its contributors or the subject itself, and so far nobody has come up with a better counter-argument than "many people play it." I'm not going to have a pointless debate with you about what guidelines are and the selective use of them. Phony Saint 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article seems very fine to me. Descriptive and to the point. I inserted the last two remaining needed references (the facts are shows at the game's homepage). I don't know why this is marked for deletion. Some of the "reference needed" tags were a bit dubius, to say the least, and look like done by someone who thinks that references are needed for the obvious (imagine this: "Cars consume fuel[reference needed]." I'll just say LOL. Nikos 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have seen several of these web based online games going up for AfD lately. Unfortunately they are indeed more difficult to prove nobility without suggesting big numbers and such. But sometimes in an AfD common sense needs to be used more then WP guidelines. In the case of htis, and the other text games being deleted recently, I think the sheer numbers of people playing them do in this case establish nobility. Web only MMOGs as far as I can tell (didnt know much about them before these AfDs) are a reletively new genre, so gaming magazines and such may be less likely to pick up on them as of yet, but that does not make them unnotable per say, it just makes notability hard to prove using the established guidelines. Russeasby 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Applying a small amount of common sense to the notability guidline make Tribal Wars indeed very notable. It is a fairly new game and thus not much cited outside the gaming community. Still it has a large and active player base with plenty of fan-developed content. The sheer number of players and size of community do warrant notability, defined as "worthy of being noted or attracting notice" in the guidline. That said, I came here looking for the Wikipedia entry on Tribal Wars and would be very much surprised if there was no such article. Mattias Kling 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At the current state i dont even "see" an article. Where's the content?? Nothing to say about the game? How is it then notable? Look at Starships! to get an idea of what I'm talking about. --Echosmoke 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The current discussion concerns the notability of the game. The articles quality is in no way related to the topics notability. You are correct that the current state of the article is not up to standards, but to quote the WP:Deletion policy, "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Mattias Kling 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, however the contention here is that the article cannot be improved due to no sources being available. Beyond one polish re-hash of a press release, no-one has been able to provide a single source to satisfy any improvement criteria that would make the article keep-able. Best case scenario for keeping this article at the moment: 8 months down the line the article hasn't improved one iota, it gets nominated for deletion again, and the usual suspects come out saying 'We should ignore the fact there are (still) no sources for this to establish notability because even more people play it now and I play it, so I know it's notable.' DarkSaber2k 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, I see no consensus to delete the artical at all. It needs some work but wiki policy (as opposed to notability guidlines) state that in these cases we should tag the article and move on. If we deleted every wiki article with questionable notability, there would be nothing left but FAs and GAs, so let tag it and be finished with this. Theres no consensus anyway (at least that I can see). Matt Brennen 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:DP#Reasons for deletion also states that a valid reason for deletion is "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." This article fails to meet any relevant notability guideline - neither WP:N, WP:CORP, nor WP:WEB. Additionally, consensus is determined not by numbers alone, but by arguments: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Phony Saint 03:36, 27 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. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a collection of external links. The other articles listed will have to be nominated separately if at all. --Coredesat 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of medieval reenactment groups

List of medieval reenactment groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR; Page seems to exist primarily as a large directory of external links for these groups Masaruemoto 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:IS NOT A BUNCH OF LINKS. Arbustoo 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arbustoo. --Charlene 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very intersting, informative and useful. Dwain 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. Masaruemoto 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no possible grounds for keeping this kind of rambling indiscriminate list up. Assuming this AfD results in a delete, the closing admin may well want to take a long cold look at List of ancient reenactment groups, List of dark age reenactment groups, List of umbrella groups for reenactment, List of historical reenactment groups and most especially Comparison of historical reenactment groups as well - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize this should be a category for those groups substantial enough to have articles. Oh, it seems to be Category:Medieval reenactment. FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm happy with that, just think no point keeping all these lists up which duplicate the categories - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Dwain. Guthroth 10:46, 23 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. --Coredesat 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-historical re-enactment groups

Non-historical re-enactment groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research and non-notable topic. Googling "Non-historical re-enactment" returns practically nothing. Masaruemoto 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this is nonsense. KazakhPol 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like your average Saturday night, actually. --Charlene 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR applies. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - This certainly isn't nonsense, KazakhPol — my first job was working for a place that ran these (along with other LARPs) — but it is an unsalvageable mess of OR - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to have upset so many people. Would someone please explain how such an article which trys to highlight the differences would be approached ? User: Guthroth

In this case, read WP:N, WP:OR and WP:CITE - these are the key policies of Wikipedia and what all the articles up for deletion (not just yours) are accused of violating. Basically, everything you say here needs to have been also said somewhere else by somebody else, and you need to show references to prove it - there's more to it than that, but that's the issue here - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep but there needs to be some reference to some discussion of this as a genre. (Trying to google this sort of a term is not usually productive). DGG 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

keep But fix - as it exists this article is a candidate for deletion per wp:or and by extension it fails wp:n and by omission it fails wp:cite, but it does not meet/warrant WP:CSD. The author asks a fair question - how do I appease the wiki-police. The answer, in my opinion, is to find published sources that refer to this genre as a whole, to excerpt facts from those sources as the basis of this article, and to properly cite them. It appears from the six or seven links included that these groups exist in sufficent numbers that wp:n may be achievable, assuming some reporter or other journalist has covered an event or group. The author's job is to go find the published sources to affirmatively claim notability and get away from original research. On another point, not withstanding the genral wiki-view to wp:assume good faith, the assertion that this content is nonsense is an individual point of view - which is balanced by my view that the author is working sincerely to cover a real topic - although that topic is admittedly an examination of a whole genre of wierdos. Alas, neither point of view is relevant per wiki-policy. --James.lebinski 23:52, 25 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 keep. Non-admin closure. I see that this article touches on controversial issues, but the subject of the list is well-defined and there are sufficient sources provided to merit inclusion (though more sources wouldn't hurt). YechielMan 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of journalists killed in Russia

List of journalists killed in Russia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic POV. This list is based on one organization's research and definition of who is and is not a journalist. The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia. There is no comparable article to this, there is no List of journalists killed in Belarus or List of journalists killed in North Korea. Human rights in Russia already covers assassinated journalists and it does not go by one organization's opinion. I would also point out that most of these sub-sections have no actual content, they just have a link. KazakhPol 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. AfD nominator claimed the following reasons for deletion. First "The list is POV." How can list be POV? It does not include any opinions. This article alredy cites Amnesty International, not only one organization. If some people should not be here, they can be excluded from the list rather than the entire article deleted. Second "The list is based on definition who is and is not a journalist". But that is simply a profession, like teacher or a policeman. This is not defining "liberals" or "conservatives". Third "The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia". Of course it does not, because this is simply a list of murdered journalists, not an article about Human rights in Russia. Fourth "There is no List of journalists killed in Iraq and other similar lists". Good point. We should make such lists. There is nothing to preclude this according to WP rulles. Biophys 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Biophys is one of the two editors who wrote the article in question. KazakhPol 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful index of journalists in this situation. If the list were underpopulated or if there was a lack of media attention on these events, I would consider voting another way. Someone is likely to be searching for this. Also I disagree with KazakhPol that this is "POV," but I agree that sources MUST be added and some more detail would be helpful. Just because there is no List of journalists killed in Iraq, doesn't mean we won't have one in the future. Arbustoo 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and move to cleanup. It is not POV that these people were killed. It is not POV that these people worked as journalists (although there should be attribution for all entries). The subject itself is notable: groups such as Amnesty International and the Glasnost Defence Foundation are talking about it, which means that the topic itself is attributed. We *should* have lists of journalists who have been killed; journalists are often singled out as specific targets to prevent facts from coming to light. So yes: create articles on journalists killed in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, WWII Poland, and other countries, but keep this one as well. --Charlene 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but get rid of anything that's not meticulously referenced and cited. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong keep, this article could be improved by better sourcing but seems adequate as is. This is definitely encyclopedic information, and this is surely not POV as it contains few claims beyond a person's name, affiliation, and year of death. (If the POV claim is based on the lack of similar articles for other countries, that's a pretty weak argument.) Agree with Charlene that we should have such lists in principle for any country where it is reasonable to do so. We have several categories of murdered journalists including Category:Journalists killed in Iraq and the broad Category:Murdered journalists, and there are several journalist deaths in articles such as List of unsolved murders and deaths, List of assassinated people from Turkey, and so forth. (I'm personally unsold on the difference between a murder of a journalist and an assassination of a journalist, but that's neither here nor there.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Improve it, don't delete it. This is a highly notable subject and the content is factual and verifiable. It's not the job of the writers of this article to do similar lists for every other country on earth to justify the inclusion of this one. Nick mallory 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep despite it going against my every instinct - I'm sure keeping it up violates every policy going, as well as going against my arguments for deleting & salting every time another "List of victims of..." comes up, but this is a core piece of - documented - evidence (the Glasnost Foundation may have compiled the list, but it's not a single source but the collator of independent verifiable sources) of a trend which forms a large and important background to assorted social-trends-in-Russia articles (most obviously Human rights in Russia). Merging it back into the articles would both make them unmanageably long, but lead to content-forking. I think in this case WP:IAR takes clear precedence over WP:MEMORIAL - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per above, and seems concise enough. With the amount of reporting the killings of journalists in Russia has received there is a valid reason for this grouping. StuffOfInterest 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable. There should be lists for other countries too. Postlebury 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve; NPOV and verifiable. Improve it, don't delete it. Needs better sourcing, though. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:25, 22 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 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. No reliable sources provided. Redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation, the article on the website's parent organization, is also a possibility. Picaroon 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect per nom. Even if it from Wikimedia Foundation, it still fails WP:V since it has no third party sources. TJ Spyke 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no third party sources. DXRAW 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, despite being an official Foundation site, this one has not obtained notability like Wikipedia yet. I'm sure it will come, but until then get rid of this article. Lankiveil 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• WikiDelete - couldn't find any non-trivial third party sources. Nothing on google or google news but google news archives brings up a few passing mentions on articles about wikipedia (see [3]). Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; I found two external sources: [4] and [5], but the second one is a blog. BTW, can we delete Inuktitut Wikipedia after this one? Tizio 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to prune this wikicruft. MER-C 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we just had the Inuktitut WP up fro AfD not too long ago. If you really want, you can put it up in a couple of weeks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But your best course of action is to actually do the research and look for sources yourself before thinking about a re-nomination. You had the right idea here in this discussion. You need to work that way elsewhere, too. Uncle G 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither TJ Spyke nor DXRAW are following Wikipedia:Deletion policy here. That an article doesn't cite sources is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason to look for sources. Tizio had the right idea. Xe actually looked for sources, and located one source in American Scientist. I've looked for sources too, and found other sources in Nature and Science. Fixing this article didn't require an administrator to hit a delete button, and whether this content warrants a separate article or a merger into an article with a wider scope is a matter of article merger, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per Uncle G. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Uncle G has already improved the article sufficiently. --Metropolitan90 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe sources found are more than sufficient. Perhaps they should have been looked for in the first place.DGG 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The burden of attributing statements is on he who adds the info, not he who deletes. If an article doesn't cite its sources, I can look for them, or I can remove the unsourced info, or, if totally unsourced (or unreliably sourced), I can propose its deletion. All are perfectly acceptable methods. Picaroon 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You should really read the sentence following the one in Wikipedia:Attribution that you have just paraphrased, which talks about your making reasonable efforts to find sources, yourself. You should also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. The burden is on you, as a nominator who is nominating an article for deletion for being unverifiable, to look for sources. It is not enough to simply note that there are none cited in the article. That does not constitute unverifiability, and is not a rationale for deletion, per policy. DGG is quite right. Uncle G 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Uncle G. Lack of due diligence on behalf of the nom. I am appalled that April 21 has 142 articles listed for deletion. John Vandenberg 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has sufficient third party references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Normally, this would be a debatable case, and I would be vehemently saying "we have enough Wikipedia/Wikimedia navelgazing stuff already", but I've always thought that as a special case, top-level Wikimedia projects are automatically notable No Matter What You Say® in a certain common-sense way. However, in case of smaller projects (Meta, Commons, Species, etc) that don't have international versions aside of separate language pages merging to Wikimedia Foundation (or related article) is plausible; it's another matter altogether is it warranted. (Was somewhat warranted in case of Meta, certainly would not be warranted in case of Commons and extremely, extremely debatably in case of Species.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep seems to be notable enough--Sefringle 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep cited in major scientific magazines. Judgesurreal777 19:40, 25 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 WP:CSD#A3. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Noam Chomsky

Defense of Noam Chomsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a link dump. Pablothegreat85 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#LINK. Masaruemoto 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Masaruemoto. --Charlene 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, little more than a linklist. Not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete under CSD A3; if content were added it would be a POV fork. Criticism articles can include direct rebuttals when available. Gazpacho 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons already stated. Nick mallory 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Links are not content. BTLizard 10:14, 21 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 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition on Sustainable Transportation

Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:V as far as I can tell. Non-wiki ghits are in the single digits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not all itty bitty city committees are notable. --Charlene 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's the committee on transportation for one medium size city. That's not N.DGG 03:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. It has a few notable members, but the article doesnt indicate how this committee is anything more than an minor action group. John Vandenberg 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. This kind of group can be notable, but the article doesn't say anything to indicate notability. EALacey 10:13, 22 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 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Dodd

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

Reads like an ad, nothing special. He wrote two books by Hampton Roads Publishing Company, which publishes books "visionary fiction, complementary and alternative medicine, self-help." Seems undistinguished. Arbustoo 05:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete spam. YechielMan 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Since 2 books are claimed, not obvious enough for a speedy delete, but 2 un noticed books from a definitely non-notable publisher are not enough for N.DGG 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. Hampton Roads Publishing Company only has 17 books in WorldCat. John Vandenberg 09:48, 22 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. Bucketsofg 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbine-like

