Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 27

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X tax

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

Prod removed a year ago, so not eligiable for re-prod. Not really a speedy candidate. No assertion of notability. No sourced. The linked economist was just deleted as an A7 speedy. So IMHO nothing here really worth keeping. TexasAndroid 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• X it out: Unsourced, orphaned stub.  RGTraynor  18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Destroy - per the above. Unverified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep We need to be sure about what we are talking here. These kind of subjects are not Pokemon-like ones guys.

• Tax Planning Under The Flat Tax/X-Tax a paper by americantaxpolicyinstitute.org
• Beyond Bush: A Simple Plan to Tax Consumption an article by Business Week
• The X Tax in the World Economy by David Bradford, a notable Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School Professor. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, no, one doesn't need economics expertise (the concept about which, as a subscriber to The Economist, I'm chuckling) to identify obscure stubs that lack sources, assertions of notability or text. If you'd like to apply your expertise to expanding the article to something useable, feel free.  RGTraynor  12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand - there are enough sources and notability to create a decent article on the topic. There is also a lot of research on VAT taxation that could be interwoven into the article in regard to tax policy effects, criticism, etc. This article is in line with other tax reform proposals in the U.S. such as Competitive Tax Plan, Efficient Taxation of Income, Flat tax, and FairTax. Morphh ^(talk) 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I started an expansion. Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Nominator changing opinion. The article as it now stands is far from the unsourced stub that I nominated originally. - TexasAndroid 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 (put up for deletion by original author). ugen64 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Bussey

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

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Notable enough. The club he plays for is professional. The sunder king 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails the usual "hasn't played professional" criterion. Move along. The Rambling Man 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave my article alone, now. The leagues actually are professional because they are notable The sunder king 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Nobody owns an article. Mattythewhite 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Okay, but just stop it. I think it can survive on wikipedia. It has references, and is well written. The sunder king 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats the opinion I used to have in my early days. But I'm sorry, it fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not. He is notable, and I mean it. The sunder king 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Does not meet the requirement of WP:BIO that he should "...have played in a fully professional league...", which is determined by WP:FOOTBALL to be the Premier League, the Championship, League One and Football League Two in England. Nick Bussey does not come anywhere near to meeting this. --Malcolmxl5 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close- put up for CSD a7 by me. For stopping you pratts from pratting me around. The sunder king 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil, sunder king. --Malcolmxl5 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of it. Are you happy now? Now I need someone other than User:Hal who can teach me the wikipedia policies. The sunder king 18:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think we are doing this to annoy you? I'm just going by Wikipedia guidelines! Dude, keep cool. You need to discuss things. Mattythewhite 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I did think under those lines yes. I also felt annoyed at when they ruined your Requests for adminship, and I still believe you meet the criteria. Wikipedia policies are annoying. The sunder king 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They certainly can be, but we have to get on with things the best we can. Mattythewhite 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dover Bluff Road

Dover Bluff Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's probably a quadrillion county roads out there, thousands of which connect two communities. Without a number and a shield, there's not much to set Dover Bluff Rd. apart from any other. Delete as non-notable. —Scott5114↗ 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of notability and we're not a directory of county roads. I can see notability for interstate highways, but county roads? Corpx 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No notability asserted whatsoever. _TheIslander 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability demonstrated. --HowardSF-U­-T-C- 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A county road that connects two communities. --Oakshade 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, but to cite an example near me, Drummond Road connects Wanette and Byars, Oklahoma, in separate counties, and even has a bridge from the 1900s along it, but you've never heard of it, because it's just a little paved road that winds through the countryside. It's just not notable. Also, nearly any road that doesn't have a stub end could be included within a routing connecting two communities if you don't draw it directly :) —Scott5114↗ 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete I see no reason why this is notable. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phi DeKappa

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

No episode by this name or even with this general plot synopsis (Ep 15 is sort of close) ever existed. There is no content here anyway. Oren0 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:EPISODE - whether or not this is real, it is lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Psych episodes, which is in need of heavy changes). Going here:[38], shows us that it is in fact a real episode, just not stated in the list. --Patar knight 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that Yahoo is misinformed (Psych wasn't even debuting new episodes last November, it was on hiatus from August to January). I believe the Psych official site and TV.com are better authorities. The episode that this page is supposed to be referring to is "Scary Sherry: Bianca's Toast". I don't know why you want to merge, I don't see any content here that isn't already on the List of Psych episodes page. Oren0 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete (or merge if information is not present). Yahoo was not misinformed. After a bit of research and going here: [39] shows that Phi DeKappa was the working name for the very episode that you described, "Scary Sherry: Bianca's Toast". Since this article contains minimal content, it should be deleted, or if the information is deemed relevant enough to be added to List of Psych episodes, then it should be. --Patar knight 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Per Patar knight's reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If in fact it is not a real episode. If it is, merge and redirect to the list. i ^said 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Greene

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

this is a vanity page, maintained by the subject himself under the user name "profg" Despaminator 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Losing Congressional candidate, otherwise best known for a website rankning ~1.7M on Alexa. Not much here. --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Getting 3% of the votes tells me that he was not a serious candidate and hosting a local radio show is also not a claim to notability Corpx 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: No particular claim to notability other than a by-election at which he came in sixth with sixteen hundred votes. Six months as a local talk show host? A so-called "PhD" from a diploma mill? This is reaching, badly.  RGTraynor  18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the subject of this article, I was as surprised as anyone to discover it here; it is not a vanity page, for I did not create it. However, I have attempted to correct and update it as often as necessary, as I have noticed one particularly biased individual from North Carolina has repeatedly included incorrect and/or misleading information. In response to a couple of the comments here: I don't just have a website with low Alexa "rankning", that website is the homepage of the grassroots activist organization I head up, which currently has one million members/subscribers (email-based, not web-based). I was not just a "local talk show host," our talk show was broadcast nationwide and distributed even further via webcasting and podcasting. Again, I am fairly indifferent as to whether the article is deleted or not; however, I will continue to correct it if biased and inaccurate information is inserted. --profg 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to the article, he earned an ABD. Reminds me of the legendary title, so and so, B.A. (failed). DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Addenda. I have to add, that the original reason that this article was recommended for deletion - that "this is a vanity page" - is actually not allowed as a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion - 7.1 How to discuss an AfD - "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [40], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.") As a result, I recommend that the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator. In addition, in response to the above comment, ABD is a valid title, as the Wikipedia link in the article itself shows. --profg 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, that is correct, but matched that with a failure to meet the standards of WP:BIO, and there you have it.  RGTraynor  18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Response: Again, it doesn't matter much to me whether a Wikipedia article about me is deleted (honestly, there are New York Times articles on me I would love to see deleted, as incredibly biased and non-factual as they are), but I have to ask: in what way is there a failure to meet the standards of WP:BIO? Just saying it doesn't make it so. If the article does not assert or demonstrate notability, then delete this discussion, and use the {{db-bio}} tag to request speedy deletion. If this article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but is an "uncontroversial deletion candidate," then use the {{prod}} tag. It just looks to me like this article was nominated for the WP:AFD process without merit on the original basis ("vanity"). --profg 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and DGG. Bearian 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I think his notability rests pretty much on RightMarch.org. I think this article should be deleted, but the material could be part of an article on RightMarch.org. There are plenty of references to the site online, and the organization raised over $100K last year, according to OpenSecrets.org - not huge, but not nothing either. Brianyoumans 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was → speedy keep. The subject is notable and sources were found. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margo (soap)

