Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 8

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tera Williams

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

Notability in question. Appears to be a reporter of only local importance. ghits NMChico24 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the notability criteria for biographies. NeoFreak 01:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO by leaps and bounds. I can think of very, very few local TV news anchors who'd clear WP:BIO, and local TV beat reporters don't come remotely close.  RGTraynor  03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep, the Burlington Industries implosion story marginally satisfies WP:BIO, although more noteworthy works would make a more solid case. Perhaps the original author of this article can add some? There are lots of Wikipedia articles involving local news reporters whose notability could be questioned. At least this is in a major market, Chicago. If we delete this one, where do we stop? Truthanado 04:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: When there are no local reporter articles that don't come close to satisfying WP:BIO, is my guess. Whether the Burlington Industries implosion is a notable story is one issue -- buildings get imploded all the time -- whether that makes one of (no doubt many) reporters who had on-air time commenting on it is quite another entirely. Only 36 Google hits for "Tera Williams" + "Fox" [1], almost all of which are blogs, her TV station's website and her own website. There may be some spam issues involved; almost the sole Wikipedia activity of the article's creator is putting up articles on various local reporters of Fox-affiliated stations.  RGTraynor  04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for the additional information that I wasn't aware of. I change my opinion to Delete. Truthanado 11:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Covering a notable a story does not make one notable, unless it involves getting some sort of major "scoop" that other reporters on that same story don't get. And if that happenes, there'll be secondary sources which make mention of it that could be cited to establish that notability. Mwelch 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, While some local reporters, print and electronic, may satisfy the demands of WP:BIO this one does not. JBEvans 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- for failing to meet WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and other similar articles. Johnbod 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article. I didn't intentionally create it as spam, I created it because I work at WGHP-TV and am familiar with some of the talent who have also worked there. Tera has since moved on to FOX Chicago. While she was at our station she was one of the better-known personalities on the air. She is also very popular in the Chicago TV market. My station and WFLD-TV are both owned by News Corp, which in turn, owns FOX News. It is likely that Tera will go on to work for FOX in New York, much like Erik Liljegren. As for the picture, I thought since it was a publicity still released by the station it qualified under fair use. If I'm wrong, feel free to delete it. Jwr0721 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also, I would like to add - I think Tera qualifies under the Entertainer section of WP:BIO. Jwr0721 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Which elements do you believe she fulfills, and (as is required per WP:ATT) what reliable, independent sources do you have for such an assertion? This certainly violates WP:COI now, where "you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when (1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; (2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors ..."  RGTraynor  06:05, 12 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 (withdrawn nomination). Orderinchaos 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magnolia Bakery

:Magnolia Bakery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Non-notable per WP:CORP. Media mentions seems trivial, and a couple of appearances in New York-based television shows don't make it notable, IMHO.RJASE1 ^Talk 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the nom and am trying to figure out what is wrong with my reference-searching technique... RJASE1 ^Talk 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As a New York City-based Wikipedian, I have to disagree... Magnolia Bakery is a household name here, and is considered a cultural landmark of Greenwich Village. As per WP:CORP, the bakery has appeared on Sex and the City and has been mentioned in numerous newspapers. Diabloman 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - seems entirely notable to me. TerriersFan 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Diabloman. Abeg92contribs 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, like Tom's Restaurant (Manhattan), this appears to be a New York icon, and while appearing on a few TV shows may not make it notable (although I would argue they do), I'm sure there are several print references which surely would pass Wikipedia's primary notability criterion: New York Magazine, USA Today, 7 refs in the New York Times. The bakery has published at least two books of recipes through Simon & Schuster. Needs a bit of cleanup though. --Canley 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Absurd and unnecessary deletionism. An important New York City landmark. No reason to delete this article that has been edited since December 2005. The bakery's founders have published a few successful cookbooks that use the bakery's name. Moncrief 03:15, 8 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Leighton

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

Notability not established. Also, the talk page assertion that the subject won the "Paul Hoffheimer prize in Innsbruck" does not appear to be easily verifiable: [2] & [3] &[4] & [5]. Other ghits: [6] & [7] NMChico24 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Claim to notability is unverified. Abeg92contribs 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not sourced at all. Tohru Honda13 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article doesn't specify how this person is notable--$UIT 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no sources or specifications of being notable.--Joebengo 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A quick Google of the name Brett Leighton shows numerous links to a wide variety of sites which confirm notability. He is a classical musician and an academic, thus he does not have the kind of bombastic site and fan club that some musicians have. The article is desperate for a cleanup and needs additional references cited. I have added three and there are more. Someone who can speak German is probably needed for some of the key sites As of April 8, 2007. I urge my fellow editors not to pull the trigger too fast on this one. JBEvans 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF although maybe not WP:MUSIC. The full professorship (could someone who knows german check this here?) plus the work on the world's oldest organ and his role as top judge in major organ competitions passes the bar for me. Music profs are hard to judge as they don't typically write for journals indexed by google scholar, and their performance/composition work stays below the radar of the major media. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Needs a major clean-up. Ganfon 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- strong notability, references included. Meets WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep Evidence of notability present. Mukadderat 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Does not meet WP:PROF nor WP:MUSIC. Nothing stated in the article asserts notability, except the opening line "artist of some notability", a phrase that should be absolutely banned on Wikipedia. Making CD's which do not chart, being a judge in a contest, working as a Professor who has not written notable works, all not notable. As for the reasoning above that he is in a profession that does not normally get press coverage, so he must be notable... that is just whacky. My neighbor's cat could be notable under such logic. Delete to avoid setting a very bad precedent. Jerry 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep it's a cleanup candidate at this stage, notability is established.--Buridan 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I ran a Google news search (results now included in article) and found articles on him in five different European newspapers in three different languages, one calling him (in Spanish) "one of the great specialists of the baroque repertoire". I think with that material added (and with the evaluative content in the concert announcements being sufficient to make them nontrivial) it's a clear pass for WP:MUSIC. —David Eppstein 16:27, 15 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. Daniel Bryant 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight, Incorporated

Straight, Incorporated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has some severe WP:BLP problems - some very serious accusations and allegations are made with some very flimsy sourcing - said sourcing being self-published or of dubious reliability.RJASE1 ^Talk 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• While please by all means prove it. Please provide some information to prove otherwise. Here's plenty of proof for you backing what is stated in the article and then some. What proof have you given that the allegations are false other then your opinion.

• Maia Szalavitz article in Reason Magazine from January
• Information and a personal story about the Straight experience
• The Rick Ross Institute on Straight Inc.
• Surviving Straight, Inc. In their Own Words
• Report Fox news did on Straight, the Sembers and more
• Straight Court Cases—Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdiva (talk • contribs)

*Speedy delete and template attached. The sources support a critical article but do not support some of the important statements in the article. There is no balancing text or attempt to obtain a NPOV. As it stands it has to be considered an attack article. Once deleted a new article, more closely tailored to those sources considered reliable, could be written. Bridgeplayer 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the only alternative would be stubbing the article and clearing the history. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, conditionally: Folks, take a look at the edit history of the article. You'll see that at various points this actually had a balanced POV that took into account the various controversies about this place without doing an obvious hatchet job. This wasn't designed as an attack article; it's been vandalized to become one. That isn't necessarily the province of AfD to solve unless the problem's endemic and unfixable.  RGTraynor  03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep I have just this minute removed a totally unwarranted speedy tag. The circumstances allerged in the articles are supported by the sources. DGG 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but much better sources, like those listed here (Fox News rather than Cannibis Culture), need to be added. I would try a NPOV rewrite but I'm too pissed off. Thousand points of light my ass!
• Keep Serious charges to be sure but that alone does not indicate a delete. Keep it and keep it well sourced. JBEvans 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As long as it gets some better sources and a little cleaning it's fine, definitely notable. Ganfon 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - listed on the BLP noticeboard here. I agree that the organization is notable and that the WP:BLP concerns can be handled in a method other than deletion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - I have cleaned the article up removing unsupported accusations (just because accusations are fringe sourced doesn't mean that they are accurate or that we should record them). The article can be re-expanded from the Fox source. Bridgeplayer 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fox source now included and expansion started. Bridgeplayer 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep and add better/additional sources. --Czj 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• excellent - now please do so. Bridgeplayer 21:21, 8 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. Dakota 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Stango

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

Non notable visual artist. Bus stop 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Improperly listed debate. It is listed now. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable artist. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. WP:SPAM and WP:COI come into play too, since the creator User:Nangellini has the same name as a gallery explicitly listed as hosting this fellow's works, and the article represents the creator's sole Wikipedia activity. Subject has 97 Google hits [8], almost all of which are various e-Bayish sites or blogs hawking this or that painting, and none of which look like credible, reliable attributable sources.  RGTraynor  04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is copied from here which makes it autocopyviovanispam in my book. --killing sparrows 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio and non notable--Joebengo 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like overwhelming consensus so far, but I'll throw my vote into the mix. Delete per all of the above. Non notable, etc. Goodnightmush 23:22, 9 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 Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead!