Columbine-like (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not an official designation or category. Seems like a mere phrase that's more colloquial. Doesn't seem appropriate as an encyclopedia article Malamockq 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DXRAW 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Uncommon neologism or protologism. In order to be considered notable per WP:NEO, neologism must have references to reliable sources talking about the word itself, not just using it to describe something. Also much of the article discusses other Columbine-related terms such as "College Columbine". It appears to me that the editor may have been attempting in good faith to write an article on the comparisons between Columbine and other shootings, but we already have an article that covers much of this. --Charlene 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. The word is (or phrase) is inelegant and unnecessary, and the article struggles to establish exactly what it might mean. Anyway, fails WP:NEO. BTLizard 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Noting my own opinion, Columbine, while historical in that it was the first well-documented (!) mass murder at a school by a couple of disgruntled students, wasn't really that historical; you look around, and I'm certain you'll turn up more mass-murder disgruntled something-or-other shootings before this. No less sucky, but not that historical. But that said, discussion has it right - it's more a neologism, and this one seems to have popped up in light of last week's shooting at VA Tech. I blame the media - but that the press said it doesn't make it a notable term. Delete. That said, I have no prejudice to recreation if it can not only be determined to be in the mainstream vocabulary, but also has some background to it other than just the obvious comparison to the Columbine shootings from roughly a decade ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Neologism, original research, dicdef, inaccurate, content fork, unsourced - all we need now is a copyvio and I think we've collected the set - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; nn neologism --Mhking 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt; fails WP:NEO --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Columbine High School massacreDelete based on Carlossuarez46's response below. "Columbine-like" is a valid search term with 25,000 hits on google, and should take the user to the right spot. John Vandenberg 09:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not redirect (a) very bad precedent to keep any "-like" articles, because nearly every article can spawn a "-like" one (Earth-like and God-like are much more widely used but fortunately, no articles) (b) no redirect: columbine has meanings apart from the school, don't presume that someone looking for something like columbine has the mass murder rather than a flower in mind. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 23 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.

There's undoubtedly a certain amount of coverage about Shaalan. However, it is an established principle on this project that otherwise NN people who rec'd attention merely because of the circumstances attending their deaths should not get their own articles. As much or more coverage went to every victim of 9-11 and most of the American soldiers killed in Iraq. We cannot and should not host the memorial articles for these people, unless they have independent notability through which they stand out from the rest, e.g., Mychal F. Judge, Lori Piestewa, Liviu Librescu.

That much is principle. Now the application.

Most of the delete opinions touched on this rationale. I credit iridescenti, chaerani, tewfik, et al. for making the distinction between the faculty and students. Old timer ugen64 also opined to delete. The keep side consisted of appeals to multiple references (DGG et al.) and a variety of inappropriate arguments like the Pokemon fallacy or Islamophobia, which I ignored. Ultimately, the delete side is in line with our 9-11 and Iraq precedent.

Finally, I was disturbed to read the following exhortation on the linked-to MuslimMatters site, which was probably responsible for some of the SPAs that flooded this AfD: "SubhanAllah, Br. Waleed gave Muslims an opportunity for dawah in his own death… he left behind a legacy for us to latch on. We cannot let it die. Americans of all faiths are listening; let’s make sure they heart this story too.So, what can you do? Cross-promote the story, whether this link on MuslimMatters.org or other websites stating it." Using Shaalan's death as an opportunity for evangelism is quite unsightly, and weighs heavily against the opinions of the "keep!!" SPAs at this AfD. The outcome of the debate is Delete. -- Y not? 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waleed Shaalan

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

Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Please see similar AfD for Ryan C. Clark. UnfriendlyFire 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Who is the student that he supposedly saved? How come I have never found the student's name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oribel (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
• KEEP I read through the Liviu Librescu entry for comparison, and there simply is not enough reason for the two entries to merit different treatment. Librescu is a Holocaust survivor. Nowadays, that just means that he lived in Europe during the period that the Nazi party governed Germany. In fact, Librescu was merely confined to a few detention camps toward the end of WW2. Librescu has a lot of publications, but they tend to be papers that focus on better approximate solutions to certain non-linear equations or reports of various failure modes for various materials used in aerospace engineering. These sorts of papers are useful in aerospace engineering design, but they are not particularly notable, and an engineering professor that has many graduate students will generate a lot of these types of papers. I read through the accounts of Librescu's heroism. He could be a hero, but I have examined many reports from tragedies and from the early days of wars. People find the heroes that they need. Librescu hears noise in the hall, goes to the door, gets shot, falls into the door, his body blocks it, and he moans in agony. The students hear him call out to them to flee especially after they get together to discuss the incident afterwards. Both Librescu and Shaalan seem sufficiently notable in terms of newspaper accounts that the individual entries should remain. If one is removed, the other one should be as well. Otherwise, both entries should remain. The discussion makes me think of some of the analysis of the martyrization of Yosef Trumpeldor at Tel Hai. The early Zionists needed to create a cult of death and martyrdom. They used the battle of Tel Hai as a source. When I read the accounts, I was always skeptical that Trumpeldor really quoted Virgil in Hebrew as he lay dying. Later, when I researched the history more deeply, I found that my doubts were justified. I am irritated that this discussion of Shaalan and Librescu seems to have a subtext that some of the Wikipedia community desperately want to find an Israeli Jewish hero in this tragedy (even if he is a yored, i.e., an emigrant from Israel) and equally desperately want to declare a possibly heroic Arab Muslim as unworthy of special note. I have frequently seen this sort of phenomenon as I have studied the history of Zionism in Palestine. ThorsProvoni 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — ThorsProvoni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment KEEP. The guy is a hero and is famous now in Egypt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
• Comment The above reasoning is circular. You admit that he is notable yet want to delete the article on the ground that he is not notable. 5 separate articles from credible newspapers plus a video of interviews with students from a credible TV outlet all of which verify his distinctive heroism establish otherwise. And where is it written that subjects with a single instance of notability don't get Wikipedia articles?Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You already pointed out the flawed logic in the discussion below where I have left my reply. UnfriendlyFire 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per norm. I'm sure we are going to have days of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING and in my case, accusations of Islamophobia. Gdo01 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, being the victim of a crime like this is tragic, but it doesn't make you notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Lankiveil 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• COMMENT, but being a hero and saving a life is. so its a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Since when? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP, Since we are not debating on removing other victims pages, we should keep this one also. It is unfair to all wikipedia users and people to delete some victims pages but not others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biobiz (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC). — Biobiz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Yes, we are. Emily Hilscher is up for deletion and Ryan Clark's article was redirected to the main article. See my original nomination. UnfriendlyFire 06:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - And on all those others I'll be !voting delete too unless they can show WP:N aside from the incidental fact of where they died - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Actually we are debating removing other victims' page and some have already been removed as a result of these debates. --Crunch 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable, according to WP:BIO regs. Not a memorial, etc. Pablosecca 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep' - he is completely notable on the basis of his publications, his honours and awards, regardless of his attachment to Virginia Tech. Far more notable than the pornstars, cartoon characters and garage bands that that grace WP. Gillyweed 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What "publications...honours and awards"? The current version of the article details no such items. Are the unmentioned items sufficient to pass WP:PROF (I know he's not a professor but the argument seems to be based on academic accomplishments and merits)? --ElKevbo 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness - what happened here? I ended up on the wrong AfD. When I clicked on the 'holocaust surviving professor' I got sent to this page... Was that some sort of vandalism? I'm quite confused. Delete

• Delete - do we really have to go through this process 32 times? A biography can be "built" around anyone with enough effort. The victims, individually, were generally NOT notable. WWGB 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment- because he wasn't just a victim. he saved a life as well.
• Comment. Despite the repeated claims, often by the same person, that "he saved a life as well," there is actually no evidence that this is true. Yes, he was brave. Yes, he apparently blocked a door. But we do not know and will never, ever, know what the killer would have done if the door had not been blocked. Would he have barged back in and continued shooting? Maybe. Would that shooting have resulted in deaths? Maybe. Or maybe, the killer would have walked away, or gone to another classroom. Maybe, just maybe, the blocking of the door by Waleed, caused the killer to take more lives because he couldn't enter that room and he went another where more killings happened. Think about it. All of this is mere and utter speculation and altering of a history that never happened. And, yes, this is true for Prof. Librescu as well, because I know people will ask. We do not know that he saved lives, and to suppose otherwise, is to fabricate a future that never happened. Librescu qualifies for an article because he meets WP:PROF. Let's put an end to the comparisons on that. --Crunch 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You really aren't paying attention, are you? Waleed Shaalan did not block a door. That's what Liviu Librescu did. Waleed Shaalan distracted the gunman's attention away from several other students, as verified by those other students. Please take the time to view this article's references, especially the video. Mosura 11:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have reviewed the references. The same exact logic applies whether the reports are that he blocked a door or distracted the gunman. It is unknown whether this resulted in saved lives, the same number of lives lost or more lives lost. We cannot make statements about a future that didn't happen. --Crunch 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Aside from a couple of the faculty members who at least warrant a discussion over their academic achievements, these victims were students and by definition hadn't had time to accomplish anything. I look forward to seeing a page for every soldier killed in WW2 by the logic the "keep" voters are using - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a memorial. Stubbleboy 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep what is not notable about standing up to one of the worst murderers in American history? Wikipedia isn't a memorial but it does tell things as they are. Not every soldier in World War II was notable in such a way. This man's position was proven by eye-witness accounts. He has been featured in media reports which not every soldier in every war has. To compare this to World War II is ridiculous! --DevelopedMadness 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. per DevelopedMadness. --Neo-Jay 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per standard Notability guidelines. This person is not notable aside from the fact that he was a victim in the murders. Kntrabssi 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with main article Virginia Tech Massacre, the VT students (including emily, ryan) are not yet notable with publications, honours, awards. However, the individual pages of VT faculty / professor victims should be kept (ref librescu, loganathan, granata). Chaerani 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