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

NN brand of soap, no assertion of notability, borderline spam. Tevildo 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, preferably a product will be covered in the article about the company, but two apparently reliable sources turned up in the first five google hits. [41][42] --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more coverage found on Google News Corpx 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung and Corpx, maybe create a page on the company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Corpx and Dhartung this one just needs expansion, the notability is evident. Burntsauce 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree it has sources so Keep it. Anybody wanta Snow this discussion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I do, I do :-) --Boricuaeddie 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse tracklist

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

Delete - for the same reasons that many other song lists from TV shows were deleted, including The Office (US), The Office (UK), House, Skins, and many others. Directory of loosely associated items. Otto4711 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is a list of songs that were played in a TV show. Completely in universe plot information with no real world notability. Transwiki to [Buffyverse] if deemed appropriate. We shouldnt get in the business of documenting every song ever played on any TV show Corpx 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, because incredibly extensive, well-organized article about a notable show. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this is more than just a list of songs played in a TV show, but rather a list that has been sorted by episode. This is in some ways equivalent to the score of a TV show, and in other ways, a notable marketing tool. [43] and there are others. At the least though, this might be redirected to the existing soundtrack.FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It almost seems a shame to edge towards delete, as clearly a lot of work has been put into this list. However, it violates a chunk of WP:NOT, namely WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#STATS. _TheIslander 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics? No, as there's nothing long or sprawling about this. Directory *may* be closer, but I'm not sure it's actually persuasive in this case. There's nothing loosely associated about this, these are songs that featured in a television program. That's a clear and explicit criteria. White Page? Nope. Program Guide? Resource for conducting business? It's not a Sales Catalog either. I suppose with a literal interpretation of "directory" it could be construed as such, as it is a list of information, but sometimes that's the best way to organize this kind of information. It's not like we don't include songs that were featured in Movies, or in episodes of television shows in the articles themselves. FrozenPurpleCube 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, poor choice of link on my part. I was refering to this: "6. Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." Now, maybe this isn't 100% relevant here, as it's a whole article as opposed to a section, but my view is that it still applies. As for WP:NOT#DIR: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". I'm sorry, but in my opinion this list is very loosely associated. You could come up with hundreds of thousands of such lists by looking at different programmes - it's just regurgitation of information. To further my argument, I feel that this article also fails WP:N, specifically "Significant coverage". Yes, the programme most definitely has significant coverage, but the specific music within it, and thus this list? Not a chance. _TheIslander 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia? No, I'm afraid that this list is in no way related to a trivia collection. A trivia collection is far less related than this, which is actually a solidly connected theme, namely the songs played in a given television series. That's not loose at all. I don't see that significant coverage is needed overall, that's often a false standard, especially in this case where it doesn't matter what coverage there is, this is basically just facts, nothing more. These facts would be included just as easily in the episode articles, and this is nothing more than a collation of the information from those pages in a conveniently accessible form. And it should be on those pages. It's not like the music that appears in a series isn't credited *or* often important. Sometimes the inclusion of music is a marketing ploy. (Though in the cases where that would be claimed, I'd suggest a source for the marketing.). It's not like they don't make soundtracks based on songs used in a series. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, grouping songs together based upon which television show they have been used in appears to be little more than a collection of loosely related topics per WP:NOT. If the background music of the show were somehow more relevant to the series itself an argument might have been made for this list, but not as it stands. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, this is just more buffycruft. Burntsauce 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Buffycruft, in fact, any argument which dismisses something as cruft, is not a persuasive argument. It reflects an opinion, but gives no reason for that. I suggest avoiding usage of the term. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Buffycruft, repeat Buffycruft. Transwiki if Wikia will have it. Dbromage [Talk] 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. It's a bad idea to dismiss things as cruft instead of explaining the reasons for your position. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cruft refers (to me) articles created by fans of a fictional work, which is completely in-universe, and lacking any real world notability Corpx 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's inapplicable in this case, since it's not in-universe at all, but then, you didn't call it cruft in your own statement anyway. I do think you're mistaken, but that's your look-out. In any case, cruft to me means nothing more than "I don't like this" except a bit more derogatory. I advise avoiding its use. Say things like you did, and I can at least respect the argument. FrozenPurpleCube 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. On the contrary, I do not think lists of things mentioned in a fictional work has any notability outside the show Corpx 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one thing, but it's not what I was objecting to in what you said, which was that the page was completely in-universe. These two things are not the same at all, and I don't know why you're confusing them, but it is certainly not accurate to claim they are in-universe. Most of the time the music is actually completely out of universe as the characters don't hear it at all. The times when it is "in-universe" it's usually played by the Artist in question, which is actually something that does attract notice in the real-world. Just look up the Michelle Branch appearance. So if anything, it seems to me that the in-universe things are actually the ones most likely to be independently notable. But I don't think independent notability is really worth getting into here. I simply consider it valid to include the lists of songs that are used as a soundtrack. FrozenPurpleCube 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs aren't related by being in the shows. Picking two songs at random may show closely connected songs, but that's coincidental because the same bands were used multiple times. Jay32183 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Long and unnecessary, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Just because it's "extensive" and "well-organized" doesn't mean it's worthy. Rehevkor 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Network Alchemy

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

Doesn't seem very notable, and could probably be deleted under CSD A7. Instead of that, I'd recommend we redirect this to Nokia, who acquired the company. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as nonnotable. Shalom ^Hello 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as minor claim notability has passed. --Gavin Collins 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oh you guys are quick - I was going to add more content. Anyway - redirection to Nokia seems fine, and if the content ever grows too big for one page it can be split up again. --Greg Harewood —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregHarewood (talk • contribs) 15:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm personally a bit more swayed by a merger because the article is short and not foreseeably expandable. Though, the notability has been established, and it is interesting that it is officially recognized by the U.S. However, the keeps are in the majority. I would ask that editors interested in this subject please work to improve the article, or perhaps if that doesn't occur , another merger (not a AfD) can be proposed further down the line.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic whirl

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

An article on the logo of an organization which is only moderatley notable at best. The only reference comes from the website of said organization. Hornet35 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with American Atheists Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above. _TheIslander 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It isn't just the logo, it's a symbol of belief (or in this case, non-belief), and is one of those officially recognized by the U.S. Veterans Administration for placement on military headstones[44][45][46] (although only a fraction of atheists are members of said organization). A version was proposed to balance the infamous Alabama Ten Commandments and has been proposed for inclusion in public holiday displays.[47] --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:29, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a vote, you must provide a reason as to why you think this article should not be deleted. --Hornet35 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with American Atheists. Notwithstanding the provisions of WP:AADD, there is plenty of precedent here for indicating that logos do not inherit the notability of their parent organisation. — BillC ^talk 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to American Atheists. If later sources turn out that show its notability to be independent of that org, the the article can always be recreated. ornis (t) 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the symbol is one of the symbols (and only Atheist symbol) that is approved by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for use of US Government supplied graves and markers. This means it is notable independent of the actual association. I've updated the article to reflect this. Ttiotsw 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Ttiotsw. Even though it's trademarked, the symbol has a life of its own. Skarioffszky 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if there is precedent for articles on other religious symbols. I see we have Christian cross, Star and crescent, and Dharmacakra; the only question I have is whether these articles have some motivation other than their use as religious symbolism. RandomCritic 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per fact of official recognition.PelleSmith 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think there's a full article to be written here, even if it hasn't been done yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beit Taneen