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

As much as I love MCR, this article was already voted upon to be deleted. It's 99% unverified MCRcruft, which is not ok. mcr616 _Speak! 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt as recreated deleted material (G4). Tagged as such. NeoFreak 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, and protect said redirect if necessary. Abeg92contribs 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete precisely per NeoFreak. Even if it wasn't nominated for deletion, this thing isn't written in an encyclopedic fashion, more like a collection of fan trivia (or something...) Tohru Honda13 04:19, 8 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 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rpoints

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB.RJASE1 ^Talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. YechielMan 07:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Not notable enough. With or without external links. See WP:WEB. Retiono Virginian 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- not notable--Joebengo 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Same reason as mentioned on the AfD Quidco page. Both sites cover same subject, same size, same profile in the media. It should stay if Quidco article stays, go if it goes. Identz 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Cashback Websites. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why should large organisations, such as Microsoft, Google and many other companies be allowed an information page at Wikipedia whilst smaller companies - such as Rpoints are not? If you want to merge articles about all cashback sites, why not merge all the articles on operating systems, and hotel companies, and the list goes on! Bruce 12:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY. Otherwise, under your reasoning, my cat could have her own article. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep see AfD Quidco Supposed 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. no independent refs to discuss importance. wikipedia is not yellow Pages nor who is who. Mukadderat 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although I just cleaned-up and wikified the article, it still is just plain non-notable. The only available references are self-referential, wikimirror, obvious (WP:COI) partners, forums and blogs. Jerry 21:33, 13 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quidco

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

Non-notable webiste per WP:WEB.RJASE1 ^Talk 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It apparently got a story in the Guardian. Abeg92contribs 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see the references, but I don't buy the notability. YechielMan 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to keep I was asked to revisit this discussion. It is clear to me that the website is notable. YechielMan 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Only one item of media coverage is non-trivial. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One article (which is here, if anyone wants to read it) is not enough to confer notability on its own. J Milburn 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep: I was also asked to revist this discussion, a practice which many disapprove of. However, the amount of press coverage this article is now showing that talks of the site definately makes it notable, in my eyes. That said, both some of the comments here, and, to an extent, the article itself, are somewhat adverty. Please be careful about bias slipping into this article. J Milburn 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. I was worried about bias slipping into the article and removed an earlier edit to the talk page. Supposed 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment That article is in The Independent, the other The Guardian. So, two articles but more if you count those listed in this link referred to below by IdentzSupposed 11:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It is an important site. In the UK Cashback Websites are a growing phenomenon. Quidco is one of the biggest and most respected (Depending on who you believe it may be the biggest, but if not it is at least in the top three). If you go to any site or forum that discusses Cashback Websites then Quidco is mentioned more than any other. The reason I say weak is because the article is poor and although Quidco is the leader in its field, it is not special enough to be on its own here without having articles about other leading Cashback Websites. I'd rather see this article improved, and more articles about similar sites, than this one go. Identz 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Quidco has a page where it highlights where it has been discussed in the news here. It has been in the news several times. Identz 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The main difficulity is with notability. I personally think sites like quidco and topcashback are notable because they currently offer the best deal for consumers, i.e. 100% cashback on purchases, unlike those like rpoints which give 100%less. I'm troubled because some notability appears due to bias in the media. For example Martin Lewis, recommends rpoints over quidco giving a very dubious example of how rpoints apparently offers more savings, most cashback users I'm sure would disagree! Another example of terrible bias is the BBCs touting of [http://www.mrscashback.com MrsCashback]] which if you read this article is a terrible deal for consumers. Note that quidco is mentioned and given barely any coverage, it's advantages are not mentioned. Do you think it is right to create an article on Mrs Cashback if there were enough of these biased articles, because it would be notable? What would have been achieved? The notability of a company in the media seems determined by factors which do not have the interests of the consumer (in this case to moneysaving) in mind. I know what wikipedia is NOT, but is it NOT a good source of information for consumers? Supposed 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where on the internet are there attempts to wite articles on these companies and cashback sites in general in an objective and unbiased manner? very few notable places, apart from wikipedia. Again this is why I'm eager to keep this article. Also why should a large company which offers poor value for the consumer be given more notability on wikipedia than a tiny one which offers amazing value? Supposed 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note, Supposed, that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it integrates information derived from secondary sources. What you seem to be proposing is that this Wikipedia article integrate information from primary sources, but this is original research and synthesis, and is against our rules. If as you suggest there are no attempts to write articles on these companies, then they lack secondary sources altogether and fail notability guidelines. Finally, notability has nothing to do with the merits of the financial transactions offered. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice, its merits therefore do make it notable as those merits are worthy of being noted, as per WP:CORP and the change it has caused in other incentivised companies.Supposed 13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - not sure that notability has been established yet. Ditto Dhartung's comment that the site may have legitimate merits, but that doesn't make it notable. Montco 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Cashback Websites with the understanding on the part of the writer that WP is not a consumer resource. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is about the only place on the internet you will find a NPOV on a company, to avoid making biased purchasing decisions I would consult wikipedia. However with this article gone, wikipedia is infact biased against the interests of the consumer. Wikipedia lists information on companies, therefore it will always be used as a consumer resource, if it doesn't list details on every company then it's biased. Supposed 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that every single company that exists should have its own WP article? --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry I was a little hasty. The reason I say no is you can list the advantages of companies like Quidco on one page, toegether. The benefit of listing every company is you have a fairly reliable unbiased source of information on companies, information that exists in a biased form elsewhere. So merge the articles, but accept that the merged article will be used as a consumer resource, as will wikipedia. It is a better resource, than the cashback businesses which censor any mention of companies like quidco, an attempt to protect their large profits. That's perhaps something else which should be added to the article. :-) Supposed 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would most definitely be against a Merge. When you have separate articles on different pages, there is a control mechanism on what Cashback Sites gets listed. This AfD discussion is such a control. But when you start listing details of the websites on the Cashback Websites article, it is going to be extremely difficult to make sure only the most notable sites are listed.

On the Cashback Websites article, I tried to make a qualification for what sites should be on the example sites listed at the bottom of the page by referring to a chart that lists the sites by alexa ranking. As I said in the talk page I was trying to make sure that only the most popular sites were listed. I'd rather see no individual Cashback Sites at all listed than have to aruge about which of the 50+ sites are notable enough. Those of us who follow cashback sites know almost immediately what sites should be included, but explaining to other editors who aren't familiar with them is much more difficult. Identz 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with you, and would definately rather keep the articles. It's almost academic anyway as Quidco definately passes WP:Corp and WP:WEB. I feel this AfD, draws attention to the flaw in the notability criteria of companies. The notability of companies is being made so through the bias of the media! Therefore, wikipedia, displays this slant, wikipedia is slanted toward the bias of the media. In this case the media have focused their reports on companies that offer poor value for the consumer whilst neglecting consumer conscience alternatives. Even the self proclaimed Moneysavingexpert himself has done this with his slanted report on the benefits of rpoints over quidco.. What the motives of the media are in these moves, you can only guess but wikipedia rather perversely, gives them coverage too.Supposed 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Quidco, were the first cashback website to introduce 100% cashback, most cashback websites at the time offered 50%. On purchases such as mobile phones[[9]] this was a considerate saving. This created a trend, as rivals, most notably, rpoints tried to compete by offering a 'Highest Cashback Promise, and FreeFivers who created a new website, The Cashback Junction. The effect quidco had is also reflected in Alexa rankings, who now report quidco as recieving more traffic [10] than rpoints. So even without the biased media on the company, it is notable because of the effect it had on companies and on an industry which is notable, per guidelines on WP:CORP Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Supposed 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article from The Times is here. Note that when it refers to rpoints it specifically mentions the 'Highest Cashback Promise', showing the trend which quidco set has been noticed by the media. Almost a year earlier The Times wrote their first article on cashback, however that time the article was dedicated to large cashback websites, with only a brief reference to the smaller sites. They ignored the benefits offered by quidco[11]. This demonstrates bias in the media again toward larger sites. Bias that wikipedia, per WP:CORP are trying to avoid. Supposed 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I must have a different copy of WP:CORP than you. My copy says nothing about trying to right the inequity in coverage of smaller companies caused by media bias. It just states that multiple non-trivial sources are required, and then uses a variety of examples to explain that. Jerry 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It says, "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.. And in this case, quidco was notable before the articles (some you missed) on it were published because it was an incentivised site worthy of note. It is worthy of note not just due to its popularity, it has always been worthy of note because it ""attracts notice" due to its alternative business model etc Supposed 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Among the three provided sources, only one can be considered as a source to determine notability. One is a press release by the company, and the other is the company website. Since an extensive search does not yield additional sources, nor are any asserted by the article, it fails WP:CORP/WP:WEB, as lacking "multiple" non-trivial independant sources. Jerry 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The website meets WP:CORP, it has "multiple non-trivial independent sources", it features in The Guardian, The Independent, The BBC and twice in The Times [12] [13]. It also has been referred to, by Reuters, Moneyweek, Motley Fool and moneysavingexpert. Supposed 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Jerry 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've updated the article accordingly. Do you still object to its inclusion? Supposed 03:22, 14 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 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoonbender

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

Non-notable artist that has been tagged as being of "questionable notability" since October 2006. I see nothing that hints at notability - the Spoonbender news site hasn't been updated since April 2006, and no major performances or releases have been listed. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I think the bottom line is that notability has to be proven and it hasn't been proven since the page was created nearly a year ago. Davemcarlson 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Abeg92contribs 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. That's odd. I wonder if this has any connection with I Am Spoonbender. It doesn't seem to, but this is strange timing. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it does, but I actually found this page because I was looking for the I Am Spoonbender page and happened to type this in. I found the timing a bit strange too. But I guess that's for the Department of Mysteries to investigate :) Davemcarlson 07:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Haha, well-said sir! Cheers, Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing any sort of notability or reliable sourcing test. perhaps redirect after deletion to Uri Geller ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A redirect should be to spoon bending, which is a broader topic than Geller. Gazpacho 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect after deletion to appropriate article on Psychics per Peripitus. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND, and do not redirect per WP:IDONTLIKEIT :) Jerry 21:58, 13 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. Daniel Bryant 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marry Me

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable album. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a textbook case. YechielMan 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and myspace is not a reliable source. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable album and myspace is not a good source.--Joebengo 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads more like an advertisement than an article; after the album is released, this could perhaps be added to the albums released by Beggars Banquet, but prior to release its existence in the real world is too iffy; myspace neither reliable nor valid source Cyg-nifier 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - a two line article advert? Yawn! Rgds, - Trident13 20:11, 10 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. Daniel Bryant 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta sigma alpha

Zeta sigma alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources. Abeg92contribs 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. I might have recommended a keep if this were a national sorority, but it doesn't seem to be. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG, WP:COI, and it seems that the prod was contested by an anon IP without comment. They seem a perfectly nice handful of ladies, but this is a teensy four-year old, single school sorority. Creator is User:Zetasigmaalpha, and as one might expect this article is the creator's sole Wikipedia activity. I'd suggest to them that they check back in twenty years when/if they've achieved national-level notability.  RGTraynor  04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable with no sources--$UIT 06:56, 8 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) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unorthodox (doom band)

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

Non-notable band, no reliable source, myspace doesn't count. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - One of many doom bands from Maryland on Hellhound Records. These bands collectively had a heavy impact on doom metal in the 90s and 2000s. The band also features members that went on to be in larger bands like Spirit Caravan and Pentagram. Olliegrind 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral- I have trouble understanding how this article shows notablity.--Joebengo 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Olliegrind. dposse 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - after looking around, this band seems to be notable to those interested in the genre, and there are better refs out there than the Myspace one, so the article just needs better sourcing. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:15, 9 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyblazer

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

Non-notable software. The majority of the article is game guide material. Of the two references provided, one has no text - hence is not admissible. Prod was contested via email. MER-C 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just got your message, and noticed the articles for deletion thing a little while before. Sorry about the game guide (I'm new when it comes to the more specific Wiki rules, although I admit I had basically thrown a few sentences on I could think of.) I'll definitely remove the textless link and try to post more specifics. What specifically do you mean by "you've convinced me that it needs some wider attention," when you also note that it is "non-notable software?" I will try to make it conform to a style similar to that of any other game wiki when I have the chance in the next day or two (taxes and lots of other work have kept my busy.) -Thermal0xidizer

• Keep, a Sony SNES game that had a worldwide release. [14]. Online sources for mediocre flops from the pre-Internet age aren't always easy to find, but there are certain to be reviews in the print magazines of the time. WP:SOFTWARE is not policy and nothing in the article is really game guide material.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Nydas. Article needs so rearranging and rewrite, but seems notable enough. Few more reputable sources would be ideal, but indisputably was a worldwide NSES release. Goodnightmush 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment Just did a considerable overhaul. How much closer to a keep? --Thermal0xidizer
• deleteper MER-C. The article does not assert notability. It also is something akin to a gameplayers user guide. If we delete the parts that don't belong, the article is just the context lead, and then it still has no qualifying sources. Jerry 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Goodnightmush's finding. Sony game with wide release. In response to the last comment, just being a SNES game asserts "notability." --Oakshade 06:42, 14 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. Dakota 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Rains

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

Unsourced vanispamcruftisement. Has already had two speedy deletions. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete and salt the earth, then. This bloke fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. His sole claimed album has ONE Google hit other than this article [15], and only 85 hits (almost all Wiki mirrors or blog posts) for Rains himself [16]. Allmusic.com has never heard of him, and neither has Amazon.com. Perhaps this fellow really exists, but as a musician, I strongly suspect WP:HOAX.  RGTraynor  04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strongly smells of hoax (The list of influences on his MySpace starts "Johnny Cash, Corrosion of Conformity, Duran Duran..."). The MySpace is a new page and the other links merely get you a 403 or 404 error. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and agreed. Salt the Earth. Goodnightmush 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- No reliable assertian of notablity.--Joebengo 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- looks like a self-aggrandizing advertisement; definitely not NPOV and definitely not notable (infamous perhaps?); information presented is not reliable or verifiable. There was no Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame in 2001 (1st yr is 2003) & Rains isn't in it in 2003-2007. His recording studio seems to not exist legitimately (and he is highlighted on Waylon Jennings web site for creating it as an illegal studio to put out Jennings songs illegally). Midwest Country is a community-based weekly tv show out of Sandstone, Minnesota on RFD-TV (rural tv) -- if they've ever awarded an artist of the year, there is no evidence of it. It's nice he participates in community theatre, but that doesn't make him either professional or notable. Cyg-nifier 20:32, 8 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 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Hollins

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

Fails WP:BIO as there are insufficient third party sources for this article. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Heart Digital in lieu of deletion. He does not deserve his own article. YechielMan 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect either way he is not notable enough to have his own article.--Joebengo 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems obvious to me that this guy has written a page about himself, and it is therefore in violation of the general consensus of this website that people don't write or edit articles about themselves. Either that or it's a strange co-incidence that the article has been written by a Paul Hollins. 81.152.149.61 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Mukadderat 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. No sources, not notable. Jerry 22:05, 13 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 10:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Kota Kinabalu

Hotel Kota Kinabalu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Copied exactly from wikitravel, and the content is uncyclopedic Zack2007 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It may be a CSD G12, but I'm not familiar with the relevant copyright rules. YechielMan 07:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikitravel licence (which is CC-by-SA 1.0) is not GFDL, although I must admit I don't know if that is allowable or not. My understanding is it isn't. Orderinchaos 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of a number of reasons in WP:NOT, namely repository if links, directory, mirror, and travel guide. kawaputra^tok2me 08:18, 9 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 a lack of consensus. --  Denelson83  07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility

List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT and a lot of precedence, Wikipedia doesn't do arbitrary, uncompletable lists of software. -/- Warren 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While uncompletable, the lead clearly outlines how this is not an arbitrary list. Vista compatibility is a very notable topic. Please clarify pertinent section of WP:NOT, I just spent my night compiling this list, be specific or don't bother referring to a policy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention I wrote the List. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The related sections of WP:NOT arte "not an indiscriminate list of information" and "not a directory". In the past, several other articles like lists of 64-bit Windows applications, list of applications compatible with Vista, and others have been deleted because they're basically unmaintainable and uncompletable. I'd dig them up but Wikipedia makes it difficult to search the list of deleted articles.

After you get bored of copying information from a couple of gaming sites, who's going to take care of this list? The information is going to change pretty rapidly (indeed, you've got a source there that says Simcity 4 crashes after the starting movie, but the 200,000+ sims living in my copy of the game running on Vista would strongly disagree with that assertion!), or is going to be based on forum postings or other conditions that can't be authoritatively stated with a high degree of accuracy. There are many factors involved: Vendor patches, appcompat patches from Microsoft, video driver updates, audio driver updates, otherwise unfound problems that are exposed by how Vista handles hardware, and the million-plus combinations thereof.

Wikipedia:Listcruft notes that a list article should only be made if the subject of the list is worthy of an article. This guideline exists because it helps prevent us from going off and making a list about something that it isn't really clear that Wikipedia actually needs to cover. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should be focusing on the subject of Windows Vista game compatibility as a topic, with quotes from notable people on the subject and information on what, if anything, is being done about it. It's perfectly fine to do this, then link to a notable gaming web site which devotes itself more thoroughly to the subject.

As to the long-term usefulness of such a list, assuming that compatibility improves, won't it become irrelevant with time? Can this list really pass the "ten-year test" suggested by Wikipedia:Recentism? Will anybody care? We want to focus on information that has lasting value. If we keep this list, Wikipedia might as well get into the business of publishing lists of road closures.