*Delete; content contained within parent article; violates WP:NOT

• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; The information is contained in that article in greater detail; there is no need for a separate article on each of the victims, lest they have independent notability (as some of the VT staff do) --Mhking 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to main article per Chaerani. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Virginia Tech Massacre, as should happen for all victim articles. Even though Wikipedia is not a memorial, a section on the victims could contribute to the article. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy/Snowy Delete - none of the students should have individual articles. No, it should not be merged into Virginia Tech massacre - it's already plenty large. We don't need bios on everyone who died. It would be nice if List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre gets kept and that article can have a one-liner about each student telling their major or whatever, but we absolutely 100% do not need individual articles and it cannot be merged into the main Virginia Tech massacre article. I strongly suggest that an uninvolved admin quickly close this out. This series of articles is highly visible and needs to be kept presentable, not having xFD templates all over creation. --BigDT (416) 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the basis that there are articles on him now to meet the present technical requirements for N. (there is now the Washington Post as well as the NYT)-- these papers think that each individual victim is appropriate for an article. So will other papers, which will provide many more than the necessary two sources. There is obviously no real consensus about whether 2 RS are all that is needed for N, regardless of the subject. The rules seem to say so, some people seem to think so, many of the people here do not agree. If delete in a case like this really is the consensus it may simplify some of the N discussions now going on, because this seems to be clearly saying that being the subject of independent feature articles in 2 major newspapers is not always enough for N. This unmistakably indicates we cannot combine the rules, and that we now mean articles must have 2 independent RS and also meet some additional notability criterion, whatever that may be. That's what the delete opinions above are saying. I don't say this is wrong, but I do wonder if this is proposed as a general rule for WP. DGG 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are at this comment posting already 5 separate and independent published articles from credible news sources focussing on Waleed Shaalan's heroism plus a TV video that expands on those articles with interviews from students showing that he saved three people. This thoroughly establishes the notability of Waleed Shaalan and clearly distinguishes him from other victims who died.Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Redirect: This content is repeated elsewhere, and does not warrant an article of its own since 100% of the content is related to the VT massacre. I will only change my vote to a weak keep if the article has content that is not directly related (i.e., if a scholarship were named in his honour or something that isn't repeated elsewhere, and would only make sense to have here). +mwtoews 04:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable before death and nothing about his death, even the claims of heroism, which are hardly substantiated, make him notable. Can be included in List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. John Vandenberg 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.202.25.172 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).— 196.202.25.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Per the reasons stated on several other victim articles. StuffOfInterest 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and Comment: I'm really against all these VaTech AfDs popping up immediately after the creation of the articles. Doesn't everyone know that there's absolutely no way we can get an organized and level-headed discussion about these articles while the emotions are running so high and the events are in everyone's mind? And that's not even mentioning the SPAs or possible/probably sockpuppetry. I say wait a few weeks, let the events settle down and cool down before engaging in an AfD. Only then will we be able to get a proper deletion discussion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If we do that, people will say "you left it up x weeks, why are you picking on it now?". There's no 'right' time for something emotive like this, and at least getting the discussion out of the way now saves people wasting time and effort expanding them if they're going to be deleted - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, there is no right time for discussions, but my point was that we could have a better discussion in a few weeks. But you're right, let's have this now, and if it gets kept, let's revisit it in a few weeks. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, because well written and well referenced article that even includes a nice image concerning a victim in a historic and media-worthy tragedy in which people conducting research and using this encyclopedia will assuredly be interested in looking up. Moreover, the story written in the article about this particular individual shows some travel and other distinctions that add to its notability. Finally, as information continues to come out, this article is likely to be fleshed in further and so the nomination for deletion is simply jumping the gun, i.e. way too quick and suspicious, sadly. --Horace Horatius 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Many of the things you want to keep this article for are irrelevant. How does having a "nice image" affect this subject's notability? What kind of distinctions did he have? Being a doctoral student? Being from Egypt? Being "very active" in the Muslim Student Association? Tejastheory 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any information about his heroism can be included in the main article. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• No brainer keep, because obviously meets quality and notability for inclusion. Bravo to article creator! :) --172.167.132.145 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)— 172.167.132.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy Delete for reasons that have been gone over multiple times in other AfDs. Doesn't appear to be any notability at all in academic terms, and I don't believe simply being a victim is enough to be notable. I think, from the professors' AfD, we've reached a clear consensus that being a victim by itself doesn't make anyway notable - all of the professors have had to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and as a simple student, I don't believe that is the case, nor do I think that any editors will suddenly discover some remarkably notable academic research that is attributed to Shaalan. Tejastheory 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The information is coming from multiple reliable sources, notability is inherent in the coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read the criteria for speedy keep. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not a notable individual ugen64 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the list or the main massacre page. --Witchinghour 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre Rafy 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. it is too soon to know whether or not he is notable in the US or in Egypt. At least another week...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs).— 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, as was done with Emily Hilscher. The only thing that sets Mr. Shaalan apart from the other victims is that he may've distracted the gunman (and was shot as a result) in order to save another student; this can be noted in his section of the "list of" article. Of course, if Mr. Shaalan becomes notable for something outside having died in the massacre, I will fully support the article's recreation. Jeff Silvers 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-create Emily's article. The redirect was really disappointing and unfortunate and hardly a consensus move. --Horace Horatius 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect Appearantly nothing distiguishes him from the other victims. Medico80 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. All victim's information may someday be useful. Even though seemingly random, the victim's profiles may someday show some logical connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.64.40.137 (talk • contribs).— 198.64.40.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this point it seems unlikely that there is any particular connection between the victims, and in any case it is not the role of wikipedia to speculate on possible connections, or to start articles based on the subjects' potential to DEVELOP notability - we wait for other verifiable sources to establish notability and information, and only then do we compile that information into an article. Tejastheory 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn, dying in a notable event doesn't make one notable otherwise we'd have millions of notable people who died in WW1, WW2, the Irish Potato Famine, 9/11, the Titanic, etc., all of which were notable events leaving lots of dead people. Carlossuarez46 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to main page. Support nom. xC | ☎ 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per well-argued reasons by other keepers above and also suggest recreation of Emily's article as consensus was hardly reached and new information about email contact between her and Cho has been reported by MSNBC. Thus, redirect happened too rapidly. --164.107.223.217 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as the article about Liviu Librescu is being retained without consideration for deletion. There was no wikipedia article about Librescu prior to his murder. The first history for his article shows up on April 17, 2007. Both Waleed Shaalan and Librescu are notable for their heroic resistance to their assailant. Contrast this with the Wikipedia memorials for people who merely made telephone calls from Flight 93, or who supposedly offered resistance to attackers. Start with the most obvious one, Tom Burnett which even contains a photo of his memorial. Continue with Mark Bingham, Edward P. Felt, Todd Beamer,Honor Elizabeth Wainio, Cee Cee Lyles, Lauren Grandcolas and Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim). Considering that as with Flight 93, wikipedia does indeed memorialize victims, the evident remaining reason for considering deletion of Waleed Shaalan can indeed only be considered as founded in Islamophobia. In addition it would be a shameful irony if in the end only the Virginia Tech assailant receives an article for supposedly having done something "noteworthy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Thank you for your wise and well-reasoned argument - I especially enjoyed the part where you called me an Islamophobe. I would suggest you read the policy WP:AADD. ugen64 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah that was a good one :-/ Medico80 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • People must get it into their gray matter that Librescu and Granata were noteworthy before the article due to their professional achievements -- especially Granata -- and Librescu was distinguished due to his widely noted heroism. G. V. Loganathan was included too, I think without justification, but the admin ruled twice and I accept the adjudication on a complex issue (at least for the time being). Wiki members must keep it in mind that it is unhelpful to call people Islamophobes or misogynists (as was the case in the Couture-Nowak debate) and keep their minds, such as they are, on policy citations. Oh, and one other thing: this rationale that "the article isn't noteworthy now but it might become noteworthy so let's leave it in" is codswallop -- and not the same thing as erring on the side of caution. Pablosecca 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugen64 must mean the part of WP:AADD that reads, "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section WP:AADD#Just_a_policy_or_guideline below)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Sigh... let's talk policy... assume good faith. Your original comment called all those who supported the deletion of this argument Islamophobes. Not really assuming good faith, is it? Stop being a punk (see? I was civil enough to change the wording) and respect the fact that Ugen64 was trying to help you out and introduce you to the complex world of AfDs. As is stands, your further comments are invalidating your original argument. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject."WP:BIO|Primary criterion for Notability of people] Waleed Shaalan has met these requirements. Nowhere is notability excluded because of the stated reasons here, such as "single instance of notability" or because he was a student(!). Gdo01 admitted early on that accusations of Islamophobia would be a likely concomitant of this discussion. He was right. Waleed Shaalan is easily distinguishable from the other victims up for deletion, because he didn't simply die, he rescued someone else. And truth be told, that's the reason that Librescu gets a bio. I'm sure you realize that had he simply died of old age, there would be no article for him in Wikipedia. I've already pointed out that indeed there was no article for him until April 17, 2007. What made him notable was his selfless heroism in protecting students. The same goes for Shaalan. The chief difference between Librescu and Shaalan is their religion. No rational claim has been advanced that Shaalan is not notable. So what other conclusion can be made other than that Islamophobia has once again reared its ugly head? But I'll consider any intelligent response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
          • Comment. I take offense at being accused of requesting the deletion of this article for any reason other than Wikipedia-related. From reading the article on Liviu Librescu, he was a world-renowned expert in his field of research. That he didn't have an article before his death is no reflection on his notability -- his death just brought him to the attention of a wider audience. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment To everyone considering a response: remember, don't feed the trolls. Taking this discussion further won't get us anywhere and will just detract from the AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment. I have added 3 additional and different article cites about Waleed Shaalan's notable heroism to the main article from Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mosura 10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
            • Comment. I have edited the intro and added a video from WDBJ documenting the fact that Waleed Shaalan saved three lives, not one.Mosura 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. NN bio. WP is not a memorial. Keb25 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because of notable biography. --172.131.174.231 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.131.174.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, not notable. Nyttend 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Unless all victims of this tragedy are deleted, this article should be kept. These victims may not be notable in and of themselves, but their loss in this tragedy made them notable and brought their lives to light. Finding something notable about a victim, does not mean that their post should stay, because the reason for the posting is the fact that they are a victim, the rest are merely 'excuses' (for a lack of a better term) to keep them. I am ALL the profiles of the victims should stay. However, if we delete this one, we must delete Liviu Librescu and his notable deeds as well.
  • Well, the difference is, that there are plenty of testemonies stating that Librescu's actions did indeed save other peoples lives. And then add his record as a professor which is strong enough for inclusion in its own right. There is no evidence that other dead victims have done anything "brave". Besides, I think your all-or-nothing approach has been rejected in the many 9/11 victim discussions. Medico80 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Hello everyone. Waleed Shaalan is a notable person for many reasons. The first and most important is that he saved his classmates life. He, unfortunately for him, is now a part of U.S history, because he he was killed in what is described as the worst school shooting incident in American history. Waleed Shaalan is notable for another reason. He emigrated from zagazig, Egypt, an extremely poor region of egypt. He is notable because not only did he finish his education, which in that area is an accomplishment, but he received an offer from Virginia Tech to teach as well as work on his Phd. That in and of itself is an accomplishment and is notable. Lets not forget that we have to keep in mind this persons situation. Everyone is different, and for him to actually make it here is remarkable and notable. Secondly, it is notable that he left his entire family to come study in the united states. It is notable that he was respected by a number of professor and students. As you can read in the articles, everyone has remarked on how hardworking and intelligent he was. I believe that this person is notable and that this wikipedia article should remain. He is just as notable as Liviu Librescu. If this article is deleted than so should Librescu's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WALEED SHAALAN SAVED A LIFE. HE MADE AMERICAN HISTORY BY SAVING A LIFE, THUS NOT ADDING TO THE DEATH TOLL. IS THAT NOT NOTABLE??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment While all of the things you stated are very true, and very nice, they still don't make him "notable". There are many such personal stories everywhere around the world, of people from poorer situations who have worked their way up to better situations. While it may be a very nice story, and he may have been working toward great things in life, and he may have even been a really incredible person, none of these things really say anything about his being important in either an academic context (as many of the professors were) or in a historical context (simply "being a victim" really doesn't warrant more than possibly a small blurb in the collective victims page. Tejastheory 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentHe is not just a victim Tejastheory he is a HERO he SAVED A LIFE. This is not just a nice story. HE WAS A PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY. And his act IS notable. Or is saving a life not notable anymore?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep - There seems to be no debate at all that Liviu Librescu is notable, and his article was created for the exact same reason as Shaalan's: he died a hero, sacrificing his life to save the lives of others during the worst shooting massacre in American history. Is a student sacrificing his life to save others somehow less notable than a professor doing the same thing during the same incident? Of course not. No, we should not have articles for every person killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, but people who have widely-reported, individually significant involvement in the event certainly are notable enough to merit their own articles. Claiming that Shalaan was just another victim is dishonest and offensive. And as for Shaalan having only a single instance of notability...the same would apply to Seung-Hui Cho. Redxiv 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Will people stop using Librescu as an example as to why this article should be kept? Librescu fulfills WP:PROF, and so you're comparing apples and oranges which just happened to be from the same backyard. What we need to do is separate our emotions from these and actually figure out if they fulfill WP:N. I'm sorry, but Cho did something notable. As unfortunate as it is, Shallan did not. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - So, committing mass murder is notable, but saving people from a mass murderer is not? That seems a bit twisted. Not to mention, unsupported by any consensus I'm aware of. The articles for several Flight 93 victims who fought back against the hijackers indicates otherwise. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between good and bad. But yes, being a mass murderer is more 'notable' than being a life-saver. Christopher Connor 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the term notable as it is used at Wikepedia, does not mean the dictionary definition. It means that there are sufficient notices from different reliable sources to adequately describe the subject. Despite the brilliance and/or serendipity involved, whoever first discovered how to make fire is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, because there are insufficient notices from different credible sources (a total of zero) to describe the subject. With Waleed Shaalan there are multiple separate notices making Waleed Shaalan an independent subject of articles in a variety of credible media, including a video from WDBJ and articles from the New York Times, Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. All those notices are made in prominent credible sources that are themselves subjects of Wikipedia media entries. So Waleed Shaalan has met the test of notability in the Wikipedia sense.

Second, this entire deletion page is an absurdity, and a very insulting one at that. Go to the very top of this page to see the basis of its establishment. This page is predicated upon the oxymoron that Waleed Shaalan is not notable because he is an "Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre". Thus in the very establishment of this page, it is formally acknowledged in circular fashion that Waleed Shaalan DOES have an instance of notability, thereby invalidating the very claim that he is not notable. There is nothing in Wikipedia to require deletion of subjects that involve a single instance of notability. There are many thousands of such subjects, if not millions. That Waleed Shaalan is made the target of such an attack is very offensive.Mosura 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - If he was truly non-notable, then he wouldn't even be mentioned in the main article or the list of victims; however, this point is obviously not true. From the AfD of the list of victims articles, Waleed is collectively notable and as such his heoric actions can be documented where appropriate. The point is that his notability is derived from a single event, which really isn't what I was trying to get across as the reason for deletion. Please read the next sentence in my nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article solely focuses on his actions during the massacre and nothing else. Wikilawyering my nom and accusing me of being an Islamophobe isn't helpful to the discussion. UnfriendlyFire 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the circumstances of his death are notable (which they are), then he's notable. This isn't a memorial, it's an article about a man who is individually notable as shown by multiple media reports about his actions. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Everyone, let's put strong political feelings aside which seem to be fueling this argument. Librescu is included in Wikipedia because he was a notable scholar and professor in his field and deserved to be included regardless of what may have happened in the massacre. While both reportedly acted fearlessly in the face of great danger in the Virginia Tech massacre, that's not the basis on which we are deciding the inclusion of either of them. It is a very ugly situation to assume that this has something to do with the fact that Librescu was a Jew and a holocaust survivor and Waleed was an Egyptian. It has everything to do with the fact that Librescu was a full professor, 76 years old with an established and esteemed career. He would have met the criteria for a Wikipedia article even if he had been nowhere near the shootings on April 16. Shallen was just a 32 year old grad student, yet to establish himself in his career. Please, let's understand this. --Crunch 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Librescu had no article prior to the Virginia Tech massacre. Had he lived out the rest of his life peacefully and died of natural causes, it's unlikely that anybody would have written an article about him. For that matter, it's far from guaranteed that he would've gotten an article had he merely been another victim of the shooting, rather than someone who acted heroically during it. To say that his article was created because of his academic career is just not accurate. Librescu has an article because of the circumstances of his death. Thus, comparing him and Shaalan, who died in the same event while taking similar actions, is entirely valid.