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

The article is about a house within a residential school, the American Hebrew Academy. While the school is notable, nothing in the article demonstrates the notability of this house. A merger into the AHA article was proposed, but no support was gained for the merger. Accordingly, I'm nominating for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability of its own. Massive precedent that individual buildings at schools are not notable in general. DMacks 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schonemann

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for academics. Notability is based largely on publications in professional journals, which is very common for almost all academics. Most sources illustrating notability were written by the subject. Ward3001 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wouldnt publication in these peer-reviewed journals make him an expert in his field? Corpx 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was the case that publication in journals qualified an academic for notability, the vast majority of college professors would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you examine Wikipedia for articles about academics, they have acquired notability beyond journal publication, such as publishing a textbook (not just a chapter), or becoming known to the general public (such as Skinner). Think about your college professors; many are/were well published in journals. How many have Wikipedia articles, or deserve one? Ward3001 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Seems notable on its face per WP:PROF, though the article as written is pretty weak (long prose where a list of works would do, prose/lists-of-works seeming only for the purpose of propping up notability instead of talking about the person and his ideas. However, all claims of being an expert or being originator/major player for novel ideas are self-written (lack of secondary sources). If his ideas about IQ and racism are notable or novel (vs fringe ideas...not to belittle them, as even Nobel Laureats can have fringe ideas), surely someone else would have written review articles highlighting his ideas. DMacks 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nicely written, references given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A weak keep, but a keep. Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is no big thing - it depends on the journal, the field, and politics/friends. And textbooks are given too much emphasis by Wikipedia - textbook companies get hacks to write books or chapter in many fields. In fact, textbooks are often cut-and-paste jobs from other books. By the independent references, he does seem to have contributed to a contentious subject enough to make the cut. I think the article could be improved into a definite keeper. MarkBul 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What independent references? The article cites a few sources by writers other than Schonemann, but almost all are "Schönemann’s influences" or "Schönemann, in line with authors ...", etc. As DMacks states above, how many authorities in the field have written review articles highlighting his ideas? And notice the reference for the statement "a foremost expert on factor Analysis". Ward3001 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the primary contributor to the article removed the citation for "a foremost expert on factor Analysis" after the preceding comment was made. Ward3001 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even the person responsible for nominating this article makes a case for notability. Burntsauce 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- important and notable academics are praising him as an expert in peer-reviewed journals. This is the definition of recognition by the community. (an article or two probably isn't enough to establish notability, but 90+ articles is not anything close to what the average professor attains). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am unable to understand the basis for even suggesting this deletion. Obviously academics are notable for their academic work, which consists of publications in peer-reviewed journals and equivalent monographs. Artists are notable for their paintings, actors for the acting, and so on. I begin to wonder if its the tendency of some of the published work--see the article. DGG (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but 90 papers seems well above average for an academic, and a couple of his papers are highly cited according to Google Scholar: 'A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem' (227), 'Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion' (100). I believe the subject meets WP:PROF for these reasons. Espresso Addict 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks

List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete - for the same reasons that the related Buffyverse chronology articles were deleted, namely WP:PLOT. Otto4711 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Otto4711. --Hornet35 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no reason why an encyclopedia should contain this. WP:PLOT and probably WP:CRUFT as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto and Hersfold. Some articles about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are fine; but when you have an entire "Buffyverse", and the unreasonable expectation that goes along with it, there's a problem. Mandsford 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hopeless plot summary. --Phirazo 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whedon-cruft. Artw 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - NOT a Buffy encyclopedia and just plot details. Transwiki to a Buffyverse Corpx 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Corpx. This is not an encyclopedia article and it is only plot details. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator, again. Burntsauce 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Buffycruft. Transwiki if Wikia will have it. Dbromage [Talk] 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ROMO Analysis

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

Borderline spam. Subject is a proprietary method of analysis promoted by a single company. Only source is a link to that company. Cannot be verified at all. Realkyhick 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability and could be seen as advertising. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Almost satisfies WP:CSD#G11. _TheIslander 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge → Universal Pantheist Society. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheist Vision

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

Fails WP:NB. Not notable, no references. Hornet35 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources, cannot be verified, likely non-notable house organ anyway. Realkyhick 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete publication by an organization who may not pass WP:N Corpx 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I will agree with this one, because all of the potential sources I find are on Pantheistical websites. Nothing reliable. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Universal_Pantheist_Society - I have copy+pasted the text back to the Universal_Pantheist_Society article so this one can be redirected to that.Ttiotsw 08:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to UPS per above. ornis (t) 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above.PelleSmith 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Pantheist Society

Universal Pantheist Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Not notable, no references. Hornet35 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm finding several mentions of the agency on Google in what appear to be reliable sites. This seems to be one of the few preeminent Pantheist organizations. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you post links to these "mentions of the agency"? --Hornet35 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to be one of a few, or perhaps the only Pantheist organisation today. Lurker (said · done) 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Google hits I see are Web directories, not articles on the organization. Not notable. MarkBul 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I cant find any significant coverage either Corpx 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Gosh, Hornet35, what was the sermon about yesterday? All my preacher talked about was the Beatitudes. For the most part, your nominations appear sound, but I don't care for mass (no pun intended) nominations of a particular topic. Mandsford 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep assuming there's a real source or two, which shouldn't be difficult. DGG (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve as one of the only pt societies that's lasted this long. Also, nom is a pretty egregious breach of WP:POINT. ornis (t) 06:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - hold on - please just tag with references needed. I'm having trouble keeping up with the number of AfD by Hornet35. I know he's a new user and enthusiastic to get articles correctly cited but has raised so many interrelated AfD and I (we ?) have so little time. Ttiotsw 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is referenced and seems to meet minimum criteria for notability.RandomCritic 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pantheism ought to be represented. Sourcing could be stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanging Jack (talk • contribs) 15:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Inquiry (magazine)