Finally, I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists, which is the pinnacle of what a list article should achieve. If a list article on Wikipedia can never meet those requirements (and this one certainly won't), then we shouldn't put our time into it. -/- Warren 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You've made a detailed case and somewhat thoughtful case. I'll answer as best I can in reverse order.

I used to do the Features and Admins beat for WP:SIGN and I helped a great deal on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes (not featured, but it should be), so I'm familiar with featured content. Point taken with irrelevance with time, but that is an entirely irrelevant point at this time; don't get into a habit of using it.

An article on Vista game compatibility (and its history through the beta process, and on how DirectX 9.0L differs from DirectX 9.0C) is sorely needed, but I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games. An article is great, but most people would be interested in a listing of issues for the immediate future... hence I'd consider a list more immediately relevant than an article. An article can be grown organically from this list (which then can be deleted if not needed); nothing says it has to be the other way around.

Who's going to take care of this list??? Did I become an admin by putting crap onto Wikipedia? No. I will take care of this list and I intend, time permitting, to oversee the growth of a Game article and increased coverage in the Vista series of DirectX 9.0L and legacy support issues. As to Simcity 4, I recognized beforehand my first source was based on Vista Beta 2 and I had started to remove references I knew were wrong, so I missed Simcity 4 (partly because I had two S sections), I want to ignore the relevant newbie computer advice; the List has a disclaimer for godsake. I'm not new to this, and specific setup incompatibilities are to be expected and make this list more relevant, not less.

As to WP:NOT, you are mistaken as to its applicability. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games." If you're an administrator and you don't understand that what you are proposing here is for people to contribute original research to the encyclopedia, then someone needs to take your mop away. Wikipedia is absolutely not a place for people to comment on, discuss, or write articles about their personal issues or experiences with software. I should not have to remind you of this. There is also a fundamental difference between this list and a list of ST:TNG episodes: The latter is a well-defined, unchanging, finite list that is certainly attributable to good sources, whereas the former is highly subjective, requires ongoing editor judgement as to what belongs, and honestly sounds more like a pet project than an attempt to create an article that brings lasting value to the project. -/- Warren 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the article space, rather the talk space. But hey, I guess I'm a schizophrenic moron with a mop and you're a mind reader. *eye roll* RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk space is absolutely not a place for discussion about personal experiences related to an article's topic. You don't have to look any further than the second sentence of WP:TALK for a clear statement on this. If you're looking to create a discussion forum or web site where people can share information about Vista game compatibility, by all means, contact Wikia and get the project started. That's what it's there for. -/- Warren 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor did I mean to imply "discussion about personal experiences" would be encouraged. Rather a listing of issues from people can/would happen and that would help flesh out the article as reliable sources are found for said issues. If someone says on the talk page, "I have a problem with Pac-Man 2000, anyone know the solution", they can be redirected to the solution or a forum to carry that issue forward. However, their mentioning the problem in the first place on the talk page assists the editors of the list in their research for the list. Making such comments on Talk pages acceptable; carrying forward discussion on the issue on the talk page would be discouraged. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I dunno, it's heavily sourced, it has information beyond mere lists of games. What exactly is "arbitrary" about this list, and what makes it uncompletable?  RGTraynor  04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't know, but this looks uncompletable, even in principle. It aims to outline the compatibility of every game on Windows vista, and known issues for each - apparently with a fix, for some. This is an impossible, and massive list that cannot possibly be completed - even if it currently well-sourced.--Haemo
• Weak keep as compatability issues are of interest. However if I had my way I'd retool this article to be more a list of software that is not compatable with Vista. Granted it would make for a longer list, so some sort of criteria would be necessary. 23skidoo 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought that would be a good idea as well, especially since I think it would make the shorter for the immediate future. The problem is you get the inevitable situation of people wanting to know if X or Y game is compatible. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not IGN. --Cloveious 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Haemo. Ganfon 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But I argued for deletion? --Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and please dont cite essayes like "Listcruft" as a reason for deletion, that not policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please don't tell me how I should make my points. If you're going to participate, do so by contributing something useful to the discussion -- ie. a reason for your position -- which you've not done here. -/- Warren 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very well sourced and just needs some work.--Joebengo 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means - "needs some work". In what sense? Does he need to add more articles? Does he need to source it more? It's already decently sourced, but it's still an uncompletable list! -Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

After further thought on 23skidoo suggestion and looking at this link; the list could indeed be made manageable by moving it to List of Microsoft Vista game issues and listing only games with known issues/fixes. As Vista compatibility becomes the standard for games, the number of inclusions would drop off, yet we can keep the list to point people to fixes for older games. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP is not a free web host for what-have-you. Gazpacho 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and work on it. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there are thousands (probably more like millions, depending on criteria) of games for MS-DOS and Windows (ie: what would be expected to run on Windows Vista), creating a list of every single one of them and if they work with Windows Vista would be pretty much impossible to complete. I don't really like the idea of a cut down list just about games with issues either, at what point do you start including a game (one of the entries on the current list says it may be down to NVidia's drivers rather than Windows itself, and another couple are ones that just want to run as an administrator), plus I'd guess the shorter list would be impossible to be verifiably complete unless you knew the longer list was complete and accurate as well. FredOrAlive 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There would be one list not two, and/or an article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the scope of the article clearly defines the focus/scope of the list for DirectX 9 games; not MS-DOS games. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable and impossible to complete list, even when using the arbitrary criteria in the lead paragraph - e.g. "also games designed under the Games for Windows program should not be listed here" - fchd 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly temporary issue. Everyone will scramble to be compatible. Mukadderat 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How well that is accomplished, especially for older games, is measured by the list. I fail to see the rationale in assuming everything will work fine; as it clearly is not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete an article about what something is not or can not do is silly. How about "fuels that can not be used in a jeep"? Impossible to maintain and provides no encyclopedic value. If the lack of support for a particular game becomes notable by press coverage (I just can't imagine that hapenning), then the article can be revisited at that time, but until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jerry 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a useful analogy insofar as games are expected to run on a Windows platform and may not; whereas alternative fuels working depend on the engine of a vehicle. This list does not mean to predict anything... as game compatibility is an issue here and now. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article gives some further informations (backed by facts) about Vista incompatibility issues (comprising the types of these issues), which is a useful add-on to the Software compatibility paragraph on the Criticism of Windows Vista article. Hervegirod 14:17, 14 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zinkplaat

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

Subject of the article does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a junk article. We don't need someone's memoir of riding a truck through South Africa. Sorry. YechielMan 07:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. Hornandsoccer^Talk 04:00, 9 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. Dakota 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edsel D Rivera

Edsel D Rivera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N She's a "hopeful" model (meaning she wants to be one, but isn't). TJ Spyke 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: "Hopeful" is right. There are two unique Google hits, both on model wannabe sites [17], and one of those is a bad link.  RGTraynor  04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no assertion of notability and no independent references and has more than usually annoying mylitterbox page.--killing sparrows 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don G. Giunta Middle School

Don G. Giunta Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, one of over a hundred middle and elementary school stubs put up by the editor over 14 months ago, very few of which have ever been improved. There have been zero substantive edits (other than mentioning that the fellow after whom the school was named was now deceased) since February 2006 save for repeated and frequent vandalism, which has become endemic in the last two weeks. Article was prodded three days ago, but prod was removed by an anon IP without comment or reasoning. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NN, no real prospect of the article ever being sourced or improved.  RGTraynor  03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• 'Delete No assertion of notability, stub for over a year (and a 2 sentence stub at that). Should be speedy delete, but people seem to complain when a speedy tag is put on any school article. TJ Spyke 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Naconkantari 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I tried looking for an article to merge this into, but on second thought, there's hardly anything to merge even if there was something to merge with. And it is a vandal magnet. I've reported the IP address to admins (absolutely nothing comes from that address except vandalism, apparently it's a computer in the public schools in that district). If anyone invests time and effort into creating a good article here, that editor will have to be around to watch it or see it destroyed by vandals. Not worth it in my book. Noroton 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - School does not appear notable enough for its own article. Any notability it has should be in a school district article, if one is ever created. Camaron1 | Chris 11:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the reasons already given; it's not notable on its own. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom and 150 middle school stubs by user Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but Instead of doing these deletions, why don't we organize to do merges instead. it would save a good deal of work. I started today with the middle schools in School District 43 Coquitlam near Vancouver . If each of us sharing this opinion did one district a week, we would slowly get the people who want to keep[ such articles to either join us or upgrade. DGG 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd save even more time by putting together a policy that might prevent these articles from being created in the first place. That way the creators would know they should be putting their energies elsewhere. Noroton 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If DGG will suggest a school district, I'll help out with it. Will anyone else join us? Noroton 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable institution. Piccadilly 11:56, 9 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 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo Chips

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. No sources. Written from the memory of the group's members and from the group's website. Savidan 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable and per nom--$UIT 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. THF 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless links to several non trivial third party sources are added prior to the end of this AfD debate. A1octopus 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Mukadderat 17:00, 13 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 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Minimis