This is akin to someone claiming that that Todd Beamer merits an article but Jeremy Glick doesn't. BTW, neither of those men had done anything prior to 9/11 that was notable; the actions leading to their deaths were sufficient to establish notability. Or better yet, let's look at Andrew Garcia and Edward P. Felt. The latter gets an article because...he made a phone call. The former, because he might have fought back against the hijackers (no source cited). If these people are notable, then certainly Shaalan is as well. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He isn't notable in any way. All he did was die. That isn't notable. Titanium Dragon 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's interesting that those advocating deletion have to make factually incorrect claims to justify their position. Redxiv 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think it is far more intersting that the page had a link to a memorial site inline, indicating the true purpose of this page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He wasn't notable. Sorry. Titanium Dragon 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - By that "logic" the page for Ronald Reagan is a memorial since it mentions his death and includes a link to a memonial site. We have citations from reliable sources (three major newspapers and a major television news network) to show his notability. Redxiv 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Liviu Librescu has an external link to a "Librescu Family Condolence Page". Does that indicate the true purpose of his page is a memorial? I think not. Neither does the link to a memorial site for Waleed Shaalan indicate that the "true purpose" of the article on Waleed Shalaan is to memorialize him. Clearly with 6 reputable national and international sources that separately detail his heroism Waleed Shalaan has the requisite notability that separates him from the other victims. Mosura 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Easy decision Yuber^(talk) 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per user:DevelopedMadness. This is not a memorial but an article about a notable person who seem to have enough reputable sources writing about a heroic (that alone doesn’t make it encyclopedic) incident. It meets all the criteria of a biography Taprobanus 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Is that possible to have a single page named Victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre. They all collectively are important to have an article but I see no need for individual articles on them. Please someone make a back-up of this very good written page so that we can use this material later on, in case of deletion. regards, --- ALM 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We already do — it narrowly survived its own AfD last week — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No one is arguing that every victim of the massacre should have an article. Only those who are individually notable get articles. The dispute is whether Shaalan falls into that category. Apparently some people think that since he was a student rather than a professor, his actions being reported in numerous reliable nationwide and international media sources somehow is not enough to establish notability. Redxiv 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I have changed my mind after reading NY Times report. It make him important enough to have a seperate article on him. --- ALM 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to "list" unless a case can be made per WP:PROF, per Chaerani. All of the deaths were tragic, and his heroic actions should be recorded on the main page (as I believe they are now), but we must draw lines, however painful, for the sake of the project. Tewfik^Talk 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I specifically sought out the subject of this article as I was researching cases of possible heroism during the shootings. I specifically wanted information regarding the background of the possible heros and specifics regarding the incidents of possible heroism. This article provided the information I was searching for about a specific subject, and was both the most complete and easily accessible article on the subject. kamatoa - 25 April, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.228.243.82 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC). has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• DELETE - for notability reasons mentioned a billion times already, above. much respect to waleed for his sacrifice, though. Jgw 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre is good enough for now. Maybe if more information is uncovered or notability increases the subject should then have his own article. The article as it stands now is a bit too much of a memorial. I am suer everyone here wishes the best to all who knew Waleed.--Diletante 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why does Wikipedia have THIS article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Dorsey

Noted for dying on a football field. Article notes: NOT a major recruit. Please, if we keep Keeley Dorsey we should have an article for every VA Tech victim. If we delete Waleed Shaalan, we should delete people known for nothing else other than 'dying'.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, "other stuff exists" really isn't a valid argument - having an article that breaks the rules doesn't make it okay for other article to break the rules. Natalie 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  I suggest nominate that article too for deletion. --- ALM 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Heroic he may or may not be, but notable? No. Christopher Connor 18:38, 26 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. This is the sort of thing that belongs on Wikinews. --Coredesat 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 TTC subway murder

2007 TTC subway murder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable urban homicide; article makes no assertion of importance or wide public note. Basically an ephemeral news story with no apparent encyclopedic nature. --MCB 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately, murders happen all of the time, and this one does not appear to be particularly notable. Lankiveil 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, non-notable murder. Hut 8.5 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As Lankiveil says, unfortunate as this event may be, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than most other murders. Adambro 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete can't see why this was created. It doesn't even mention the victim's name for heaven's sake - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think where the murder happened makes it notable. The Toronto subway has traditionally been relatively safe compared to New York's, for example, and the TTC now spends a lot of money on security, including its relatively new special constable security unit. Murders are less common in Toronto than in the United States, and particularly those where the victim does not know the assailant. The article is also relevant as part of the history of the Toronto Transit Commission. --Eastmain 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Eastmain. --GreenJoe 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable homicide. "This is notable because the TTC is safer than the NYC subway" is POV, and not a valid defense. Any relevence to the TTC itself can be put in the article on the TTC. Resolute 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although murder is a ghastly crime, this one doesn't appear to be more notable than most, which it would need to be for Wikipedia. When something like this happens, it makes it into wikipedia if it's made at least national news (I listen to the news daily and never heard of this) or international. Being stabbed at a subway station in the wee hours of the day is not notable. And WP:NOT a memorial. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; violates WP:N --Mhking 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mention it at Victoria Park (TTC) if you must. -Joshuapaquin 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is notable because it is a rare event in Canada. As it stands, Category:Crime in Canada probably needs expansion rather than reduction. John Vandenberg 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Murders are not rare in Canada, sadly. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If this murder on a train is not a notable event, which murder on a train is? So far, there is no evidence on Wikipedia in the category system that this event is not rare. Unless someone has credible proof otherwise, this is the most notable train murder in Canada that has to date been recorded in Wikipedia. What I am trying to point out is that we should not delete articles "on principle" in area's that lack coverage. When we have better coverage of a subject, then the dross can be trimmed. Doing so beforehand is premature optimisation. John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Why does it matter that this occured on a train? Resolute 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The standard is multiple reports in non-trivial sources. Google news has 21 reports, including at CBC and CTV, Canada's national networks. That easily passes this standard. semper fictilis 12:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any murder will get local news coverage, which those stories are. By this argument, you are suggesting that every murder committed deserves an article. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. No, the coverage is national. And I make no suggestion that every murder deserves an article, only that this article about this murder doesn't deserve deletion. semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, they are both local stories. While CTV and CBC are national networks, those articles are both restricted to the local affiliates - CBC Toronto and CTV Toronto. They are not national stories. Incidentally, your google search is already down to 13 hits from 21, just to suggest how trivial this story is in the grand scheme of things. Resolute 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Multiple independent etc etc is only a starting point, not the be-all and end-all. I can find over a thousand sources, including the BBC, the Sun and MSN News, about a Sudanese man who had sex with goats - that doesn't mean he warrants an article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Write up the article about that Sudanese man and we'll see.  :-) semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a textbook example of recentism. In 5 years, no one will remember this except the murderer and the friends and family of the victim. One or two sentences in the Toronto Transit Commission article would be sufficient. Indefatigable 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• How do you know that this event doesnt spark reform in the TTC? It already looks like it might. If it does, this event will be referred to as the cause. If not, someone can delete it in the next few years when the coverage clearly indicates this was a minor footnote in the transportation history of Canada. Why the mad panic to delete the article after 10 days? John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that the convention in Wikipedia is the reverse, that is, only to create and maintain an article is there is substantial reason to believe that something is of lasting encyclopedic value, rather than an ephemeral news story. This is an encyclopedia, not a news roundup; articles here are at least theoretically of permanent interest. There's plenty of time to create an article when it becomes clear that one is warranted, which is not yet the case. --MCB 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There are people that work that way, but the growth of Wikipedia has been due to people creating stub articles on anything that interests them, and the content being merged and improved as required until it is finally encyclopedic. Consistently deleting useful material on an undeveloped theme because it isnt clearly encyclopedic makes it more difficult for amateurs to develop a theme sufficiently in their free time and to be able to write an encyclopedic piece. I would have written a wikinews piece instead of this, but just because this contribution was given to wikipedia instead of wikinews doesnt make it any less desirable to keep. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. John Vandenberg 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Resolute 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if someone can add references to the article; otherwise delete --ALL IN (u t c m l) 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  I've added four refs. John Vandenberg 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't wikinews. Agent 86 18:17, 26 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 no consensus, but if the article is not merged or improved in a timely manner feel free to renominate. --Coredesat 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman

OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode of a television programme. No evidence of notability or other sources provided. From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.". I do not see how this particular episode has any special significance. Lankiveil 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment Even if this isn't deleted, could we get rid of the "heart" in the title? It makes it virtually impossible to search for (who uses non-standard ASCII in search strings?) and a pain to link to. Wintermut3 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just as an FYI, there's discussion going on over at Talk:List of Naruto episodes on plans to merging all the Naruto episode articles into a list (or number of lists) and making all the episode articles redirects to the list(s). That being said, I don't think it would be much of a problem to delete this article, although it would be preferrable to simply redirect to List of Naruto episodes so those of us doing the merging can use the information from the article history to (better) summarize the episode. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in deference to the merge discussion going on; see NeoChaosX's comment above. This would be my only reason for keeping, though - so my mind can be changed in that direction as well. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Like several other Naruto episode articles, this article is devoted primarily to a scene-by-scene plot description which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As Wintermut3 indicates, the title is inappropriate as well due to the use of the heart symbol. --Metropolitan90 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The heart symbol doesn't really affect searching (try it ♥)— Sandtiger 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delay AFD. As noted above, we're currently working on a merger, and we may need to salvage a bit of info from this page (and the rest of the Naruto episodes while we're at it). Afterwards, this page can disappear (or, more preferably, turn into a redirect). By the way, for future reference, when dealing with television episodes, WP:EPISODE is more accurate than WP:Notability (fiction). While this particular article may seem to grossly violate the latter, it is only really slightly below the line for an episode summary. You Can't See Me! 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but merge - and as for the title, this is what it renders as in the address bar with the ♥ symbol:
  

♥
OH%21%3F_Please_%E2%99%A5_Mister_Postman. The character is not standard ASCII either, which may be problematic for some people. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sure that there are many, many other Naruto episode guides available on the Internet if you want to integrate information about this episode into an episode list. MichelleG 02:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To topic starter: This is an exercise in futility. No one is disputing that this fails notability, which is why we are already working on merging the episodes. You understand that wikipedia attracts a lot of fancruft, and anime fans are the worst, so its difficult to control every new thing that gets posted. Do you plan to nominate every single episode for deletion? This just distracts people on AFD from more important issues.— Sandtiger 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have nominated a grand total of two episode articles, so I hardly think I'm clogging AfD with crap and causing a backlog. If preserving this article is really so important for the purposes of this merger (and I don't think it is, as per MichelleG above), then it can be copied into someone's user space in preparation for that. If you have any further issues with my nominations, I invite you to to visit my talk page and take them up with me there. Lankiveil 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Nice try, but I'm not dignifying this topic with another response. I already said it, it's a pointless, counterproductive nom.Try nominating an episode of startrek or the simpsons if you want an actual afd discussion. — Sandtiger 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and leave the people who are working in this area to continue working on the merger without an Afd hanging over their head. If it is absolutely necessary to deal with this now, redirect it to List of Naruto episodes. John Vandenberg 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus to improve episodes. The article establishes plenty of notability to me and demonstrates an ample amount of real world information (I'd guess even more could be found though). Remember, kids, WP:NOT#PAPER. Now you play nice! Matthew 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, what notability? As far as I can tell, there's only a plot summary and some trivia. The article gives no indication to me as to why episode #177 is particularly notable. Lankiveil 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - a merge is taking place right now anyways. We need to keep all the edit histories. As far as notability, if you speak japanese, there's thousands of articles about this episode. - Peregrine Fisher 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-per Peregrine and MatthewIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:56, 24 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. No point in letting this run on - there's only going to be one end result. Relisting individually is at editor discretion, but I would suggest not blindly relisting them, because it is clear from the consensus below that most are not candidates from deletion. Daniel Bryant 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

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

Not notable website. No reliable sources provided. DXRAW 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason above:

Wikiversity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikinews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikimedia Commons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikisource (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikijunior (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikibooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wiktionary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Er, I don't think you did your research on these. I can find multiple for these two, and I haven't enough time to look for the others.
  • Wikinews
    1. Wired
    2. NYT
    3. Cyberjournalist.net
    4. Journalism.co.uk
  • Wikiquote
    1. UBuffalo Newspaper [6]
    2. UBuffalo Newspaper [7]
    3. Mathematos Article [8]
  • Wikisource
• So, Keep on these two, and Delete on the others, unless someone comes up with some WP:RS. It shouldn't be that hard - just exclude Wikimedia, and their mirrors, in a google search with "-site:XXXX". --Haemo 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Wikinews sources: CNet Businessweek NYT.
  • Commons: O'Reilly.
  • WikiBooks: Guardian Free Software Magazine ariadne.ac.uk.
• All have scholarly articles at http://scholar.google.com/ --h2g2bob 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't realize that Google Scholar results were not apparent from a standard Google search - thanks for pointing this out. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. It's reasonably obvious that no research at all has gone into this nomination, such as an attempt to find reliable sources, as required by our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and recommended by the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Such sources exist. Wikinews, for example, has a whole list of reliable sources that have written about Wikinews, over a period of three years, many of which one can find handily collected at n:Wikinews:In the news. One doesn't even need to make the tiny effort of using Google to look for them. This is a very poor nomination indeed. Uncle G 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It gets worse. I mention to DXRAW (talk · contribs) that xe omitted Wiktionary and that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiktionary there is a comment that nominations such as these are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (a guideline that xe disagrees with) and xe then promptly adds it to this list. This sort of response, and the addition of Wiktionary to a nomination stating that there are no reliable sources cited in the article, in the face of the citations in the article of sources such as The New Yorker, is clear evidence that the rationale stated is not the real reason for nomination. (That sources are not cited by an article is not the same as sources not existing at all, and is not grounds for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) These edits, to me, indicate that this is not a simple misunderstanding of policy or lack of knowledge of policy, but that in fact this editor is not nominating articles in good faith and is deliberately contravening a guideline not to be disruptive. I therefore issue one of my exceedingly rare speedy keeps. Uncle G 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All This is not a well considered proposal. Per results above. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity (3rd nomination) less than a month ago with a result of keep.--mikeu 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All per above. Badly thought out nomination with previous consensus to keep. Hut 8.5 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are you missing the fact that there is no WP:RS DXRAW 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as has been noted above, there obviously are. If the article doesn't cite any, that doesn't mean none exist. Of course they should be added, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Hut 8.5 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all <sigh> Wikiversity sources at: [9], [10], [11], [12] ... Cormaggio ^{is learning} 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All - seems a poorly thought out nomination, all satisfy notability criteria. Adambro 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikinews. I've taken two of the citations above and incorporated them into the article - this satisfies the requirement for reliable sources for this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It is my opinion that this AfD should be speedy closed as a bad faith nomination. However, I decline to close it as such myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikiquote. I've added the one valid citation of the three listed above to the article (one was a reprint of the other and the third is a blog). This is a 'weak citation', though, in that it is from a university library newsletter. However, the vast majority of Google hits against Wikiquote are where sites (including news organizations) have used Wikiquote content to embellish their copy. The question arises about whether use of content constitutes demonstration of notability or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel it does, significant use of Wikiquote content can be seen as recognition of the sites importance. Adambro 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wiktionary. There are a couple of 'reliable source' citations present; I've templated the reference to The New Yorker, so that it now appears in the references list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All have multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. Edison 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think these articles are all useful parts of the encyclopedia and should be kept. An alternative it to turn these pages into redirects linking to sections for each project at Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close. Edison has it right. That, and it's just a little too early for April Fools Day 2008. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- notable websites, with reliable sources and references Thunderwing 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is basically a nomination to remove all articles on Wikimedia projects. Not only is this patently ridiculous, and not only do these articles have dozens of parallel translations in other languages, but this is a larger policy question that should not be decided by simply tacking an AfD notice on the articles in question. For Wikisource there wasn't even a comment on the talk page. I'm removing the notice. Dovi 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PS Danny Wool on Wikisource, as per JWSchmidt above.
• Comment - Wikimedia commons is a non notable website? April 1 was two weeks ago. Want to nominate Google for deletion as well? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Google has WP:RS while commons does not. DXRAW 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All I think they are all notable as they are part of Wikimedia, which does provides us with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a notable website and so are its siblings. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All All of these projects have been mentioned in many news articles and many (all?) have been/are the focus of scholarly research. --Cspurrier 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all nomination is a joke. JuJube 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep All per WP:SNOW; I like to assume good faith, but in this case I have to assume that this is a bad faith nomination that violates WP:POINT, and is actually vandalism in and of itself; In addition, I'd suggest this user needs to be watched as there may be additional potential vandalism from this user in the future. --Mhking 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This page is often misused, People will often link to the shortcut WP:POINT when people are making their point in a non-disruptive way, such as a single nomination of a similar article after an AFD they disagreed with closed, or starting a discussion on the village pump, etc. The idea that these actions are disruptive is not supported by this guideline. DXRAW 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You have made a patently absurd nomination at AfD. That qualifies as disruptive behavior under WP:POINT bordering on blatant vandalism. I would support restricting your editing activity over this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You need to see that peoples options differ, I don't see it is "patently absurd" DXRAW 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Your knowledge of WP and the related Wikipedia sites demonstrates your knowledge of the way things are here. In addition, your nomination of those core sites appears to be meant to disrupt things here. As I prefaced initially, I'd like to assume good faith, but there is nothing in this nomination that allows me to see any good faith to begin with. If I am missing something, I'd be happy to look at it, but I can only assume at this juncture that you are trying to disrupt things to make some sort of point. What point? I cannot discern any. And in relation to your comments to me, your actions have only served to reinforce my thoughts. --Mhking 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'd add that DXRAW also has a history of attempting to use Wikipedia guidelines to bully people who make edits he/she doesn't agree with (eg, labeling such edits 'vandalism' and placing a warning template on the person's talk page - typically without any kind of justification of the warning beyond citing some guideline (see [13] and [14]) and seems to frequently cast one word votes in straw polls and ignores requests to justify his/her vote. --Nick Dowling 08:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment My recommendation to User:DXRAW is to assess and accept the consensus here and withdraw the nominations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to withdraw the nominations due to gross volitions of WP:AGF DXRAW 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then can you at least provide some rationale for why you nominated these? Either you did no research, which is prohibited, or you didn't do your research well enough. Either way, you either made a mistake, or did something wrong, and should voluntarily close this AfD. It's not contrary to WP:AGF to request that people support their reasons for deletion when they appear fallacious. --Haemo 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF policy states: Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Also, to say that you won't withdraw a clearly inappropriate nomination due to WP:AGF (i.e. nothing to do with the validity of the nomination itself) is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well its ok, he doesnt need to withdraw it, an andministrator will come along and see the consensus and close this AFD. Meanwhile, User:DXRAW I suggest seriously, not sarcastically, to you to nominate also the encyclopedic page Wikipedia for deletion. That may get some serious attention from administrators. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All This is a joke, right? Just being Wikipedia's sister projects should make it notable enough, and there have definitely been enough sources given to prove it. --LuigiManiac 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another Comment THe nominator's reasons for deletion were "Not notable website. No reliable sources provided." As it states on the AFD page, "not notable" is not a criterion for deletion. Also, the deletion policy page states that you must check for sources before nominating an article for AFD. THe nominator here made no obvious attempt to do that. Thus, the nomination has no basis. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Query comment Could you clarify that ... "not notable is not a criterion for deletion"? Not meeting notability criteria is among the most common reasons an article is deleted on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe it was an essay off of the AFD page, however I remember stating in another AFD i discussed that "non notable is not a criterion for deletion" was on teh AFD page. Maybe it has been changed. Oh here it is, WP:JNN. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good page to take a look at, thanks. However, this doesn't apply in the present case; a reason was given: no reliable sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Continued comment Well yes, but "no reliable sources" isn't a valid reason for deltetion. A person wanting to put an article up for AFD for that reason must first search for sources, and then if none are found it can be put up on AFD. AND it isnt even applicable in this case as some have been added. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep; an obvious joke, and a bad one at that. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep! They seem inportant enough to be in an encyclopedia. Many other websites have an entry, so what wrong with these wikis? And I'm thinking that they were nominated together with each other because of.. Discrimination?
• Speedy keep all and close Per above comments, these are all notable Brian | (Talk) 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Why are these even up for deletion? They're all notable things in the Wikimedia project. If Wikipedia doesn't have articles on these things, then it's sort of pointless.--十八 09:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep all. Relist individually after sufficient due diligence has been conducted that the nom is satisfied that an article really truly should be deleted according to our deletion criteria. John Vandenberg 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and a giant procedural knockout. The nom clearly failed to do even rudimentary source checks and improve the articles with whatever resources there are, and the preferred way of dealing with this sort of stuff is to add the sources first. Nominating stuff on AfD to get sources to articles just makes people annoyed later. Basically, this is a blanket nomination for a bunch of articles with "no sources" as the sole complaint, which lead to... um, a bunch of sources discovered. Not exactly how AfD was meant to really work on day-to-day basis, now is it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These sister projects are certainly notable, and it's useful and interesting to be able to find information about them. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per all Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For sure! --Defender 911 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep with some choice words for User:DXRAW. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Bejnar 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Appears to be frivolous, at best. Snowball this, please! --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:04Z

[edit] Airi Kinoshita

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

nn person. No notable achievements. Proudlyhumble07 06:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unremarkable murder victim, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She's not notable in the US, but sources listed at the bottom of the article show she may be the most notable murder victim in Japan in some time. Very well-known in that country. --Charlene 08:15, 21 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 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaal 2

Kaal 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is a figment of the creator's imagination. User:Sc4900 has a past history of creating fictional pages and this is just another one of them. Also note, completely unreferenced and uses a poster of Kaal 1 in the imagebox. xC | ☎ 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - user was reported on ANI. Please see WP:ANI#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Thanks xC | ☎ 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Articles on forthcoming releases or events need reliable sources, this has none and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up anything of relevance. Adambro 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even in the unlikely event this were true, it would violate WP:CRYSTAL - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's no snakes on this plane. --Infrangible 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:RS and has major issues wrt to WP:CRYSTAL. Combined they make an unpalatable article. John Vandenberg 10:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per John Vandenburg. --soum (0_o) 10:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I would suggest early closure of this AfD on the grounds of WP:SNOW. Note, ANI thread has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive232#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Mallanox 08:00, 24 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Arguments were not strong for either side. Concern about setting a precedent not a strong argument, WP:NOT PAPER is not a strong rebuttal. References have been added so that negates some of the Delete comments. I'd have to say that appears the Keep commentors have more knowledge of the field than the Delete commentors have, although with the numbers and lack of strong arguments its not a straight Keep either. Herostratus 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncanny X-Men 94

Uncanny X-Men 94 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Articles on individual issues, unless they are particularly notable for some specific reason, are the wrong way to go about documenting comics history. We have articles on prominent story arcs, like Days of Future Past and the Dark Phoenix Saga; we don't need an article on each of the 485 issues of Uncanny X-Men. This article also sets a bad precedent. Also, this article has no sources and consists primarily of a plot summary and list of characters, which violates WP:NOT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are almost 500 issues of this comic, and since issues are just part of story arcs I see no reason for any individual issue to have an article (even articles on the story arcs might be too much unless they are major events, like the ones stated by the nominator). TJ Spyke 09:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We can't list each and every "notable issue" of Uncanny X-Men or any other comic book; this article violates WP:NOT --Mhking 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 03:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm strongly against the worries about setting a bad precedent; the fear that this needs to be nipped in the bud now because we dont want an article on all 500 odd issues is a straw man. There are only two articles on the individual issues, and there are articles for most episodes of many TV shows. So, it is possible. But it needs to be done well. The lack of sources in this case is unsatisfactory. John Vandenberg 10:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Crazy notable issue. We could probably add 10-20 refs to this if we want to. - Peregrine Fisher 05:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I added 10 refs. We could probably find 10 more if we try. I understand the concerns about articles on all 500 issues, but this is a special issue. Although Giant-Size X-Men #1 is the first appearance of some of the new X-Men, this issue is where the old team is replaced by the new team. This is the first standard appearance of the most famous superhero team ever. It is also the most notable issue of X-Men after #1, and I think we can make room for a well cited article on it. The arguments for deletion so far are that it's non-notable, that it will set a bad precedent, and that we can't have articles on every notable issue. Well, notability has been established. We do have lots of articles in areas that include notable and non-notable subjects, so I don't think creating an article on something notable sets any bad precedents. Finally, obviously we can create articles for all notable issues. This nomination was created because the editor thought it wasn't a notable issue, but it is. If we delete this, we'll be deleting what is now one our best cited comics related articles. That would be the bad precedent. - Peregrine Fisher 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Nominator also gives no deletion rationale, except "I don't like it". Matthew 08:31, 25 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncanny X-Men 267

Uncanny X-Men 267 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate plot summary of a random issue of Uncanny X-Men. No reason is given why this particular issue needs a summary while the 484 others don't. Articles on comics history should generally discuss story arcs, not individual issues. This article might be a good fit for a site that compiles lists of comic book summaries, but Wikipedia is not that site. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep As you have already researched this issue, you will know that this is an early issue from a popular comic book creator on a very popular comic book title and origin of popular comic book character. Other significance of this issue includes the way this issue was completed by a trio of 3 artists under short timeframe, and they had success. There seems to be significant history on this specific issue on how the issue was completed, which seemed to suggest this should be called out at your excellent wiki. You already have pages for the 3 artists (Lee, Portacio, Williams) plus the 2 key characters in the book, plus the comic book team, publisher, but this issue also sites the creation of the original artwork and the process behind it. Rather than have this entry be about only original art, I thought writing about the issue and the artistic collaboration be of value to others viewing this wiki. There are no other entries on original comic book art in wikipedia, a fast growing hobby with investment potential, as well as auctions/sales of original art in the tens of thousands of dollars per page, garnering worldwide attention when artwork becomes available or has traded hands. please reconsider keeping this page but assisting in how it should be categorized and wording of content. Burtons
• Delete There are almost 500 issues of this comic, and since issues are just part of story arcs I see no reason for any individual issue to have an article (even articles on the story arcs might be too much). Also nothing notable about this one, since the only "notable" point is that it was the first one to have Gambit drawn by his creator. TJ Spyke 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep notable issue... Gambit is one of the best known Marvel characters. Article can be sourced, seems fine. --W.marsh 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and TJ Spyke. The fact that the artists created the issue on a tight deadline does not confer notability. --Metropolitan90 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We can't list each and every "notable issue" of Uncanny X-Men or any other comic book; this article violates WP:NOT --Mhking 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er why can't we? The only thing WP:NOT really has to say on this topic is that Wikipedia is not paper, and that "this means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability". Please actually read the section under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" before citing that, because it doesn't cover an article like this. --W.marsh 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. I'm strongly against the worries about setting a bad precedent; the fear that this needs to be nipped in the bud now because we dont want an article on all 500 odd issues is a straw man. There are only two articles on the individual issues, and there are articles for most episodes of many TV shows. So, it is possible. But it needs to be done well. The sources in this case are unsatisfactory; I'm worried about the link to http://www.11by17.com/uxm267.htm as those images appear to be a copyvio. More sources will make me happy. John Vandenberg 10:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:NOT#PAPER. We can and should list every notable issue of every comic. Improve instead of delete. - Peregrine Fisher 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Crotalus horridus. Hokey smokes, they don't get much less notable than this. Captain Infinity 20:18, 25 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 Dismissed as likely WP:POINT nomination; no prejudice against renomination by another user in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:07Z