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

Fails WP:NB. No references, no assertion of notability, obvious link spam. Hornet35 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Accusation of linkspam is patently false and may fail WP:FAITH. It is usual for an article to link to the main website run by the article's subject, after all. Magazine is published by a well-known organisation, has well-known contributors and made the news after Borders books refused to carry an issue due to controversy over cartoons of Muhammad. Also note that Hornet365 seems to be nominating quite a few atheism-related articles for deletion, such as Why I am not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Long-running (up to vol 27), published by notable organisation, the Council for Secular Humanism, with contributions by world-famous writers. Note that WP:NB specifically says that it does not provide guidance for magazines. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The only third-party source I can find in Google's top 20 on "Free Inquiry Magazine" is the AP Press release that was just referenced about an hour ago. Since notability is not temporary, I believe this would merit deletion. If other sources can be found, I may change my opinion then, but I'm not seeing them right now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources below and added to the article. Two minutes with Google works wonders. Nick mallory 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Council for Secular Humanism. Skarioffszky 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Plenty of room in Council of Secular Humanism article, and no need for an independent page. MarkBul 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a long running and influential magazine. The attempt by Borders to ban it, which was covered widely, would make it notable too. Here the story is covered by CBS News [48] and the Washington Post [49] and the New York Times [50]. It's discussed by Slate.com here [51] and, by Christopher Hitchens, here [52]. It made international news as well, here the story is covered by The Times of India [53]. All these stories relate directly to the magazine itself, not the Council for Secular Humanism. Nick mallory 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as there is sufficient independent coverage of this long-running magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on what Dhartung has written, if proof of such coverage can be provided. Regarding the failure of WP:NB, no one cares! This is a magazine.  :-) RFerreira 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Definitely not link spam, and it seems notable enough. Agree with the above comment regarding WP:FAITH as well.PelleSmith 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable even without the Borders controversy. Undoubtedly notable with it. DGG (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep notable publication, with highly notable contributors. ornis (t) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the publisher is notable, the contributors are notable and it has stirred up some controversy which makes it notable in its own right separate from the publisher or contributors. It is illogical to merge it to anything else and certainly illogical to delete. Ttiotsw 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep published by a notable organisation, plenty of notable contributors, and multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly not "linkspam". Hut 8.5 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I wish the nominators would actually spend a couple of seconds doing research before submitting the articles. Reinis^talk 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not aware of any relevant guidelines, but long-running, widely distributed periodicals seem to have an inherent notability. Espresso Addict 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This magazine keeps being referenced to in current debate, e.g., by Christopher Hitchens at the August 2007 Google Talks (Time Index 22:00), and should be available for looking up on WP. gyokusai 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soheil Ghassempoor

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

Non-notable biography; google finds only a couple of blogs. - Fordan (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no verifiable sources (what is this "Persian Music Encyclopedia," anyway?), not notable. Realkyhick 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Deniz^T_C 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Dunno about the "Persian Music Encyclopedia" (this thing? [54]) but "سهیل قاسمپور"(subject's name in Persian; did I spell that right?) gets precisely one GHit [55], while in the Roman alphabet you get 5 more GHits [56], which are all Wikipedia or blogs. Other spelling variants like single vs. double "S", "O" or "OU" instead of "OO", etc. add a few GBooks results [57][58], but nothing relevent. cab 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motnahp Haj

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

Either a non-notable street performer, or a hoax: Google books has the cited source online, and the index makes no mention of Haj. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, smells very hoax-y. Realkyhick 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious AFD-baiting hoax. Motnahp is phantom backwards, Nodnol is London backwards, bal-con-y, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal slang

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

Unnecessary page, not a page for an encyclopedia, merely a page of heavy metal derogatory terms. Dan 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A page like this needs references for every single term. There are no references at all. The topic might be unencyclopedic, but my main concern is lack of references. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is screaming "original research" and I am not sure what this would be doing in an encyclopedia anyway. More of an Urban Dictionary thing. As is, it is just a list of terms and definitions, ie: OR laden heavy metal glossary. Pharmboy 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way establishing what expression is the most notable, and which would belong to the article. Also, WP:NOT#INFO Grinder0-0 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Since it probably could be sourced if the author tried. Mandsford 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely original research and I dont think we should be a guide to these terms Corpx 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The overwhelming majority of the list smacks of original research, but there's the odd term (Beauty and the Beast vocals being the first one on the list which I can see) which has wide currency in descriptions of heavy metal music and may just be sourceable somewhere out there. In its current state, however, this isn't a good candidate to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all the way up to 11 All unreferenced original research. Lugnuts 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Where to begin? No cerdible sources, original research, listcruft. Realkyhick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These lists of slangs have been on my list for a while, so thank you Danorama for saving me the keystrokes. Burntsauce 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's original research. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, just clean it up a little. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep! Me and my friends use metal slang all the time, we saw this page and saw how right it was. The only source slang comes from is teenagers like myself. Morspecs911 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. Please read WP:USEFUL, filed under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks! Burntsauce 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• While I disagree with the nomination that all the terms are derogatory, delete as listcruft. — Moe ε 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mothwingdust

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

Non notable myspace music artist, no third party sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No credible sources (WP:YMINAR), promotional. Realkyhick 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. Rehevkor 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10. Non-admin closure. _TheIslander 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Horn

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

Delete. This page appears to be a hoax and an attack page. Note that the article is about a person who is supposedly gay with a middle name "Gaye." --דניאל - Danielrocks123 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

PLASE Remove THE Simon Horn PAGE NOW!!!! Have you read it ?????? I am Simon Horn!!!!!,,,,,,,,,I'm not a DJ and I'm not GAY!!!!) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhorn (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/move. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It

Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Self-published book, with no references, or assertion of notability. Hornet35 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Athiest Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Corrected typo). This is the title of the second edition of the book, and with an Amazon sales rank of #912 and 169 customer reviews (as of 27 August 2007) [59], the second edition of this book is hardly non-notable. Neil916 (Talk) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (note spelling), per Neil916. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move, per Neil, but with Squiddy's spelling. Skarioffszky 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move per Squiddy, notable book per Neil916. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to correct title. Shoester 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless there are actual published reviews from reliable sources. Customer reviews on Amazon do not make it, regardless of number. DGG (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to correct title, per neil. ornis (t) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content into David Mills (author) article and add redirects (including fixing what would be a double redirect on Atheist Universe) . The book has reviews (odd hits here and there) but most reviewers concentrate on Dawkins and the other biggies so this gets little airtime. As long as we deem Mills to be notable enough for Wikipedia then we can add his book titles to his own article. Ttiotsw 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and tag with {{expand}}. — TKD::Talk 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Verve

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

I don't think concept cars are generally concidered notable, baring some sort of media coverage, none of which is shown here. TexasAndroid 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand A simple search reveals several reliable sources: [60] [61] Wl219 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - the article have several sources already. // Liftarn

Sourcing now looks good. A little bit WP:CRYSTAL for my taste, but that's not a massive issue in this case. - TexasAndroid 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand --Djsasso 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - more media coverage will come shortly as this car will soon debut at the Frankfurt Motor Show. --Vossanova ^o< 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - there is vast media coverage, eg. [62], [63], [64]. A simple search shows tons more. -Livedo 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Police Department in media