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

Non-notable a cappella group. No sources. No claim to notability. Savidan 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since it clearly fails the notability criteria, and no sources are provided. YechielMan 07:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cleary fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - school choir that does the things all school choirs do; completely fails WP:MUSIC --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:35, 9 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid Dynamics (music)

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

College a cappella group. No claim to notability other than "love of music" and performances in the "Southern California area" Savidan 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. Hornandsoccer^Talk 04:01, 9 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huffines Middle School

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

no legitimate sourced claim to notability, was included in earlier afd for another middle school in same district- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor Creek Middle School, but overlooked at time of deletion Chris 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:ATT. I wouldn't say it doesn't make any legitimate claims to notability -- it makes several, in fact -- but nothing is sourced. If it is, my opinion may change, but it'll take some doing, given that I feel middle schools to be inherently non-notable.  RGTraynor  04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 05:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lewisville Independent School District. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - I do feel it is notable enough but there doesnt seem to be enough sources to support it.--Joebengo 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawn: Merge per zzuuzz. Even though I've been involved in these debates before, I think only high schools (or similarly-situated "top level" schools) are notable enough for inclusion (since a high school generally is a focal point of a community, especially in smaller towns). Middle and elementary school information should generally be included in the article for the district that operates it. Wyv 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Addition: If the consensus is Merge, I volunteer to merge the notable information into the LISD article and establish the redirect. I have saved a copy of the article locally so I can incorporate the info.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyv (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as the article is much better, includes a good quantity of information and, frankly, if one school is notable, then they all should be (after much consideration, in my opinion). Wyv 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable institution. Piccadilly 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

comment based on what logic? It doesn't even say what national award it may be. Chris 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. At first glance it looked like a notable article, but upon further inspection has a couple unsourced quotes and basically violates WP:V and WP:OR. If the unsourced stuff (which isn't notable to begin with) is cut out almost nothing remains, better to just delete this one.--Wizardman 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have now sourced what is a significant national award. Anyone reading about this award would expect to be able to find an article on the school in WP. I have also added a local award. TerriersFan 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

comment if the award were significant it would have its own article or have a section at Channel One News. Chris 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - a neat argument but there is still much that is notable in the world that is not in Wikipedia, perhaps why about 2,300 articles are being created a day, and absence from WP is no denial of notability :-) TerriersFan 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP all schools are notable. WP:ATT is a proposed guideline, not a policy, and seems not to apply to this discussion in any meaningful way. Jerry 22:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

comment "all schools are notable" seems not to apply to this discussion in any meaningful way. What rot. Chris 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep since we have an article about just about every other school.--Sefringle 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

comment We have articles on high schools, and verifiably notable lesser schools. Chris 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten, current version of the article meets WP:SCHOOLS and demonstrates notability. RFerreira 01:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RFerreira, et al. --Myles Long 01:53, 15 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. Daniel Bryant 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Zane

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

Article about a DJ with no claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, myspace is not a reliable source and no real claim of notablity.--Joebengo 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rpresser 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability.--Masterpedia 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 20:14, 10 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet brigades

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

Recreation of deleted article, Original research, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOURCE, Misattribution, False translation, Undue weight and Weasel words, POV fork from previously deleted article, attack page Original version of previously deleted article. Essentially SoapBox WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Vlad fedorov 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys just don't understand that WP:REDFLAG applies to all articles and not just biographies. Moreover, his conspiracy also violates WP:FRINGE. Here is relevant citation from Wikipedia policy Biophys violates: "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article, but neither must it necessarily be excluded from an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution Vlad fedorov 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Preceding events to the creation of the article

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me (Vlad fedorov) due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only these accusations are false, but they have nothing to do with this article. Let's discuss content of this article, not people.Biophys 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, nothing has changed really in the article. The only thing that changed is defenition. And again it is original research. Where and who named those hoax russian teams "internet brigades"? Biophys linked originally to the Guradian article about China, but there is no any labelling of that thing in China. Guradian uses the term "army of secret comentators". Later after the article was nominated for deletion, Biophys has added a link to Polyanskaya article "Commissars of the internet". And again we see that throughout the whole text a term "brigade" is used meaning "team". Only once the term "web-brigade" is used. Looking onto other sources - we see that there is no such term which was used by Biophys. Conclusion, the term and the name for the article is an original research by Biophys which is not found in its sources.
• Second, Biophys again publishes Sections "Behaviour" and "Tactics" - they haven't changed even and are ridiculously worded. According to them, every man in the internet who supports Putin - is a member of KGB "internet team". It is stupid... They abuse directly other users in Wikipedia.
• Third, the article in Russian Wikipedia directly shows in its infobox that "Internet teams" are conspiracy theory and the whole thing is based on claims of few people, namely - Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko - authors of the article "Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer". Nowhere on this article the information about conspiracy theory is indicated.
• Fourth, like the other article it is totally dedicated to Russia. Even adding some original research comparisons with China didn't help - the article is totally about Russia. For example. original research is all that Biophys published in the Section "Recent developments" nothing is said in the sources about the subject of the article - internet teams.
• Fifth, the defenition of internet teams is totally original research. Nowhere you coud find that "intenet teams" are waging state-sponcored information warfare. Indeed, the word "warfare" is totally POV, except original research. Nowhere in sources you find that this is a warfare, and is against "blogs" or "political bloggers" - I have already pointed many times that nowhere in Russian sources you could find a word "Blog".
• Sixth, false translation and original research in that "internet brigades" are working against blogs.
• Seventh, this article is a POV fork of the deleted article Internet Troll Squads which was twice deleted: AfD and deletion review. Here you could find the original version of the article Internet troll squads.
• Eighth, Tygodnik Powszechny actually writes that "We don’t know it for certain (tracing a source of the attack failed). Only questions and assumptions remain and we are unable to verify them". Then it writes "According to Polish specialists in Russian affairs", the names of these are not disclosed, so it may be just Polish KGB disinformation and an act of Poland aggresion against Russia. Moreover, the first voting at AfD was rigged by Biophys and his Polish friends canvassing outside the Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ninth, Biophys had made an original research when he added that Internet brigades use "active measures" methods. No any links are given.
• Tenth, Biophys hides real sources of allegations. The source of the information about creation teams of Livejournal fighters is not The New Times newspaper, but allegations of national-bolshevik Roman Sadykhov. Conmsidering that this party uses fascist symbols, calls its regional commanders gauliaghters, like fascist were calling their leaders. The source of Polish allegations is not Tygodnik Powsechny, but anonymous Polish Experts on Russian Affairs. All this could be easily ascertained by looking at links.Vlad fedorov 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments Biophys 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You actually haven't replied to anything posted here. I just added more questions for you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_brigades#Biophys_keeps_his_falsifications_and_original_research_in_the_article. I have added more falsifications and original research cases for which you are in response.Vlad fedorov 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that Biophys failed to give his sources:

1. ) Falsification of "group of investigative journalists" which are journalist, historian and programmer in reality.
2. ) Deletions of proper identification of the real sources of information for allegations by Tygodnik Powszechny -- anonymous "Polish specialists on Russian affairs".
3. ) Falsifications of Usupov citation - intentioanly false translation.
4. ) Original research on "active measures" - not sourced to any source despite my requests. Vlad fedorov 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys has also falsified the following translation, he wrote in the article: "It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.^[1]

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231: "Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".

And Biophys has written that he claimed "to protect authorities" which is both false translation and falsification!!!! Later he inserts english word "only" to right translation which changes things again to false translation - "not only to protect" as opposite to "not to protect" Vlad fedorov 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per abovementioned. Vlad fedorov 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the allegations are supported by the sources. I do not remember the prev. article, but I see that this is not devoted to any one country. I have been canvassed to oppose this article, as I believe have a number of others. I have never been in contact with biophys. Entirely on my own account, I judge it honest reporting, appropriate for WP. I can understand the POV that would wish to pretend that the methods of the KGB have not continued to the present. The very attempt to suppress this article might perhaps be taken to indicated otherwise.DGG 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Please explain. Vlad fedorov 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