[edit] Cheryl Araujo

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

completely unreferenced. Subject has no notable achievements. Proudlyhumble07 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep. WP:BIO does not state that notability is based only on achievements. Articles that are unattributed but which are likely to be attributable should be tagged. --Charlene 08:05, 21 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 10:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnet 37

Sonnet 37 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

After one year, and a previous AFD, this article still contains no cnotent. It is only a quote Sefringle 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as this is a famous poem by William Shakespeare. If this was to be deleted, maybe all of them should be deleted. And as for the statement of 'having no content', there is a table with the poem in it. The article is fully referenced. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- It is very short and only a quote at time of writing, but I am sure it could be expanded if someone looks closely enough. Thunderwing 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep; per Extranet --Mhking 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Without comment on whether each sonnet should have its own page, I note that I have been trying to add content to the pages, for instance Sonnet 35, Sonnet 22, and so forth. I hope that if the AFD votes for deletion I can be allowed some way to rescue this work before it is deleted. Jlittlet 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jlittlet nicely shows how an article like this could conceivably be expanded. It's Shakespeare, so I'm sure there are mounds of critical commentaries available. (Not necessarily online, but definitely in books.) Zagalejo 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to the corresponding page in WikiSource, which has the text of the poem. (Indeed, we could make soft redirects for all the sonnets, but that gets a little tedious.) If anyone wants to add content, they can always get it back from the page history. YechielMan 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing here except the text and two links. If an encyclopedic article hasnt yet been written we shouldnt have an article. John Vandenberg 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 08:32, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:03Z

[edit] Ronald Goldman

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

completely unreferenced. Subject has no notable achievements. Proudlyhumble07 07:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; not notable for any particular achievements, but nevertheless undoubtedly notable. Yes, the article does need refs, but they won't be hard to find. --Trovatore 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nowhere in WP:BIO does it state that notability is based on achievements. In fact, one of the main qualifications under WP:BIO is "Wide name recognition". --Charlene 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Are you kidding me? This victim was internationally known and still is. This shouldn't even be nominated. Jmlk17 08:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Possible bad faith nomination. Pablothegreat85 09:01, 21 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, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Despite the fact that every name is a blue link, surely this falls under the category of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is already available on the web on the Congress website surely. How many other lists of votes are there in Wikipedia for any legislative assembly? Is this bill more important than all others to justify inclusion? (The edit summary and talk page fail to state that this list has been chopped out of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act article. See discussion at Talk:Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act#List of Representatives and Senators unnecessary.) -- RHaworth 07:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. This law is notable, how each Congressman voted regarding it is not. TJ Spyke 09:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, violates WP:NOT. Can't see any value in having the list here. Hut 8.5 11:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thunderwing 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete More of a source document than an article. Postlebury 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Congress's website already lists every vote by every Congressman on their website (here's the House's for this bill). Wikipedia is not the place for this information. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This stuff should either go in the main article on the subject, or should not be at Wikipedia for the reasons described above.Ferrylodge 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This information is important and should be included in the article on the bill. All information can be found elsewhere, Wikipedia is a place to share such informationMantion 03:32, 26 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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Leach

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

subject has no notable achievements. Close and merge to the existing comprehensive and well-referenced article on The TedmeisterProudlyhumble07 07:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Moved nomination to separate page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralKeep I have heard of her, but that is probably because of my researching and doing a paper on Ted Bundy for a psychology class. But she may be better off as a stub on Ted Bundy's article page. She is notable, not for any achievement, but for the high-profile of her murderer, as well as her age in the case. Jmlk17 08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Jmlk17 08:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She's also well-known because her case was the one that allowed Florida to finally execute him. --Charlene 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This also appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. --Charlene 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. If what Charlene says is the case then the information is notable, but only in the context of Ted Bundy. It should therefore appear in his article rather than separately. BTLizard 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I can only repeat my opinion why especially Kimberly Leach meets IMHO the criteria for inclusion: one can argue that Kimberly Leach is the most notable victim of Bundy because at the end he was executed for her murder (although he was sentenced to death in several cases): The official announcement stated that he had been executed for the murder of Kimberly Leach. [15] Although I really don't think WP:BIO was written with such cases in mind, one can easily apply Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Optimale ^Gu 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Ted Bundy. There is little chance that this BIO could be expanded; ultimately it is not a biography we need as the girl was not notable. If it should be kept, it should be renamed to be about the incident rather than the person in order to prevent unrelated information about the family being added. John Vandenberg 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep please looks like a point nomination to me too yuckfoo 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability and noteworthy achievements can be mutually exclusive things, as in this case. Burntsauce 16:58, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:05Z

[edit] Leslie Mahaffy

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

only one reference. Subject has no notable achievements. Close and merge to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, who are much more notable and whose articles can support the essential information about this non-notable deceased person. Proudlyhumble07 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Nowhere in WP:BIO is it said that notability is only due to achievements. Someone whose name is immediately recognizable over 15 years later by a large percentage of the population of a major country is likely to meet the "Wide name recognition" provision of WP:BIO. I'll assume good faith and not assume this is some kind of WP:POINT for the redirection of the VA Tech victims, but will their names be immediately recognizable in 15 years? Most of the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting victims aren't. --Charlene 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A per Charlene's comments. Achievements aren't the sole notability factor. Jmlk17 08:17, 21 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Almeida

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

Completely unreferenced. Subject has no notable achievements. Never heard of her. Get rid of it. WP:NOT a memorial. Proudlyhumble07 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The first AFD can be found here. —Celithemis 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles that are unreferenced should (for the most part) be tagged first before being nominated. Achievements are not the sole criteria for notablility per WP:BIO. Nominator's knowledge or lack thereof irrelevant. --Charlene 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because proudlyhumble has 'never heard of her' is no reason to delete the article. She is notable for what, sadly, happened to her and there are any number of news sources which covered the case, if one bothers to actually spend ten seconds looking for them. As has been pointed out, notability is not always a matter of achievement. Just because a case didn't make the news cycle in a particular nominators home town doesn't mean that it didn't matter somewhere else in the world. There are now links to CBC news reports of the case on the article. The case was reported widely in Canada. Nick mallory 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This may be a WP:POINT nomination. --Charlene 11:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything in WP:BIO that supports this girl's notability. The only "keep" votes in the previous AfD had pretty weak arguments behind them; "she was in all Canadian news sites at the time of her murder", and a soccer field was named after her. Its very well sourced, but none of the sources explain why this girl or her tragic murder are more significant than any other girl or tragic murder. -Haikon 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Category:Murdered Canadian children is not overflowing, so it is locally notable. The nom needs to put more consideration into deleting the work of other contributors. Due diligence is required. John Vandenberg 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, media mention does make her technically suitable to tbe the subject of an article. But I would like to ask the same question as Haikon, "why this girl or her tragic murder are more significant than any other girl or tragic murder?". Anywayz, the article needs lot of work with references and expansion to provide more context. --soum (0_o) 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even with sources, I don't see how this subject meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Being murdered, however awfully, isn't an indicator of notability. janejellyroll 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Tragic case of 5-year old murder victim, irrespective of legl jurisdiction, are usually deemed non-notable by plenty of previous consensus. There is a paucity of biographical information about her, and it appears there is not likely to be much more forthcoming, as her age is stacked against her having any recognition beyong having been tragically murdered. There does not appear to be any great depth of press coverage. But even one event (her murder) covered by an infinite number of press outlets would still count as "one coverage", so would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:29, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:05Z

[edit] Cassie Bernall

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

nn subject.

• Speedy Keep Someone who has had a best-selling book written about her by a major press, and whose story is told in hundreds of newspaper articles and books, is by definition notable. --Charlene 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep She is perhaps the most famous of all the Columbine victims. Jmlk17 08:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as above. I don't understand why this is being listed, and the nominator doesn't give us much to go on. --Bongwarrior 08:34, 21 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:08Z

[edit] Robyn Anderson

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

person with no notable achievements. Proudlyhumble07 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep She was a big part of the story of how the guns were obtained, and she was in the news for quite some time after the shooting. Jmlk17 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as argued above. She had the bill named after her as well. I'm frankly not sure why this is up for deletion. Granted, she didn't exactly discover the cure for polio, but there is plenty of notability. --Bongwarrior 08:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Nowhere in WP:BIO does it say that notability is based on achievement. I'm also concerned the nom may believe every VTech victim needs an article, and (after some were merged or deleted) is nominating these articles to make a point. But most of these nominated victims became notable over the course of time. Generally it's difficult to know whether a specific victim will be notable three days after their murder. Leslie Mahaffy, for instance, is clearly extremely notable because almost every Canadian over 25 will recognize her as one of the most famous murder victims (if not the most famous) in Canadian history - but she likely wouldn't have met WP:BIO three days after her remains were identified. Edited for typo in link. --Charlene 08:47, 21 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. -Splash - tk 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Kurian

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

Person is non-notable, except for within a small circle at their University Jmlk17 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. Strange vote, I know, but: the article he wrote appears to be very notable, with numerous articles written about it in major publications. Does that translate to notability for him? I don't know at this stage. --Charlene 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete student who got in trouble for writing a nasty article. When an article has to stoop to telling us someone's nickname on their high school soccer team, that's a bad, bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can only find one media source for this alleged "media storm" that's actually from a genuine media source, all the rest are Duke internal publications - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Google News Archives indicates this was notable. Im not keen on bio's for a single event, so I would prefer that we redirected this to another article, but I cant see one where this would be mentioned significantly enough to be appropriate. John Vandenberg 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cmon, clearly fails WP:BIO; his brief flurry with fame as an unpleasant jew-baiter hardly qualifies! Eusebeus 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Eusebeus. Possible candidate for Wikinews article (archive). --Aarktica 15:34, 28 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 Dismissed as likely WP:POINT nomination; no prejudice against renomination by another user in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:08Z

[edit] Brooks Brown

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

nn person

• Strong Keep A very infamous person in regards to the Columbine massacre. His name still pops up in the news, especially on the anniversary of the shootings. Jmlk17 08:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although not as notable as the victim mentioned above, he did write a book on Columbine that is considered important, and he is discussed specifically in a number of news reports. --Charlene 08:22, 21 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:09Z

[edit] Molly Bish

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

no notable achievements, totally unreferenced, Missing White Woman Syndrome

• Strong and Speedy Keep Missing White Woman Syndrome is not a criterion for deletion. WP:BIO does not require a notable person to have any achievements whatsoever. I'll add attributions - the 12,200 Ghits for "Molly Bish", many from reliable sources that are talking about her years later - make that a somewhat simple task. --Charlene 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Censure nominator for his assertion that it is appropriate to claim some races or sexes are more important than others. (And for violating WP:POINT). - Nunh-huh 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per the notability standard; she didn't do anything, except be involved in a high-profile murder case as the victim. Jmlk17 08:43, 21 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 Dismissed as likely WP:POINT nomination; no prejudice against renomination by another user in good faith. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:09Z

[edit] Matthew Cecchi

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

no notable achievements. Close and merge to Brandon Wilson

• Keep Notability in the status as the victim. Jmlk17 08:44, 21 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. Bucketsofg 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dantrell Davis

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

no notable achievements, completely unreferenced, not sufficiently notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudlyhumble07 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 April 2007

• Keep as likely WP:POINT nomination. Edited for typo. --Charlene 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies WP:BIO Hut 8.5 11:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies WP:BIO, multiple sources, and the street named after him makes it likely he'll continue to be N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Not likely to be a POINT nomination, but the article speaks for itself. YechielMan 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Charlene. John Vandenberg 11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep please close this we can not leave this any longer than necessarily yuckfoo 01:14, 24 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. Notability seems to be fairly well-established with multiple sources. --Wafulz 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malik Joyeux