Los Angeles Police Department in media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - laundry list catch-all article seeking to capture anything in which the LAPD appears, regardless of the importance of the LAPD to the fiction from which it's drawn. Tells us nothing about the LAPD, nothing about the fiction it's from, nothing about the real world. Otto4711 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Otto4711. --Hornet35 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy and Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion in order to address Otto4711's concerns by adding references and more regular text. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It took me awhile to read WP:LIST and understand what it means when one refers to a list of "indiscriminate information", but this is the classic example... a list of things with little or no explanation as to why they're there, beyond what the title of the article implies. Improve, or delete Mandsford 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Clean-up to be like the List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps article. Which probably needs some further work on it, especially the lead section. FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a "catch-all" clutter/trivia guide. RobJ1981 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Little more than an indiscriminate trivia list, from a book about the Manson Family murders to an episode of Punk'd. Crazysuit 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main article. I pared the insanely long list way down into prose that flows a lot better. It now contains what I think are the most relevant mass-media representations (except for the non-fiction books; I really don't know about those).--Chaser - T 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, as suggested above. The LAPD is used in media as an iconic police department, and the collection of this information is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can of course cite reliable sources that novelists, filmmakers, television people consider the LAPD "iconic" in any way? Or could it possibly be that since many films and TV series are set in Los Angeles that we just see the LAPD more often because it's convenient? Otto4711 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

following your logic, would you agree that articles on the use of other police departmens are encyclopedia-worthy? DGG (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that articles that are actually about the topic of the use of XYZ police force in such and such medium that are backed by reliable sources and are not simply collections of "in the movie Attack of the Blug a Fumblebuck PD police officer got eaten by the blug" are encyclopedia-worthy. Lists of cop-spotting references are not. This article is a cop-spotting list. Otto4711 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Total trivia, not a notable subject. Dannycali 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We generally determine notability by references sources, of which there are now two in the article and many that DGG listed below.--Chaser - T 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• References I think Otto asked for references that this was not just a matter of convenience: a quick look finds from Gooogle Scholar
• Staging Murders: The Social Imaginary, Film, and the City NM Klein - Wide Angle, 1998 - muse.jhu.edu ... 1997. Since the Rodney King incident in 1991, the LAPD has been routinely portrayed on film as a pack of psychotic buffoons. In ..
• [BOOK] Cop Knowledge: Police Power and Cultural Narrative in Twentieth-century America CP Wilson - 2000 - books.google.com ... Gid Powers,Joe Domanick, and Claire Bond Potter have demonstrated so well, by FBI and LAPD sponsorship of the “G-man” style of policing in film, on radio ...
• Mapping the Hood: The Genealogy of City Space in" Boyz N the Hood" and" Menace II Society" PJ Massood - Cinema Journal, 1996 - JSTOR ... Again, these are most literally signified by the presence of the LAPD. While there is an absence of surveillance helicopters in this film, the police still are ...
• Drug Wars: The Political Economy of Narcotics D Wars - The Journal of Popular Culture, 2005 - Blackwell Synergy ... in 1930s Los Angeles, where control of Mexican labor, imagery, and drug use was a key factor in the Hollywood film industry and the empowerment of the LAPD. ..
• Mike Davis, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (New York: Metropolitan …T Hamm - Journal of the Southwest, 2001 - questia.com ... critiques of the corrupted city put forth in hardboiled fiction and film noir from ...describes LA, in the process spotlighting the role of the LAPD in brutally ...

This is a quick list from only the first 20% of the GS hits, , to demonstrate that sources do exist, not yet a contribution to the article, for which of course the articles need to be read and evaluated more carefully, but it certainly indicates that multiple academic sources consider the role of the LAPD in film to be significant in ways other than just co-location in Los Angeles. and so on,

Assuming that the people proposing deletion of the article would rather improve it, this shows that it could be done. I wouldn't like to say that they want to delete it regardless of the importance of the topic and the presence of sources. DGG (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write an article using those sources that is actually about the subject of the protrayal of the LAPD in the media. As the current article is shite, its deletion will provide you with a clean slate. Otto4711 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now written an article using sources that is actually about the portrayal of the LAPD in the media. There are only two media portrayals discussed, but just because an article is short is not grounds for deletion.--Chaser - T 03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an unnecessary fork. All relevant info can be placed in the LAPD article.--Jersey Devil 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Such "delete and merge" options are discouraged by the GFDL, which encourages preservation of attribution history.--Chaser - T 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Durham Students' Union. I'd lean more towards keep if there was anything of value in the article. I have redirected - I leave it to interested editors to perform the merge. ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durham Student Theatre

Durham Student Theatre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article reads like a great-big advert for this organisation. Article asserts no notability whatsoever, particularly through a lack of external, reliable sources. _TheIslander 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you don't read most the university pages on here as the majority of them are adverts for that particular university. AlexD 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Durham Students' Union. DWaterson 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per DWaterson. Would fit fine under services in the Durham Students' Union article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Making DST part of the 'DSU services' article would be foolish - DST is not a service of DSU, it is an independent society. Status as an advert is accepted, apologies, will reduce it. It's entirely notable, however. An organisation which puts on some 50 shows a year and includes 700 members is certainly of interest to anyone doing research on Student Theatre in the UK, Durham's theatre scene or theatre in the North East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulhc (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palatinate (newspaper)

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

Article a) cites no sources whatsoever, but much more importantly b) appears to be completely non-notable, and cites no links to assert notability. _TheIslander 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and source, long standing newspaper, NUS/Independent Student Newspaper of the Year, with several notable former editors--Jac16888 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Using that logic, you could take any notable person on Wikipedia, trace back through their lives and find a dozen societies/clubs/organisations etc. that are thus notable and deserve an article. That logic doesn't work for me. Also, your opinion is 'Keep and source' - this article has had over 16 months to be sourced; far too long, in my opinion. _TheIslander 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You could do so, but i doubt you would find many groups with more than one "notable" ex-member, and it is more than just the ex-members that make it notable, plus you're ignoring the award it recievedt, hat could probably be sourced without difficulty, and also, see WP:TIND --Jac16888 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment As this article is up for deltion then all other student newspapers in the category mentioned below ought be as well. Personally, considering every single pokemon is mentioned on here, I hardly think a Student newspaper should be deleted. AlexD 08:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Jac16888. --Hornet35 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing inherently notable about a student newspaper. Notability is not inherited from one article to another - the former editors are not notable for what they did at this paper. MarkBul 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As MarkBul says, student newspapers are not inherently notable. What is so special about this one that gives it significance or importance above others? --Malcolmxl5 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that in 2001, Palatinate was named the NUS/Independent Student Newspaper of the Year? if thats not enough, fair enough, delete.--Jac16888 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not being sentimental here about an article I've edited, but it seems to me that Palatinate is one of the more notable British student newspapers, certainly moreso than the majority of publications in Category:United Kingdom student newspapers. Not only due to the award and the now-famous former editors, but having a quick Google about, I note that:

1. A Palatinate article has been republished on an official government website
2. In 2003 a journalist on the paper came runner-up in the Best Student Reporter (Sponsored by the Daily Mirror) category
3. Apparently Hunter Davies is another notable former editor (I've added this to the article).
4. Article from The Northern Echo about the paper, describing it as, "one of Britain's best-known student newspapers". (I've also added this.) I think that should be enough to establish notability, and it's slightly better referenced now. Cheers, DWaterson 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it being a student newspaper made it not notable in the notability guidelines, didn't know there was a category of them, in which case i see no grounds to delete at all, seems very notable--Jac16888 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the introduction to better assert notability, which rests on three things, it seems to me, a) being well known, b) having won a coveted national award and c) having several notable former editors. I have also rearranged the text elsewhere a little and added Oliver Brown to the historical timeline. An independent source for Pier Merchant being a former editor would be good and can anyone confirm that it was recently judged best Varsity newspaper in the Guardian media awards? Independent references are essential and the more the better. --Malcolmxl5 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Has won a 'coveted' national award, has been described as one of Britain's best known student newspapers and with a number of notable former editors. --Malcolmxl5 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.atheism