English translation of reference 2 (first publication on this subject) say: "web-brigades". "Internet brigades" is a better wording in my opinion. But this can be easily corrected and not a reason for deletion. Russian version also calls them "web-brigades" or "forum brigades". Biophys 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong!!! Reference 2 uses term "brigades", only once it says "web brigade". So you have confirmed that you've done original research, because you cited no sources for your "internet brigades". Thank you so much. Moreover reference 2 is published on blog, so it is violation of Wikipedia policies to use blog entries.Vlad fedorov 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Russian article is a reliable source. Providing English translation is not neccessary, although desiarable. So everything is consistent with WP policies.Biophys 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole article doesn't correspond to the Russian text of the original russian article. You have done a lot of original research.Vlad fedorov 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Russian article is an immigrant advertising newpaper with low circulation. English translation is from blog and falsifies Russian text. Moreover, you, Biophys has added to the original research a lot of texts not relevant.Vlad fedorov 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well referenced, notable phenomena, former POV problems eliminated. For an article about what is in essence an ongoing intelligence operations by a major power, good job.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Czesc Piotrus. Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. How your vote corresponds to Fringe Theories guideline of Wikipedia? Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Internet censorship. The problem I have with this article is that a lot of things I see in here are "alleged" or "supposedly." I can't see how an article like this can stand on its' own with all of that text being used. However, it would be worth noting this in an article about Internet censorship in the Russian Federation, or on censorship in general, since while some nations are also mentioned, this is heavily about Russia. Notable subject, but just presented in the wrong format. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support that if not for the fact that in addition to censorship this article also describes information manipulation (adding false info, etc.) - which goes outside the definition of censorship. Last time I suggested the name Online information manipulation by Russian intelligence (or similar) - this would probably be better than merge. But now that the article talks about Chine and other countries... I am not sure about the best new name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would rather merge this with Leprechaun. Merging with Internet censorship implies that there is some truth to this. No proof has ever been presented; and even if the claims were true, they are unprovable and irrefutable. -- Petri Krohn 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4: Recreation of a deleted page. There is really nothing to discuss, this article is a blatant hoax and OR about a non-existing phenomenon. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are telling this is a hoax. Among all cited sources, there is only one (Usupovsky) that claims this to be a "conspiracy theory" (not a hoax). So, this is small minority opion, and it was described as such. I agree that originally submitted stub was not good. So, I worked a lot to improve the article. Now it is significantly bigger, well-referenced, less POV, etc. This is exactly what WP rules ask us to do: create interesting articles supported by multiple reliable sources. Of course, it can be improved further.Biophys 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete. It's pure conspiracy theory, and the article treats it as reality. {removed my prev. comment} ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules say: verifiability, not truth. No one is proving anything here. There are many complicated phenomena and controversial subjects described in WP. How to deal with them? Do not invent or research anything yourself. Simply follow reliable sources whatever they say. It is exactly what I did. Your are talking about "absense of any research". Yes, I did not do any original research of my own. And I am not suppose to judge research of others. I only have to make sure that the sources are reliable, and their content is properly described in this artice. If you can provide any reliable sources which say: this particular reserach and claims made by Polyanskaya, Svirsky, journalists from Guardian and reports by New Times and grani.ru are wrong - such sources can be cited in the article. I found only one such source: claims by Usupovsky (with regard to only publication by Polyanskaya), and it is included. Biophys 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not truth? Thank you. I do not have to reject nonsense. There are no names in sourced articles, no direct evidences. All is easy. Economic growth => spread of internet => internet hooligans. Journalists — liberal democratic journalists — encountered them and wrote article about internet brigades. Fun? Not really. Fair? Not at all. ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (I am creator of this article). I will answer to AfD nominator's claims at the talk page.Biophys 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article still has bad title and requires massive cleanup: I have to agree that it dangerously close to original research by mixing/matching different phenomena into one text: Russia + China + CyberArmy. Nevertheless the organized intereference into internet opinion flow is an observable and non-surprizing fact or opinion. `'mikka 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Referenced. But possibly bad title. --Lysy^talk 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be renamed. Bad title as I already mentioned above. Any suggestions for a better one ? --Lysy^talk 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - once again, this article is still about as good as it was before. I'm still not convinced this is at all a notable phenomenon, since the key sources are very slim, and it smells like WP:OR, and the creating editor seems to have some kind of argument to be made using the pages. However, none of that really matters, since there's no coherent reason presented to remove it. --Haemo 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Internet disinformation. Good article, nicely sourced, but potentially flamebait title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blast san (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article makes for a good read and provides a fair collection of references by usual Wiki standards. Even though the subject might be perceived as controversial by some, the article, as is stands now falls far beyond the scope of AfD injunction. It is equally important in my view to keep the title as it is because it’s a loan-word from an already established term coined in another language. --Poeticbent  talk  00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference. And additionaly could you cite me source on Russian where the loan word is used? Vlad fedorov 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See my answer above (references 2 and 3) and article in Russian Wikipedia. Of course, there is a question of best translation. I want to ask native speakers: is "Web-brigades" a better translation than "Internet brigades"? Biophys 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Web search is not as difficult as it sounds, Vlad fedorov. I suggest you do it yourself next time, but here are but a few search results for everybody else to take a note of:
Google Results: 59 for Веб-бригады (English: Internet brigades) [18] And please don't spam this page with repeated questions under each and every positive vote, because it won't make your voice sound louder and personally I don't particularly enjoy it. --Poeticbent  talk  06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. How many of these links are related to our subject and how many of them are not forums, blogs, wikis and other unreliable sources which use is prohibited by Wikipedia policies? Perhaps instead of making personal attacks on me and voicing your personal dislikeness of me, you should read these sources and present us reliable link which names these legendary KGB fellas "internet brigades"? You was so quick to state that the article is referenced, but you don't give us links? How many articles in Wikipedia are referenced to Google? Why you are unable to show us one normal link to reliable source which uses the term "internet brigades" and states that Russian Security Service has such "internet brigades"? You Google spamming is of no use here in Wikipedia. May I translate sources on the first page of your Google search for the word "веб-бригада"? The first - link to Russian Wikipedia, where is no source is shown to the term "web brigades" (and different term is used from "internet brigade" also, the term used by Russian Wikipedia is "web-brigades" and also there are no any sources on where it was taken), second link is to Occult Library (nice place if you are satanist), third link is to forum on crime rate (nothing related to our subject), fourth link is to the forums of Uzbekistan immigrants, fifth link is to the forum of GZT.ru, sixth link is to the forum of Ukrainian president, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth links are to German Russian forum. Why you couldn't cite reliable source? By the way, Google search for "польша страна идиотов" (English - poland, a land of idiots) shows 285,000 results. Should we create such an article in Wikipedia by your line of logic and your own standarts? You won't believe, but search shows even some articles from Rzeczpospolita newspaper and even Gazeta Wyborcza!!! Ja personalnie uwielbiam czytac Wyborcza! Search for "USA a land of idiots" - 1,110,000 results. Search for "russia a land of idiots" is 936,000 results. I think you have a lot of work to do here in Wikipedia. Perhaps you could "google" your opponents. I wish you good luck. Vlad fedorov 08:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The entire concept is original research. The attempts to remove the POV have made it even worse than before. --- RockMFR 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Web brigade conspiracy theory and include in category:conspiracy theories. The existence of these claimed brigades is unprovable. Anything presented as a fact is speculation and original research. The belief in these brigades is a notable phenomenon. I see these brigades at work all over Wikipedia. In fact I myself belong to the KGB Internet troll squad. -- Petri Krohn 08:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion that was here to the talk page (here), as it was not dealing with the article, but with user conduct. Regards, ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Petri Krohn, I respectfully disagree. First, only one source claims this to be a "conspiracy theory". So, this is small minority opinion. Second, there is no single mentioning of KGB in this article. This organization officially does not exist any more. But anyone is free to make any boxes and put them to his/her user page.Biophys 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material and attack page. I have changed my vote: it seems that people cannot see the humor in this, and are taking this seriously. Seriously speaking, this is nothing but speculation and lies, not supported by the claimed sources. See here: Talk:Persecution of political bloggers#English translation of Russian article about "Internet troll squads". What Anna Polyanskaya is describing is nothing more than a Russian version of the eternal September. -- Petri Krohn 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. What claim was not supported? Every claim in this article is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE in my opinion.Biophys 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Haemo. The sources could be more diverse, but on the whole this is a decent enough start for an article on this supposed phenomenon. Articles relating to intel ops will often have to rely on sources that are of a somewhat speculative nature; maybe the text should make that clearer. Sandstein 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey man! What you speak about? The aim of those Troll Squads is intimidation and disinformation. How this relates to the intelligence? And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia?Vlad fedorov 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because I am getting the impression this is more a content dispute than anything else (e.g. the remark And why USA support of terrorism is constantly being censured in English Wikipedia? just above me). The subject is real and deserves coverage in an encyclopedia, although it required rigourous cleanup and perhaps a merge with Information warfare should be considered. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from mainspace but move to the author's userspace rather than delete in order to give him a chance to use his work by adding to the existing articles or starting, finally, a proper article (proper both by name and by scope) on his pet project. This article, however, is as unencyclopedic as the deleted one and is even very close to it. --Irpen 01:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. You disputed the title of the article. Can you suggest anything better? Of course, the article could be called "state-sponsored on-line information warfare teams" (or "Russian information warfare teams" if to exclude materials about China). But the current title seems to be more concise and clear...Biophys 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't offer you a title until the article has a clear scope. Is is about the conspiracy theory? Is it about the Putin regime's underground effort to affect the world through an internet? Is it about the broader than Russia phenomenon? Current addition of China looks totally artificial and WP:POINTy. Where is the current title from? Once this all becomes clear, I could offer you a title. I can see many possible scopes coming out of this topic and currently the article does not have any clarity on what its scope is. Therefore, I don't see it in mainspace. --Irpen 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A request. May I ask AfD nominator (Vlad Fedorov) do not edit this article during the deletion discussion?! Everyone else is welcome. Vlad transforms this article to a garbage in order to "prove" that article is bad and facilitate its deletion. This is not fair. Biophys