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

Wikipedia is not a tribute site. This article doesn't really assert notability. I thought about speedy deleting it, but wanted to get some opinions. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on whether he was notable during his life, or originated anything notable. Anthony Appleyard 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete unless articles can be produced to establish any degree of notability - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Weak Delete. If he "was credited as one of the best 3 surfers in the world" but admittedly did not win any medals, I doubt there will be sources for N. DGG 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Week Keep Changed on the basis of the sources quoted just below. I'd accept the cover alone as sufficient. DGG 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (with major rewrite) Subject's death covered in depth here and here. Sources repeat some of the claims in the article, plus states that the subject was on the cover of Surfer. Seems to satisfy the criteria for athletes in WP:BIO. Caknuck 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep based on the sources cited by Caknuck. However, the article definitely needs major cleanup. If the article is kept and no one else steps forward, I will commit to taking a crack at the initial cleanup.--Kubigula (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm changing my position to strong keep based on John's excellent efforts to rewrite the article. Although I usually avoid spending time on an article until a clear keep consensus emerges, I have also added a bit to the cleanup effort. I believe his notability is asserted and established both by having been the subject of multiple nontrivial secondary sources and for being an athlete competing at high level in the equivalent a sport's professional league, per WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In my opinion, after rewrite the article would read "Malik was a surfer who died surfing." and would then be nominated for delete. Almost any person dying young will get some local media coverage. Any member of a group who dies unexpectedly will receive brief coverage by media allied to that group. Neither is widespread or enduring, so I don't see this person as notable. - BierHerr 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The guy has an article on at least the French, German and Polish language wikis, and the French, in particular, is pretty decently structured with a breakdown of his significant finishes in surfing competitions. Yes, the guy is mostly notable for dying young, but he did also compete at a high level in his sport. It won't break my heart if the article is deleted, but the subject does meet the guidelines, and this isn't paper.--Kubigula (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It needs a good cleanup, but the notability stems from the coverage of the death. Jmlk17 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is unsalvegable. It needs to be wikified, needs sources (in the article, not here), reads like a fansite and memorial ("His surfing technique was incredibly smooth and perfect. Malik was a surfer who could communicate the essence of surfing with all his being. He was an ocean of laughter, respect, innocence, friendship and generosity, a new generation of athlete, so pure as to be able to share real emotions. Not the emotions of winning yet another title or riding the biggest wave, but the simple emotion of being in love with the ocean and sharing its secrets.and it’s beauty. His life, his personality, his smile were the greatest show on earth."). Basically the entire article would need to be scrapped. If someone can create a good article in their subspace, then it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The language and approach of the present article is unencyclopedic. If the subject merits inclusion here then someone sufficiently knowledgeable can produce a replacement. BTLizard 10:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Clearly a big thing in the surfing world, but I'm seeing no mainstream coverage of him outside of that, and while his death seems to have caused quite a big stir, his life doesn't appear to have had the same impact. On balance, delete, until someone comes up with reliable sources of in-life notability that might satisfy WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 11:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable surfer. Those who voted delete should look at the article on the other three language wikipedias, e.g. de:Malik Joyeux. I've hacked at the article a bit to clean it up. John Vandenberg 09:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment A good cleanup, but I still do not see any assertion of notability for this person. - BierHerr 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've brought his list of awards across from the German site and sourced the ones that can be readily attributed to a major mag or affiliated company. Sadly I dont have the time to write articles about each event/award, but at least now nobody need worry greatly that the awards list is the other language-pedia's are trumped up. I do know the last two events are major and the writeups on the "Gotcha Tahiti Pro" indicate it quickly became part of the international circuit; Kelly Slater won it in its second year of operation. Sadly surfing doesnt have the same level of coverage on Wikipedia as gridiron. John Vandenberg 16:56, 24 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 ~ Anthony 14:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalia Harir

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

no notable achievement. One of 142 murder victims in her district in the year of her deathProudlyhumble07 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a memorial. The killer doesn't even have an article, yet one of his many victims do? TJ Spyke 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per likely WP:POINT nomination without prejudice for future AfD. --Charlene 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep per news coverage [16]. Meets WP:BIO. --W.marsh 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- I disagree that she meets the critera of WP:BIO- she is only in the news as part of the murder- and is not notable in herself. Thunderwing 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • By this logic we'd need to delete articles like Natalee Holloway. At any rate that's more an argument to merge to an article on the murder, than to delete. Since the murder meets inclusion standards. --W.marsh 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Some murders do generate significant coverage, although I can't yet see that this case has. Has this murder received significant coverage in the United States? Thunderwing 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Does it matter? WP:BIO only specifies multiple. We would have to restrict ourselves to covering only the most-reported murders if Wikipedia had a space limitation, but it does not. --W.marsh 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:BIO does not require significant coverage in the United States. WP:BIO does not require that even one American has heard of it. WP:BIO does not even require the existence of the United States. This is a huge pet peeve of mine: American coverage does NOT make a subject more notable than coverage in other countries, and coverage in other countries is equally as acceptable in proving notability as coverage by American sources. --Charlene 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do point out that there might perhaps be some differentiation in this respect in terms of coverage only in non English sources for people not living or connected with an English speaking country--just a suggestion, I'm not the least bit sure about it. This to some extent the practice, but only because of the interests of editors. DGG 04:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It meets our minimum requirements. John Vandenberg 18:04, 24 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. The editors have seen through the hazy POINT accusations and seem to have concluded that this is not up to scratch. I'm not giving any weight to the POINT=>keep thing since I don't see how this is experimentally disruptive. DGG accurately points out only a single media citation in the article. -Splash - tk 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Key

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

accidental death, not sufficiently notable Proudlyhumble07 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be easier if Proudlyhumble just pointed out the few articles on Wikipedia that he actually wishes to keep? Nick mallory 09:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per likely WP:POINT nomination without prejudice for future AfD. --Charlene 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment ignore the un-WP:AGF allegations of 'WP:POINT' repetitively made by the above contributor.Proudlyhumble07 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator is new editor who AfDed Ronald Goldman, Leslie Mahaffy, and almost a dozen other highly notable murder victims. Has made few edits other than AfDing victims. --Charlene 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it's a bit odd for a new user (on their first day) to be so familiar with policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete i am going to take this as any other AfD, regardless of the possible motivation. In this particular case, there is only one RS, CBS2. If another one cannot be provided, it would not meet the regular practice here. DGG 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• 'Weak delete. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. hbdragon88 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep besides being a WP:POINT, the story had wide coverage Nov 18, 2003 July, 2004 Aug 14, 2006 inc. LA Times The Age NBC4 and a plaque was placed where the event occurred[17]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per WP:NOT (memorial), bio, etc... The above conflates (again) news coverage with notability. News coverage reflects notability, but does not automatically confer it. Eusebeus 15:24, 28 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 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Korka

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

Prevously prodded but prod removed. This is a copy of the comments I left on the article talk page:

In my opinion, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead established precedent that local titleholders who appeared on reality television were not of themselves notable unless: a) their role on the reality television show was notable (in the Whitehead case, she was the first contestant to quit the show) and b) they had held a number of local titles and competed with high results in the state pageant over the years. I do not believe that Chelsea Korka meets either of those standards. If she wins the show, there would be a higher claim to notability but as of now she is not notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Regarding the precedent argument, remember that consensus can change.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per well argued nom. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To be fair, the precedent mentioned above was not necesarily established for the reasons given. While it may be true that Cassandra Whitehead did win multiple pagents, the only reason the number of wins was in question was because a previous poster said that her failure to win numerous pagents did not make her notable. The exact number of wins was not really discussed so much as what the poster percieved to be a lack of wins. And I do not believe her finishing in the top ten, or any other near wins is relevant because if it were, then the fact that Chelsea Korka won Miss West Broward, and has made the top three in The Search for the New Doll (in itself, a near win) would qualify her as being notable, ispo facto.

Furthermore, there is an article existing for Tana Goertz, who was the runner up for the third season of The Apprentice. Tana obviously did not win, nor did the article really list anything especially notable about her, though I will grant that the information on her background and other information about her is much more complete. However, none of that made her particularly notable. So it seems that one could argue that a precedent has been set for the notability of contestants who make it down to the final episode, or final decision, of reality TV shows. Saiga 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Per WP:INN, that one article exists doesn't necessarily validate other articles. See also the more cynically titled WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Another article would be more persuasive if it had been kept at AFD.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Chaser makes a very valid point; however, I mentioned the article on Tana Goertz in response to the point of precedents already set. If we are going to consider precedents as a valid point (not necessarily a defining proof for preservation) for consideration, then I think the point stands. The point wasn't that "Tana Goertz has an article, so why shouldn't Chelsea Korka," it was that "a precendent exists that an article for a final contestant from a reality TV show that is otherwise not notable exists, therefore the same arguement should be considered here." I agree that it certainly isnt a conclusive arguement for preservation, but it is something to be weighed along with all the other agruements made. Saiga 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see what you are saying, and kind of agree with your logic. Korka wasn't top three when I afd-ed this. However, the main problem is still a lack of reliable, verifiable sources. A current Google News search comes up with zilch and an archive search comes up with one article. I have done some work on the article, rewriting and trying to improve the sources to Wikipedia standard but there isn't much to work with. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Indeed. I will try to do some research of my own, after I acquaint myself better with Wikipedia's policies, rules and guidelines (Having just signed up this morning, I know little to nothing about these, and in fact, am just learning the coding for posting as I go along). Hopefully I can either find sources needed or new material to add with verifiable sources of its own. Saiga 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In case some is looking for it?So just keep!Oh and it just needs a severe clean-up, that's all folks!Dalmation 08:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
• Comment. If I had to take a position right now, I would probably support deletion for marginal notability and lack of secondary sources. However, I suggest relisting this AfD for more comments and to see if she makes it to the top two. If she makes the top two, I think she is notable enough.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete She is non-notable and does not win the show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaybabay (talk • contribs)
• Comment I think we should ignore the above entry (previously unsigned and then supposedly left by Lindsaybabay) as I recall it said something very different before (previously it was a vote to keep). Someone seems to be trying to manipulate things here, plus it claims she hasn't won before the show has even aired. Unless this show airs in Asia or Australia, which I heavily doubt, the person is just guessing. Saiga 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless she wins (and thereby joins the band), I don't see the article as worth keeping. I understand the attraction of making a distinction between a third and second place finisher, but that distinction is still pretty arbitrary. If she wins, then she will be a member of a notable band and thereby deserving of an article. As acknowledged above, there aren't enough independent sources to otherwise establish notability.--Chaser - T 10:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (In response to Kubigula) Although I cannot say for sure, I am doubtful that there will be a real distinction between second and third place, as the show is down to three awaiting it's final episode, and there is no hint at all that there will be more than one elimination round. If I am correct and such is the case, then the worst she can do at this point is to tie for second. More importantly at this point, however, is that with just a few days left until the decision is made, it would be premature to delete the article right now, because if she wins, I think the notability arguement becomes moot, as Chaser said. Saiga 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable local teen pageant pretender (for heavens forbid if any of them are notable for so being), without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes a "doll". Ohconfucius 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I support the suggestion that this remains open until the final TV episode on April 24. After that we'll know where she came on the show and be able to make a better decision here. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete can always be restored if she wins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's not much in the way of sources and the article has little content beyond that is already covered in the article about the show. Will it matter in five years?--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update: The TV station that runs the show indicates on their website that another model won. I think that pretty much ends the discussion.--Chaser - T 19:14, 26 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domingo Arroyo, Jr.

Domingo Arroyo, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This man's biography is not significant enough to merit his own article. His death was incidental in proportion to the army's operation in Somalia. He should be included in the article for Operation Restore Hope, should not have his own article. WP:BIO notes that incidental notoriety is insufficient for a Wiki entry. Pablosecca 09:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Neutral Somewhat noteworthy, but perhaps would be better as a stub under Operation RH instead? Jmlk17 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep On the one hand, being the first person killed in a conflict isn't noteworthy by itself, but this guy apparently has been memorialized in a few important ways. Jeff Silvers 11:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep There are no truly RSs given, but there probably are some to be found. DGG 04:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or potentially redirect to Operation Restore Hope. There simply isn't enough here to claim notability under WP:BIO. His death is sad, and in a minor way of historical interest with regards to Operation Restore Hope (hence the redirect option), but basically there is no individual notability in being the first American military personnel killed in a short lived and unsuccessful peacekeeping operation. Many Somalians and peacekeepers of other nationalities died as died around 25 other Americans -should they all have their own pages? His memorialisation is no greater than many other American military personnel killed in operations around the globe and he was not awarded any significant medals. The article does not link from any other significant articles (and its hard to see any that could except perhaps for ORH). It also provides no lengthy or independent sources for the details of his life.--Jackyd101 12:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While he is only notable because of the circumstances of his death, that notability is compounded by the very small number of people in Category:Puerto Rican Marine. It is worth recording the mans military history and a bit of background explaining how he came to be in the US armed forces. Military history of Puerto Rico is too large; perhaps after this Afd, a new article Puerto Ricans in the United States armed forces can be split off from the main article, and then lesser notable Puerto Ricans can be appropriately covered in more detail without needing their own BIO. John Vandenberg 00:09, 25 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, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Wesleyan Church

Metro Wesleyan Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obscure and unremarkable; a church in Halifax with 120 parishioners? Pablosecca 09:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely non-notable. Delete it. Jmlk17 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be a great deal to be said for it. BTLizard 10:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete per lack of apparent sources. --W.marsh 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, no sources that assert the notability of the institution - nuke this article. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete per W.marsh John Vandenberg 04:38, 25 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 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KOJV

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

Very little content, unreferenced, unencyclopedic. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All hard facts. The content is little because there isn't much more to be said about it. I could find out more info about the folklore soceity and publish it though.

What kind of references would be appropriate? I got the first part from a professor at KOJV and the second part from a dutch webmaster whose guestbook writers used kojv for short. The third part you can ask any Swede about.

Please define encyclopedic content. What does that mean? How can wikipedia content ever be more encyclopedic than this article whilst written and edited by laymen?