Alt.atheism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internet discussion group. Fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability. Spam. Hornet35 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject is probably notable, based upon the possible sources available (see Google Books and Google Scholar). Jakew 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well-known discussion group Lurker (said · done) 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because you feel it is well known, does not mean it passes WP:WEB or that it is notable. This article has no references. --Hornet35 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply If it is underreferenced, tag it as such. This is one of a bunch of atheism-related articles you seem to see fit to remove from Wikipedia today- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Atheist Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (magazine), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Am Not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Apart from being well-known, alt.atheism is used in information & comp sci fields because it is a high-traffic discussion board, if the (many) google books/google scholar hits are anything to go by. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable sources exist, as mentioned above. A quick (< 3 minutes) Google search turns up several scholarly papers discussing the group in a number of contexts (traffic metrics/handling, online community studies, sociology...) as well as criticisms of group in non-scholarly contexts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to parse all of these sources in order to add them to the article. However, it is inappropriate to AfD an article just because it is unsourced if you aren't going to make a real attempt to determine if sources can be found. Just tag it as "unsourced" and be on your way. LaMenta3 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that "alt.atheism has long been one of the most active discussion newsgroups in the USENET hierarchy" is probably the best assertion of notability for a newsgroup. Tag for references? Sure. Delete? No. Wyatt Riot 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: alt.atheism is not a website. Do we have any notability criteria for Usenet groups, or non-web forums in general? Judging by List of newsgroups and Category:Newsgroups, there are quite a few newsgroups with Wikipedia articles - I feel that this should probably be discussed at some higher level to establish some consensus on newsgroup notability. Mdwh 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a group that I'm familiar with, but as much as WP:ILIKEIT, the actual article fails our standards for WP:N without proper references. RFerreira 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is everything with the word 'atheist' in it being nominated for deletion today? Nick mallory 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per RFerreira. Borderline assertion of notability but lacks secondary sources. Dbromage [Talk] 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a directory listing... no significant content that isnt shown on a google groups page.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The major usenet group on a notable subject should be considered notable. They contained major discussions over the several years before the modern internet. DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Notable long running discussion group. Nom pretty clearly fails WP:POINT. ornis (t) 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination fails WP:POINT as nominator tagged article as unreferenced 1/2 an hour before then tagging it with an AfD. Whoa - 30 minutes just too little time to do stuff. It needs to be a few weeks given global timezones and holidays ! Remember we don't get paid to edit here !. Ttiotsw 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of sources, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. Italia^vivi 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Radio

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

Article reads very much like an advert. Also, subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Webradio, no AM/FM component, and only transmits web content during school. Close to db-web criteria. Acroterion _(talk) 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable web radio station. Over-the-air broadcast history is insufficient. Realkyhick 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Durham Students' Union. DWaterson 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with either the Students' Union or with the main Durham article in the student life section. AlexD 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. There was a balance of views. The keepers pointed to the awards but the deleters highlighted the lack of significant secondary sources. Since the awards are sourceable, though unsourced, there is no failure of WP:V and hence no over-riding policy reason to delete. TerriersFan 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durham21

Again, another article from Durham which lacks any form of notability whatsoever. I'm sorry to those at Durham who clearly feel that each little part of the university deserves an article, but it doesn't. To get back to business: Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no sign of possible notability. MarkBul 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, regularly wins award for best site from NUS, chief political commentator from The Independent even publicly complimented it. How much more notability do you need. Only problem with this article is that it needs sourcing. Do you have some sort of vendetta against Durham Uni?, you seem to be AFD'ing a lot of its articles in one go.--Jac16888 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - No vendetta - just happened to be looking through the articles, and was fairly suprised at how non-notable they all were. It's all well and good the notability being pointed out now in an AfD, but it should really be evident in the article in the first place. _TheIslander 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They are evident in the article, where do you think i got them from? it just needs a source--Jac16888 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So where are the sources then? Nothing to prove the assertions. Realkyhick 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comment to your !vote below. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not proved, no sources aside from a link to the site itself. Realkyhick 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. the awards, doesn't hurt to search on Google a little [65]. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as winners of multiple awards from National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - winners of the NUS Student Website of the Year five times! A clear assertion of notability. DWaterson 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Speaking as a Durham student, this is an extremely popular website for Durham students and has won awards 19:31, 05 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.90.35 (talk)

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. _TheIslander 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durham University Centre of Cricketing Excellence

Durham University Centre of Cricketing Excellence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —KTC 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As it says in the article, this is the name of the University's team when they play First-class cricket matches in addition to their cricket coaching program. First-class cricket in England is professional (with the exception of that of the four universities, including Durham) and inherently notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's a university team, yes, but officially first class which is automatically notable. Howzat? Realkyhick 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• (aside to Realkyhick) *shakes head* Not out. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Of course. First-class team. 'Nuff said. Johnlp 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - OK, fair enough, seems I don't know enough about cricket. Sorry for the nomination, though I can assure you it was in good faith. Nomination Withdrawn. _TheIslander 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch

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

Content is not encyclopedic, seems to be authored by the organization portrayed, it might be considered blatant advert, sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily Jenny^Len☤ 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If this nomination were about a person this nomination would be a BLP violation bordering on libel. As it is it reveals either a (1) very limited understanding of the site and article, (2) a pretty warped bad faith POV attack, (3) gaming the system by misusing an AfD, (4) a poor understanding of the inclusion criteria for articles here, or (5) all of the above. I don't know exactly which. In any case it should not have been raised. There are indeed other types of problems with the editing atmosphere around the article, none of which justify this waste of time. When is this improper AfD going to be ended? There is one comfort and side benefit from all of this - at best for the nominator a Pyrrhic victory, yet, even though there is no hope of this being passed, the long-lasting effects a la a Pyrrhic victory will be harvested as a win by the pro-Quackwatch (IOW anti-quackery) POV. This is all in harmony with the policies here which state that the appropriate weight should be given to such topics - the scientific majority is given the weight it deserves. Message to the nominatress - before nominating articles for AfD (as you did this one), please exercise due care to ensure that the article fails the policy or guideline in question. Needlessly disrupting Wikipedia (either unintentionally or to make a WP:POINT) is frowned upon and will neither get you any friends nor increase your credibility. -- Fyslee/talk 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment. I think if this AFD has shown us one thing is that many people feel that the existing article is a lopsided one written more as a promotional piece rather than a neutral article. There is a group of editors hellbent on excluding/removing any and all criticism (of which Quackwatch garners quite a bit). The sort of article ownership is frowned on here at Wikipedia. Bringing this to light to other Wikipedians certainly was not a waste of time. No one is obligated to comment here, so if you feel it is a waste of your time, then do what you like. I haven't found this process to be disruptive whatsoever, but helpful. I encourage more neutral editors to come to the article and help turn it from a PR piece to an encyclopdic article. Bottomline, Quackwatch is a critical site and thus one can expect it receives a lot of critical backlash. Right now, this side of the Quackwatch story is hardly told. And - for anyone following the current discussion on Talk:Quackwatch - of the remaining two minor pieces of criticism, the "pro-Quackwatch" editors (as Fyslee calls them) are trying to remove even one of those. There is systematic whitewash at play here and again I encourage some article supervision by some more neutral and expert Wikipedians. Thanks. In conclusion, I do think that Quackwatch passes the notability threshold and should be kept as an article; it is just that the current article is far too promotional. The biased POV at play here is exemplified above by Fyslee, where he aligns Quackwatch with "the scientific majority" and thus writes off all of its detractors as minorities which need not be mentioned in the article, but rather swept under the rug with edit warring and ludicrous policy arguments which at the root are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT at best. I certainly feel that this AfD is over and can be closed expeditiously. I hope what it has shed light on though will stay with us and that we have a better, more complete, article to look forward to in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —--Rrburke^(talk) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well referenced, appears notable. If you think it reads like an advertisement you should edit it, not delete it. --Hornet35 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Hornet35 (talk · contribs) may in fact be a PEAR (talk · contribs) sockpuppet.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Besides, the nomination is made in bad faith. Digwuren 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you prove this charge? Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • • I can point you towards User talk:Isotope23/Archive 11#Quackwatch, which, to my knowledge, is the first where Jennylen raised the "issue" of this article. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and please try and actually give some sort of reasoning for your opinion...--Isotope23 ^talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's not necessary, as the nomination is absurd on its face. It's a prime example of a kook trying to pretend a skeptic is another kook, and a fringe one at that. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • • You're right, it isn't "necessary", but you run the risk of your opinion being discounted because it isn't supported. I won't be closing this because I've been administratively involved in the article, but if I was I would discard your opinion as an WP:IDONTLIKE vote.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
            • In this case, let's spell it out explicitly: the nomination does not provide any valid basis for article deletion, and is, in fact, deliberately misleading. If there is no reason for deletion, the default option is keep. Digwuren 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • This seems like an unneccessary personal attack. Please consider removing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • • Under WP:SPADE, there's no reason for removing this. Digwuren 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It is most unfortunate that the discussion has been carried to the grounds of "defending what I want" with discredit. I don't think that to carry here the same discussion bteween "supporters" and "non supporters" of the organization, as it was happening in the edition of the article, will help, this is about criteria for deletion and it was presented in good faith, nothing less nothing more. Some people also try to carry here the same groups debating at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, that is not necessary, please don't project. This is not about Quackwatch but about an article which after having for some time the chance to change, is still PR and qualifies in my view for deletion, that's all. The energy should be used in building a good WP article instead of mending the pieces of something that has no mending. And of course, WP:NPA and WP:CIV Jenny^Len☤ 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known site; well-referenced article that easily meets WP:WEB. Really dubious nomination. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Self referencing, authored by bias, tries to transmit an "image" of the subject not encyclopedic information. It has been protected for a while. Daoken 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Hut 8.5 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are a couple of legit citations, and the subject is for real, so it stays. It could use some editing, like most Wiki pages. MarkBul 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Yes, the subject is a divisive one and the quality of the article is suboptimal. But the topic is undoubtedly notable - see the various secondary sources provided. The site has been reviewed by The Consultant Pharmacist, JAMA, US News and World Report, Forbes - and has been mentioned in a more minor context in many other sources (again detailed in the article). It's also been the topic of at least some notable criticism. While I would almost rather the article go away simply because of the nastiness that surrounds it on Wikipedia, I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination by which this subject fails WP:WEB. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As is, belongs to AfD, with more "no-club-members" authors and better third sourcing, the article could deserve a place even if notability is limited to USA only.ℒibrarian2 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not USA-only; see e.g. this search of searchmedica.co.uk SearchMedica - The GP's search engine. The same search of its USA counterpart searchmedica.com is also interesting in this context. Avb 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in third-party sources per WP:WEB. The vast majority of the sources are pages at Quackwatch's website, which also fails to satisfy WP:SELFPUB ("the article is not based primarily on [self-published] sources"). The exceptions are generally news articles including very brief mention of the subject. Jakew 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article's sources seem a bit heavy on self-referencing, but still enough reliable sources given. POV problems, but those are somewhat unavoidable given the nature of the subject. Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have enough reliable sources amid all the self refs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, the article is a POV mess and has a bit too much reliance on WP:SELFPUB, but at the core it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps some issues over neutrality and the use of self-references, but this is a notable enough organisation, its website alone being in operation for over a decade, and with thousands of ghits. — BillC ^talk 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep page has over 30 sources, at least 15 or which look to be not by the org/org's leader. Well-known organisation/site.Merkinsmum 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keepas per comments by Merkinsmum. Also, Quackwatch is well known and is one site that helps find the difficult alternates. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep From what I've seen, Wikipedia's threshold for notability is quite low. The U.S. News & World Report, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Scientific Exploration, The Village Voice, and Forbes magazine refs look like enough to keep it. But its notability is rather low, as acknowledged by the fact that someone saw fit to write a section of the article called "Notability." I think it should be better sourced if possible. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - No criteria for deletion is given.
  • Jennylen claims the "Content is not encyclopedic" - this is not a reason to delete.
  • "seems to be authored by the organization portrayed" - this is not a reason to delete. If Jennylen has any evidence to back this accusation, a COI report should be started.
  • "it might be considered blatant advert" - "it might be"? this is the only deletion criteria given and it's unclear even to the editor creating the AfD if it is.
  • "sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily" - this is not a reason to delete.