The answer is no. Because you falsify information from the sources. You add a lot of original research. And by the way, it is not your userpage in your namespace. This deletion by you of the text from the source you cite demonstrates your Anti-Russian bias and falsification of sources. Good luck.Vlad fedorov 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is remarkable that AfD nominator can not wait until the end of the AfD discussion, but immediately edits the article to make it worse and prove his point. This is uncivil.Biophys 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is remarkable that author of this article Biophys - reverts corrections of his falsifications, misattributions, original research to push his article through AfD. We could add these methods to the methods of Internet brigades!!! Vlad fedorov 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are false. Vladislav Surkov was involved. The text about him was in the in the cited source: О работе в «Живом журнале»: «Я считаю, что это очень важный сектор работы», said Surkov.Biophys 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not accuse, just state facts. Vladislav Surkov is involved according to allegations of [[19]] Roman Sadykhov, who claimed that he heard a "secret speech" of Vladislav Surkov. We have to believe to the representative of political party currently banned for inciting ethnic hatred, exploiting nazist methods in its work and wearing fascist symbolics. You also misstaributed allegations as facts. You presented interview with [[20]] Roman Sadykhov as facts. No one has ever established the existence of internet brigades.Vlad fedorov 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting subject, referenced. Some cleanup needed, but that's no big deal. -- Turgidson 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. And, yes, some of the reactions on this page remind me of the line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet (III, ii, 239). — Turgidson 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vehement keep. Nicely sourced; imperfect but able to be improved. Let's help expose Putin's thuggery every chance we get. Biruitorul 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a political tool, nor is it a soapbox. See WP:NOT ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Happy now? Biruitorul 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Article is well sourced and relates to an interesting subject. From some reactions I can read on this page, I would rather think that this article is closer to the truth than some here claim. I am even considering to translate in into French within the next weeks. --Lebob-BE 07:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't agree with the people who call it well-sourced. It isn't, it's still full of speculation and such. And the counter-reactions here are no indication of its merit. But! It does also contain some true, sourced information, and yes, it is definitely in the middle of a dispute. So, it's a start. Let's have at it and see where it winds up, maybe consider a merge at that point, and keep the disputed tags on in the meantime. Do not delete sourced information. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Abstract thought. Do you, Biophys, want to say us, that people in FSB, instead of performing their direct duties, are having fun in internet blogs and forums?! It's disgraceful and very revolting! I think, we should write an open collective letter or something to the President and director of FSB. We are fair taxpayers, and we have the right to know, that FSB doesn't have fun at internet forums in the working time, but really works to safeguard the Homeland! ellol 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's act immediately, friends! While the bastartds are relaxing at the working place, Homeland is defenseless! Vlad Fedorov! I have already composed the draft of the letter, I need your help to make it legally correct! Biophys! The land of your ancestors is defenseless! We'll give you parabellum, and you'll protect its borders! Hurry! Every minute may become the last for the country! ellol 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Since your question is about FSB, let's discuss it here: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#What_is_the_purpose_of_FSB.3F. In short, NKVD, KGB and FSB never worked to "safeguard the Homeland", but to control the entire Russian population, and importantly the public opinion abroad (!) (two $ billions were spent only for funding foreign anti-war movements). They work and always worked against civilian populations of their own country and other countries. Hence, the disinformation and propaganda is their primary goal.Biophys 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very good you have appeared here! I already wanted to leave. You can take parabellum in the room 237, campus building N5. The code is A43HF4. And one more thing. The mayor appointed you the rank of junior sergeant. Now, really hurry. Your sector for tonight is the Far East and Syberia. Then, put the parabellum backwards. Damnit! I'll find somebody who will substitute you. Guys! who want to patrol area from Kaliningrad to the Ural mountains for tonight? Sign here! ellol 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete poorly sourced with unreliable sources, recreation of deleted material, POV fork of a twice deleted article, original research, neologism, conspiracy theory and about a million other reasons for deletion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters are unreliable sources, my my, what is this world coming to? --Saint-Paddy 01:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• It had already come to wide-scale propagandist campaign against Russia. But you do not notice it, because you have no solid knowledge about Russia. If WP writes Russians are eating christian babies for breakfast you'll trust even that. ellol 05:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the reasons listed above, additionally the sources come from credible organizations including the Guardian. At the very least the popular media is reporting on it. --BuddyJesus 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note May I note respectfully that The Washington Post, The Guardian and Reuters sources are related to a tiny section on China? No such sources are about Russia. The world has nothing about internet brigades in Russia. Vlad fedorov 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but clarify language that it is a belief held by a number of people, and possibly a conspiracy theory, and that the existence of said brigades is controversial. However, I think it meets the criteria under fringe theories, and furthermore from reading the discussion I have come to suspect that many of the objections to the article have to do with the content and not bona fide research or POV concerns, and may be political in nature. As long as the article presents itself as documentation of a social phenomenon, I think we should err on the side of retaining it. --Kadin2048 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I've seen several sources of media referencing this type of behavior in several formats, not to mention having witnessed it myself (yes, yes, original research). I look forward to working on this page a bit once I find more information in the American media about it, because this clearly is not localized phenomena - it's happening in many places. Besides -- I'm always up for a good conspiracy. Kuroji 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very well-sourced article. Even if the "internet brigades" do not exist, it has been referenced enough by outside media to warrant notation. ASBands 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

--This page was linked to from /.slashdot at about this time. Expect many more votes as a result. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but if it overlaps with any similar articles on Internet censorship merge it . Sources need to be improved. Even if such brigades are a conspiracy theory it is worth documenting the theory (and labelling it as such). Maybe it could be extended to a general examination of sockpuppets and astroturfing for the purpose of censorship, removing the emphasis on only one or two countries?
• Keep., but I should point out that similar teams can be found in Chinese (網特, which means government agent on network), and it should not be Russian-only issue. Once information is available, I hope this page can be generalized to contain both Russian and Chinese context, not just Russian context. User:csmth 13:50 11 April 2007 (HKT)
• Delete. An article seems to be nothing more than a hearsay, with an effort to legitimize it by citing "sources". The list of sources contains Reuters and Washinton Post, which is misleading, since both of them support a tiny "Miscellaneous" section of the article, not the bulk of the article which describes Internet brigades in Russia. Other sources are extremely unreliable. The "meaty" parts of the article, that is, the Behavior and Tactics sections are so generic as to be useless. -- Peter malenkov (talk 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong keep when it comes to contentious articles, the things that are contended should be removed, cleaned up, sourced, and attributed. The article on the whole discusses a matter which has definitely received major media attention and does have verifiable sources available. Notability is established and sourced. The article needs cleanup, but it's far from a lost cause. This article has much higher quality than a great deal on wikipedia. So with regards to policy, it's a keeper. With regards to my own opinion on the matter, there's something ammusing about deleting an article about internet censorship. i kan reed 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there. Not to mention I find it funny when a portion of the people suggesting deletion have been created in the last three months or less, with one created not very long at all before this AFD came about. Kuroji 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who else you might be referring to, but if you are talking about me, then I confirm that I have registered upon seeing the article to cast my vote against it without being anonymous. With that taken out of the way, I do not think you can deny what I said, that is, that the content of the Behavior and Tactics sections is way too generic, and that the few sources that actually carry some weight support not the alleged operations of "Internet brigades" of Russian origin (the description of which make for the bulk of the article), but rather something that happened in the Western world or in China. I say either delete the article or split it into two, separating international stuff from stuff specific to Russia (and then probably kill the bits specific to Russia since none of them are supported by a credible source), or, well, try cleaning up the article one more time (not likely to help, given that this would be attempt #3 already). Peter malenkov 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Original research etc., assuming it applies here at all (I can't say either way) is not a reason to delete an article: it's a reason to clean up an article. Deletion should really only concern itself with whether a topic is itself encyclopaedic and noteworthy, or whether, if it is, the article is so bad that it can't possibly be salvaged and that it's better to start over from scratch. I don't see why either of these criteria would apply here, though. -- Schneelocke 08:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep with preferably a rename. Well-sourced, the issue is too similar to already well-known techniques of astroturfing to be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. KiloByte 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete speculative and basing on original research rather then encyclopedic article. The main definition of article already have problems, so how his article can be equaled to encyclopedic article, then the basic foundation of it lacks support? Important claims of this article relays only on one online source rather then established academic sources, making it as one author speculation. Quite many sources are used for secondary points only rather then main topic. Article name – another problem of this article, btw probably his is the main base of these brigades.M.K. 11:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is a vast amount of scholarly literature on Russian propaganda and disinformation (see here) that shows the Russians have an infrastructure for setting up such attacks (see Godson and Schultz 'Dezinformatsia: The strategy of Soviet Disinformation'. The times have changed. The Internet is the new media and they have evolved with the technology. The Russians still have a considerable intelligence collection effort and it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well.Evud 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades. These sources even don't use this term "internet brigades". Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". As for "intelligence collection" Wikipedia itself is used as Intelligence Tool article. Citation:

"Wikipedia "has steadily grown in popularity, credibility, and influence to the point that it is now used and referenced in U.S. Government intelligence products," explained Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a group that monitors government information policy, in a recent blog post".