--KOJV 10:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No more than a short list of random verbal coincidences over three or four languages. BTLizard 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The folklore soceity use KOJV for an official short of the eastern-jewish department, that's no more random than any other acronym. Dutch youngsters use KOJV for short in daily communication, with your way of reason many other slang abbreviations like LOL or BRB must also be deleted from Wikipedia. --KOJV 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the neatest WP:COI I've seen in a while - the article creator is User:KOJV. Which makes me wonder whether "KOJV" is ever used as an abbreviation for the German association (and even if they do, their acronym is hardly more notable than their group) or the Swedish saying (which I can't verify). The only non-Wikipedia Ghits I get for KOJV are for something called "Douglas Adams Towel Day". --Charlene 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Now that's interesting because KOJV appears to have contributed to Towel Day here on Wikipedia, which I'd guess deals with the same thing. BTLizard 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to it being a bit unnotable, which is the reason I'm the article creator instead of someone else. But the German association does use KOJV for an abbreviation of their commission, this was told by a professor at the institution. The Swedish saying can be confirmed by any Swede, there are nine million of us so you oughta be able to find at least a couple. If you use Google correctly it actually gives more than ninteen thousand hits on KOJV and even though most of them are traces of myself or Towel Day (hosted at my site) you can find lots of confirmation on the dutch abbreviation and also some other meaning of kojv which a Russian editor could tell us more about. --KOJV 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - even so, there's no need for a Wikipedia article on it. You could search for a lot of things on Google and get nineteen thousand hits and you say yourself it's unnotable, therefore Wikipedia doesn't need it. Will2710 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, delete the entire Wikipedia while you're at it. I've been browsing the Afd and found that hundreds of articles have been deleted, even well informative and longer articles than this one. Thousands of manwork hours goes to waste around here every month. Until now I've thought Wikipedia was a place especially for the not so notable things that can't be easily found at other sources and obviously I was dead beat wrong. --KOJV 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Who the hell creates a disambig page to point to their own user page? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and perhaps do a proper article for the German commission. There are useful things to add to WP, KOJV, if you take it seriously. DGG 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I do take WP seriously. But I don't think it should be taken too damn seriously. If people want hyper serious textbook information, they wouldn't use the internet to begin with, they would use an actual encyclopedia. You know, the kind printed on paper in hardbook covers, sold in series by a very nice man who knocks on your door once a month for three years to sell you one cover at a time for a humoungous amount of money. I did believe WP was made for the rock hard info as well as for the stuff you'd intentionally use the internet to lookup and as I think I mentioned further up on this page, I was dead beat wrong. I do however contribute to WP with stuff you wouldn't delete, too. Mostly on the Swedish wiki though, the English wiki already has so many hard working editors who already wrote megabytes about the stuff I know something about. I'm just a bit sad and upset there isn't room here for the not so notable stuff. --KOJV 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it. We do take it pretty seriously here, and you will find that most people here want Wikipedia to be as reliable as other tertiary sources, or feel that we already are. KOJV, there is lots of notable subjects that are still missing. As you have a good grasp on two languages, why not help out with translations. And if you are really bored, you can watch the newbie contributions and help them out. John Vandenberg 04:50, 25 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 10:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayhem (wrestler)

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed - non notable, non-important, not even a member of a large international federation. Will2710 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Surviving Homicide's training is admirable but not notable in the grand scheme of things. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:08, 21 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 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skinner (surname)

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

My understanding is that we don't have articles on surnames, due to Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have many disambiguation pages on surnames, however Skinner already serves that purpose, so this surname article seems to serve no purpose. Also, no reliable sources on this. And this has already been copied to Wiktionary. Xyzzyplugh 11:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no viable reason to keep. Will2710 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as with all surnames unless the name itself is of interest. I think I could have worked out "a skinner is one who prepares skins" myself - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Skinner. I stopped following the noms blurb at "we dont have articles on surnames". We have lots of them. I picked out a few randomly and 25% of the pages contained additional information: Adlam, Anderson (surname), Ashley (name), Asher (onomastics) and then there are also Category:Scottish clans and Category:Onomastics. Removing this article leaves the coat of arms information without a home; so I think we need to merge it somewhere. The first afd was undecided over this same problem. John Vandenberg 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:15, 25 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 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra Chen

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

This is a character in the SF novel Morningstar pass. This article was deleted in 2005 and is now here again. For some reason the previous AfD does not appear in the article's history or talk page. killing sparrows 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. In fact, Morningstar pass itself looks like AfD bait as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' lacking sources. John Vandenberg 06:27, 25 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 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitic canard

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

WP:OR and/or WP:NEO... other than Wikipedia, there are only a few sources which actually use this term, and they're mostly blogs and such. In any case, there are no sources that are particularly about this phraseology. This leads me to believe that it's not just OR, but a neologism as well. The article has been sitting here for about 2 months without a single cite despite being tagged as requiring such. Recommend delete. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I added a couple of refs. Of course it is a stub in need of improvement, but there is is no valid reason to delete. See Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 1#Anti-Semetic Canard Cat and Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 2 for background of this nomination. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NEO: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The sources you've provided use the term but are not about the term. Are there any sources you have that could justify the keeping of this neologism in the encyclopedia? .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither antisemitism, nor canard, nor Antisemitic canard are neologisms. The falsehoods intentionally inciting hatred and violence against Jews appeared millennia ago, and never really disappeared. Evidence can be presented that medieval blood libels, the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, allegations of ritual murders, deicide, ZOG, Jewish Bolshevism, etc. are still actively promoted by some groups. This has nothing to do with WP:NEO. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Even if "antisemitic canard" was not a neologism, the article still amounts to a definition and should be transwikied to Wikitionary. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not a neologism, not a dicdef, and there is no valid reason to delete. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for not calling this a neologism. Just because "antisemitism" and "canard" aren't neologisms doesn't mean that if you combine them the resulting term isn't a neologism either. "Antisemitic canard" is not a widely-used term. Without Wikipedia, there are only about 300 sites on the web that use this term, with multiples of the same site and wiki mirrors. There's not a single article that discusses "antisemitic canards" specifically, which WP:NEO requires. It's pretty clearly a neologism. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Google search for the term Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca gives exactly 16 results, including WP and its mirrors. By your logic, it must be a NEO as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should review the definition of neologism. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it doesn't apply here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a notable topic. Sources have been added and we don't delete articles just because they are stubs. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - argue all you want, but this is a neologism with virtually no mainstream usage. Everything this article is already covered at - very - great length in the assorted links from the {{AS}} template, and I see no use in keeping this content fork up. Incidentally the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry so expect some SPAs to offer words of advice in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the topics are systematized in the template, then surely we should have an article describing their history, usage, trends, etc. I don't see how WP:NEO applies here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is an article about the subject, rather than the term. Then there only need be sources about the subject--and there are-- and the article can be moved to a more appropriate titles if necessary, which does not require AfD. DGG 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the main antisemitism article. We have way too many forks of that article. Crotalus 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be lovely, but unfortunately impractical, because the article Antisemitism has to cover a massive amount of material and a lot of it is being spun off, rather than merged in. I don't know of any of its POV forks, could you please give examples? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a widely-used term, and there are hundreds of Google hits. Check "Anti-semitic canard" as well.--Runcorn 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable--Sefringle 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of its own importance and because this is the lead article for Category:Antisemitic canards. The category came under attack a few times, see: (1) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12#Category:Anti-Semitic canards and (2) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 6#Category:Antisemitic canards but the consensus was to keep the category. So it makes no sense to keep the category, that contains multiple examples of antisemitc canards, but "delete" its main lead article. IZAK 09:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: For the keep votes that assert notability, could you link me to an article that discusses the term itself and not just employs the term? Such an article would be required for this to fit under WP:NEO, and I haven't seen one yet. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A number of books and articles describe Antisemitic canards/ Antisemitic hoaxes/ Antisemitic myths/ Antisemitic legends, etc. . ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think what V's saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is, are there any writings about the term rather than just using it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's another "term": Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. Please be so kind as to show us "writings about the term rather than just using it". There are thousands of WP articles like that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Or how about Scandinavian folklore or Legends of Africa? It's not unusual for article topics to have descriptive titles that aren't necessarily coined terms. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The article is laid out exactly like one for a term. It gives a definition, provides a quote in context, and then goes to synthesize material without any kind of sources. Furthermore, if it was not just a term, then why not use the more simpler name "antisemitic conspiracy theories"?
          • Imagine trying to source this article. With Scandinavian folklore, all you'd need to do is cite the particular story as being a part of folklore. With this article, you need to cite it as an "antisemitic canard." Anything other than that, and it's original research. And then it would be clear that this article is just a term. I do have a question for you: Couldn't the logic you're using be applied to any neologism? After all, a neologism is a term which defines/reorders existing ideas. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Scholarly sources currently cited in the article mention the term "Antisemitic canard" 5 times. If you still insist this is WP:NEO, I challenge you to deal with Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca and thousands upon thousands of WP articles first. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
              • A neologism has to be "used widely". 5 instances does not imply wide usage. Not to mention the still non-existent article about the term, not just one that uses the term (which must exist, or else it's a neologism.) .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm assuming you're not purposely being obtuse. He said there are currently five cites in the article specifically using the term, he didn't say only five references exist. In fact, doing a book text search at Amazon.com brings up 82 books that use the particular term "antisemitic canard" or "anti-semitic canard" and these are just from the limited set of books that happen to have searchable text. Doing a text search in Google Books brings up 503 books. It's hardly a neologism if there are at least over 500 published books that have used that specific terminology, and in any case, the article isn't about the specific term. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • No need to get insulting here. Are any of the sources you found about the term, not just using the term? Because if none exist... .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Not insulting at all, as I indicated, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked at the text of all 500 books, but I doubt the "term" would be addressed since there's nothing inherently novel about it to be discussed, it simply describes a specific subdivision of canards, myths, stories, (pick your term). Neither would any of its other incarnations likely be discussed ("antisemitic myths", "...stories", "...") any more than the term "Pueblo Indian folk stories" would need some special treatment. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • Exactly. It's "specific", it's not general like "Pueblo Indian Folk Stories." That's why it's a neologism. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • How is "Pueblo Indian folk stories" more general than "Antisemitic canards"? Both describe a particular division of stories. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • The use of the word "canard" implies that it's a distinct term because it's not the most simple way to express the idea. "Pueblo Indian folk stories" is the easiest way to say that, while in this case, "Antisemitic myths" would be the simplest way. There would be no problem if the article was named "antisemitic myths" instead of "antisemitic canards." .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • If your only beef is with the article title, not the content, then by all means suggest/vote to rename instead of nominating the article for deletion. Plentiful examples of both terms "antisemitic canard" and "antisemitic myth" abound. On what basis do you prefer "myth" over "canard" since they are nearly equivalent? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                              • It's because the current article is about a term called "antisemitic canard". The format, including the quote(s) that sets the definition, is done exactly as it would be for a specific term. The article would need a re-write in order to comply with a different, more generic title. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                                • That's not an answer to my question, why "myth" instead of "canard"? Perhaps the word "canard" is just unfamiliar to you? It's not a new word, it's been in the English language for over 120 years according to etymological sources. One of its most common uses is in reference to antisemtism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                                  • I didn't answer it because it's already been covered. The article is set up like an article about a neologism. As it stands, the article is a neologism and is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                                    • Well, there's no point in continuing to go around in circles with you. The article is set up no differently than any other article, and merely gives a brief introduction of what the article is about. Your flawed logic is unconvincing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                                      • Consider this: to avoid original research, to include something into the Scandinavian folklore article, an editor would have to show that it's a piece of Scandinavian folklore. To include an antisemitic canard in here, there'd need to be a source saying it's an antisemitic canard. You might say, "But what if it's a hoax story that's antisemitic?" Well, at that point, the classification is made by the editor and not the source: which is OR. As you can see, the logic of this being just a generality breaks down.
                                      • It's funny you mention going around in circles. Don't you recall claiming that the term "antisemitic canards" is widely used? So what is it, a term that's widely used or a general description like Legends of Africa? If it's both, wouldn't that make this is a specific title and thus a neologism under WP:NEO? It seems as if it would. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: It's a clear fact of historic record that shouldn't be deleted from any source. Besides that, I intend to add some more examples, such as Osama Bin Laden's utterance of the phony Franklin Prophecies in his 2002 "Letter to America," and the Hamas-created false quote of Ariel Sharon that "We control America." ---- DanTD 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article supports the category and is a well rounded list/overview. John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 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 10:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kabhie Jeene

Kabhie_Jeene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Yet another fake film article. I strongly believe this user should be blocked from editing as it is obvious the user is continuously just adding his own personal fan speculation and reverting people's edits on Bollywood biographies Shakirfan 20:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - User was reported on ANI. Please see WP:ANI#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Thanks xC | ☎ 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Strongly agree with Shakirfan. xC | ☎ 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- hoax film article Thunderwing 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clear WP:HOAX. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, suggest early closure on the grounds of WP:SNOW. ANI thread has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive232#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Mallanox 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - should even be a speedy delete as it as hoax. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no criteria for a speedy delete of a hoax. If it's patent nonsense, yes, but not as a hoax. =( (Reminds me, we ought to revisit this in the WP:CSD talk page.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah yes of-course. There appears to be a debate going on at WP:CSD already. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:34, 24 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 no consensus. I'm erring on the side of caution here, but if this is not cleaned up in a timely manner, feel free to renominate it. --Coredesat 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Ogbidi Okojie of Uromi

King Ogbidi Okojie of Uromi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has no references and I can't find any meaningful information about this subject. Not verifiable and possibly a hoax (there has previously been been similar suspicious articles (example)) Julius Sahara 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Anthony Olubumni Cardinal Okogie gives the subject of the this article as the Grandfather of the present Archbishop of Lagos, however Google comes up with nothing outside Wikipedia. I'm not sure what a lack of ghits proves in a case like this, though. On balance, keep with a strong recommendation to lick the article into shape - as it stands it's a bit of a hagiography. BTLizard 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe this article should be kept, based on this anon edit? Julius Sahara 12:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Uromi would seem to be a real place, and it's entirely possible that somebody should have been king of it. I agree that the article is badly written and needs to cite some sources; it's more that I'm not yet convinced that it's an out and out fabrication. BTLizard 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that this person even existed, much less that the article is factually true. Reliable sources, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no reason to believe that the article is true. Punkmorten 13:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete, reads like an obit, and if we don't have "Queen" before QEII or "Emperor" before Hirohito, this guy certainly needs the honorific removed from the article name. Chris 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:BIAS looms large here. It is often the case that articles about developing countries have serious sourcing problems, but systematic deletion may just destroy value. In other words, it may be a mistake to apply to an article like this one the same exacting standards as for mature topics where "reliable" sources are plentiful, such as Descartes or Hemingway. This article does actually provide relevant information about a chapter of Nigerian history . While the accuracy of the information may be dubious, dubious information on a notable topic is still better than nothing. Stammer 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)