But there is no information in your sources confirming the existence of Russian Internet brigades. So please don't post links leading readers to nowhere. It is not quite polite to force us to spend a lot of time searching through this rubbish in order to end up with nothing.Vlad fedorov 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Russians have had a very successful propaganda and disinformation campaign in action for over 70 years. This historial trend of using propaganda and disinformation has been in use since by Russian before the second world war (source: koch, s. 'double lives: stalin, willi munzenberg and the seduction of the intellectuals') and that framework existed up into the late 80's and into the early 90's (source: 'Soviet Active Measures in the "Post-Cold War" Era 1988-1991' A Report Prepared at the Request of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations by the United States Information Agency June 1992). Bureaucracies like that don't change over night. There is a strong possibility that the infrastructure is still there especially considering the Russians found such operations very successful (source: Anastasi, P. Chapter 11 'Soviet Disinformation in Greece: A quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Ethnos' in 'The New Image Makers'). Essentially, Vlad, you are denying factual history, you are denying the nature of bureaucracies, and you are denying the fact that a nation state would just 'drop' a useful method of intelligence.

You said: "Moreover you just jam two different things "intelligence collection" and "disinformation through the internet". No I didn't jam them together. I guess you missed the part where I put "still have a considerable intelligence collection effort" "AND" (written in capital letters for your reading comprehension skills) "it is quite reasonable that they have a propaganda and disinformation framework in action as well". It is quite reasonable to assume that, considering the above historial trends. Not only that, but there is multiple intelligence functions used by state and non-state actors. The four functions of intelligence being: collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action (with propaganda and disinfo being subsets of covert action programs)(Sources: Sherman, M. 'Intelligence Power in Peace and War' and Godson, R. 'Dirty Tricks and Trump Cards'). For an intelligence community to gather, and act on, complete information they have to be utilizing all four functions. The fact that the Russians still have a widespread intelligence collection effort directed towards the west (sourced above in my first entry) is enough for me to make the analytical leap that other intelligence functions like counter-intelligence and covert action are still in wide spread use.

You then state "I have looked into your sources and found nothing in support of existence of Internet brigades." Again that wasn't the point. The above paragraphs extrapolate on the historical issue. Secondly, there is a reason why there is limited information on this phenomenon. Penetrating a states secrets (and that's what we are talking about here, a secret network for online disinformation that has possibly been unravelled) should be beyond the capability of a bunch of wikipedia and Internet users. We are only ever going to see bits and pieces, and even then, the network is going to be like onion layers with security and deception spread between layers. That's the nature of intelligence. The fact that the person who created this article has done an excellent job at synthesizing the sources, to create a more illuminating picture of a phenomenon we know little about, is actually an outstanding achievement in open source intelligence gathering.

It is also telling that you are more caught up in the validity of the term 'Internet Brigades'. The word is never the thing. Perhaps someone will come up with a better term to describe what is happening. It's arguing over semantics and a waste of time. But perhaps wasting our time is your MO? Which brings me to the topic of you Vlad, I'm curious about you (and some of the others on here). I'm curious about your relentless pursuit and near obsession with this article. In finishing, what is your motivation here?Evud 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, possibly rename and keep up the good job sourcing it. //Halibutt 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (see my comment below)

• Weak Keep. There's a lot of flaming going on around this article, but it looks like the article has shaped up as a result of the criticism and attention. What started as a nutjob conspiracy article is now barely worth reading. This could shape up to be a good article with some more work. I agree that it may need remaing or be merged with another section. Paladinwannabe2 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although I think it should be renamed and perhaps have parts of it discussed in Internet Censorship. I'll have my Russian friend read the article to make sure that it's correct. Keep the factual dispute tag until we can make sure that this is a real phenomenon. As an aside, I'm not sure why there is even a vote about this article. If it's a conspiracy theory then feel free to make the article such, but deleting it completely is blatant censorship. If, for example, there's an article up that criticizes Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, are we going to have a vote about it? And if the majority of votes are from Turkish contributers that are against it, are we going to take it down? The same applies for an article critical of Islam, or anything else. This vote seems to be along those lines as well, with Russian contributers against it (I'm Russia though, just don't read well). I'm not even sure why the last one was taken down... it should have been marked as a conspiracy theory, not taken down. Codingmonkey 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The author of this article - Biophys - refuses to name it conspiracy theory. Please see his definition of "internet brigades". Vlad fedorov 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is interesting and provides many sources, more than most pages. Appleseed (Talk) 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this feaces and the like that Biophys wrote for his propaganda crusade. Using wikipedia as a political platform to smear Russia via conspiracy theories published by russophobes is deplorable. --Kuban Cossack 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. This article does not criticize Russia at all! It describes a phenomenon that may be related to activities of secret services and PR department of the current Putin's administration. They are not Russia.Biophys 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Biophys is also an author of deleted article on blog "La Russophobe". Biophys also republishes a lot of material from blog "La Russophobe". The English translation of an article given as a source to the current AfD article is taken from this blog. It also differs from the original article on Russian, because author of the blog added to the translations his comments. Biophys also publishes materials from blog La Russophobe to Boris Stomakhin article.Vlad fedorov 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and perhaps rename to web-brigades (as used in one of the sources). But WP:RM is the way to go, not WP:AfD. //Halibutt 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that user Halibutt repeatedly inserts here his votes, supposedly to advance his POV. I think this should be addressed.Vlad fedorov 10:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be accidental. I've notified Halibutt and I'm sure he'll be here to remove his second vote shortly. In the meantime, I advise you to review WP:AGF. By the way, your liberal use of boldface (on this page and elsewhere) makes it look like you're always yelling, so go easy on it. Appleseed (Talk) 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Pole covering other Pole by coming short of WP:NPA? Look, you seem to be quite well contented with the same use of boldface by Biophys. SHOUTING is quite something different. You are too imaginative. And by the way, I also advise you to visit WP:AGF, especially when something "look like" for you. Vlad fedorov 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I knew I already voted on this article, but thought my previous vote was in the previous voting. BTW, in addition to AGF, you might want to read the notification on top of this very page. Particularly the remark that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. I did not come here to advance my POV, but to propose a solution. And this has nothing to do with mine nationality - or yours for that matter. I bet you wouldn't like to be judged by your nationality rather than by your words and beliefs. If so, please be so kind as to extend the same rule to others. //Halibutt 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Final comment. As a creator of this article, I must partially agree with arguments of User:Codingmonkey (see his arguments). There are no any reasons for this article even to be considered for AfD. It should be clear from this discussion for an outside viewer that some users here simply do not like each other. Whatever their problems are, they have nothing to do with this article.Biophys 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So you Biophys agree to mark this article as conspiracy theory if you agree with User:Codingmonkey? Vlad fedorov 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And is this your reply for all the reasons for deletion put at the top of the page? This is ridiculous. You haven't responded for hell number of questions about WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:ATTRIBUTION and consider this ok? Please, give us sources for your insertion of active measures term in the defenition of Internet brigades?Vlad fedorov 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See my answer in all detail here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments.Biophys 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See my objections there too. I doubt that you have details indeed. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination)#Reply_to_AfD_nominator_arguments. Vlad fedorov 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep Cleanup for reliable sources and verifiable text. Find a better term. Mukadderat 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, these very detailed answers and suggestions on such a long list of articles violations of Wikipedia policies is very ridiculous. It seems that people coming just to make the visibility of support.Vlad fedorov 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is well referenced, but should be cleaned up. --Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 22:32, 14 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. Daniel Bryant 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Producer Joe

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

Article is about the producer of a radio show. It makes no claim of credible claim of notability for the person or the show and has no independent references killing sparrows 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete uses myspace as a source and has no other independent sources, no claim of notability.--Joebengo 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability.--Masterpedia 04:46, 9 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 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Beer

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

Yet another radio host article with no claim to credible notability and no indy references killing sparrows 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability.--Masterpedia 04:45, 9 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. Daniel Bryant 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Wings

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

4th in a series of DJ's with no credible claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 05:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Joebengo 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lacks notability.--Masterpedia 04:46, 9 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. Daniel Bryant 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garth Westbrook

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

False NFL player, never played in the NFL, never recorded his stats, trust me, I have Madden 2001.Garth Westbrook

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

bullshit

Yes, Bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.29.65 (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)