  • The article needs work, but none of the editors above have given any criteria for deletion. There are more than enough sources provided to meet WP:WEB as noted above by others. --Ronz 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but start over. The article as is has been mostly written and protected by Quackwatch adherrents and supporters (some have even worked for Quackwatch directly). This is why the current version of this article reads like a PR marketing brochure. Even just today as the article became unprotected, one of Quackwatch's chief adherrents effectively added some more "whitewash" to the already fluffy fluff piece. And though Quackwatch is most notable for the controversy surrounding its critics, I have personally watched helplessly as these adherrents have edit warred the criticism section down to just a few short sentences (whereas, it was once rich with criticisms from a whole host of notable sources, as MastCell alludes to above). I've been involved with this article for quite some time and it seems that my mere presence there stirs up animosity from the adherrents. That being said, when this article is deleted and/or rewritten, I would agree to step aside and let fresh eyes construct the new NPOV article if all of the adherents would agree to do the same. Sound fair? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Deletion is not a solution for the content and behavioral problems you describe. --Ronz 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The romantic visualization of the doomed attempts of a lonesome NPOV warrior singlehandedly defending the encyclopedia's neutrality against hordes of pseudoskeptics certainly sheds some light on Levine2112's mission here. His self-imposed article ban (or proposed POW exchange, one Levine leaving the article freeing up a host of adherents to go elsewhere and spend their time productively) seemed attractive to me until I realized what Levine2112 would be doing with all the lost time thus regained. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Huh? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject is notable hence the various sources and references provided in the article. The argument(s) to delete appear confused and none involve Wikipedia policy. Shot info 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep There are no good reasons given to delete it and the article is sourced. Nick mallory 00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick mallory, MastCell, Ronz et al. Avb 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs work and more secondary sources, but appears to meet the relevant policies. Dbromage [Talk] 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW. THF 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. None of the arguements to delete are both correct and valid deletion arguments. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep agreed. Wonderstruck 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• 'Weak keep. Needs third-party sources, but seems notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there are more than enough third party sources, and way more than the minimal notability. a example , if anything, of a highly notable organization. Those who dislike its goals or practices should not be trying to delete it. In this case, I do see how one might well doubt the good faith of the arguments. I think its a pretty good article too, well balanced, and with many contributors. DGG (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are unfortunately prejudging. I presented the article to AfD because after a good time protected and a good time under debate, the article continued to be a PR plataform instead of an encyclopedic article. The organization's aims may be good from my professional (MD) point of view, but that doesn't justify a PR article which self reference and qualify as advert, I would rather see this article deleted and a new encyclopedic article instead of it than to let continue a never ending dispute characterized by opposition of well defined groups . A new, Wiki compliant article with encyclopedic content and far less selfreferencing substituted by reliable sourcing will provide more credibility to the organization's entry than the present article. The authors had the time and chance to change it, it continues as PR and mainly self referenced, must be deleted. On the other hand I sincerely hope a good article shows up substituting it but Wikicompliant.Jenny^Len☤ 07:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of one's view on the merits of the content, proposing for deletion seems to me a remarkably disproportionate response. I apologize for any implication about whatever any particular individual's actual motives may have been. DGG (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, the solution to a perceived problem with the tone or POV of the article is not to delete it and start over. That resolves none of the underlying issues, and there's absolutely no reason why the same people won't be having the same arguments on the brand-new article. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the solution to make this article become less of a PR piece and more a neutral encyclopedic article? My thought is to have the "same people" (of which I am certainly included) take a break from the article and allow new and hopefully more neutral parties whip the article into shape. But do you or anyone else have an alternate suggestion? I am definitely open to considering anything at this point. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding new editors without a pre-established opinion can be helpful. The article is probably never going to be uncontroversial, by the nature of its subject. "Skeptical" articles are second only to nationalistic ones in terms of their inherent contentiousness and volume of related ArbCom cases. The solution to making the article more encyclopedic is to base it on good sources. There are quite a few good independent secondary sources dealing with Quackwatch, some critical, some supportive, and some merely analytical. Problem: there are also a lot of truly crappy/unreliable/non-encyclopedic sources out there on Quackwatch. The challenge is to highlight the good sources and ignore the bad ones. The problem is agreeing on where to draw the line. Honestly, speaking only for myself, I'm in self-imposed exile from any article relating to Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, etc for my own sanity. With the energy expended in a week of discussion at Talk:Quackwatch, one could power the Eastern Seaboard, or at least write a featured article or two. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(-: Truer words have never been spoken. So would you suggest an RfC to get new editors without a pre-established opinion? What is the best way to determine if a source meets V/RS when two groups of editors disagree? WP:RS/N? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This organization is notable. Axl 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Article is major need of non-biasing editing. The more 3rd party sources the better, but will be difficult. Repeating the Mission Statement of an organization always has to be done carefully, if at all, and not in the intro. Organization is very noteworthy, but its claims of scientific veracity are dubious. It is a highly political, contentious organization with an agenda far beyond "health information." Article should get specific about what the organization attempts to discredit, how and why. Historical connection to American Medical Association's "Committee on Quakery" should be explored. See articles such as Wilk v. American Medical Association, Chiropractic, History of osteopathic, etc. Lots of interesting history related to this group/founder. OsteopathicFreak ^T (usurpation of User:Hopping in progress) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the editors who have shown up here seem less invested in promoting or fighting the subject than some -- but by no means all -- of the article's regulars. If this interesting group of editors would be able to spend some time on the article, editing it may be possible again without incessant & stifling interference by a handful of editors who are engaging in real-life conflicts instead of describing them to the degree acceptable sources allow. In summary, this article desperately needs more editors who have no particular personal bias here, or can set it aside, in favor of producing a neutral, encyclopedic article. Summarizing the summary: please help. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE This page wages a campaign of vilification, in the media, against any researcher whose ideas its author doesn't like. There's a strong suggestion of Scientific Fundamentalism here, because Barrett is talking theologically (IN ABSOLUTES) almost all the time, and resorts to modern scientific epistemology only when a new model affronts his prejudices. This site is saying, in effect, "The models of science we want to believe are 'basic physical laws' and hence absolutes and no others exist but the models we don't want to believe are -- only models. DETETE, in order to lower the level of slander at Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.10.229 (talk) 15:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Criticisms of the website can be handled in the body of the article. This isn't a rationale for deletion, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Any problems with the article should be solved by editing, not deleting. What makes Quackwatch so special is that its clear POV makes it the canary in the mine," and many who find their beliefs and practices challenged and/or exposed would love to kill that canary (hence the opposition to this article, often using other excuses). We all know what happens in a mine when the canary dies and no one notices it has died. The same applies to Quackwatch. The assassination attempts continually attempted in the real world must not be allowed to succeed here at Wikipedia. It's notability has not arisen in a vacuum. It has a POV and is not afraid to stick up for it with references and documentation. Quackwatch does not claim to be a neutral source, but a source heavily indebted to the scientific mainstream POV. It judges methods by those standards and finds some of them wanting. That makes it unpopular in non-mainstream circles. Fortunately the reliability of sources is not determined by their popularity. -- Fyslee/talk 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, special pleading. The problem with the canaries is that some of the heroic little bodies have been found to be laced with H5N1 or SARS, and the townspeople are starting to grumble about mystery epidemics over the last several decades. After many bad experiences, the townies & miners are starting to insist on accurate "Right to Know" information from the owners and distributors of the birds, so far mostly ignored.--I'clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh?!? Shot info 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Regardless of the personal feelings individuals may have about the website, no one has clearly articulated what specific wiki policies this article violates. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: I am not an author of the article but the site and organization is very notable. See the notability section in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Can't understand what wiki policy this page breaks that would put it up for deletion. An informative and controversial web site. An informative wiki page. MBCF 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not an editor here either, but its obviously one to be kept and improved. Its strongly science oriented and supported so deleting it would seem to me to be quite against majority oriented viewpoints. Spoctacle 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reminder

I thinks that are worth here some reminders:

About why the article is for deletion see WP:DEL#REASON, in bold are possible reasons for deleting this article.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
• Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
• Copyright infringement
• Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
• Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
• Inappropriate user pages
• Inflammatory redirects
• Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
• All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
• Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
• Overcategorization
• Patent nonsense or gibberish
• Redundant templates
• Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
• Vandalism that is not correctable

Please also see: WP:SPAM ;

Advertisements masquerading as articles

Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with {{Template:db-spam}}. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. ...

...When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.

::Comment Reading the history of the article it is obviously beyond salvage and was given a fair chance to be salvaged for a reasonable time.

Some editors must also be reminded to read WP:AFD:

How to discuss an AfD

• The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
• Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article.
• Also, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.
• Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
• Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.
• Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
• Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.
• Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e.g., "Keep" or "Delete".
• Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and , as in "Delete Speedy keep".
• Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.
• If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin.
• Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge.

Above is clearly stated what you must not do (keep in mind also "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article."), why the article was considered beyond salvage and the possible violations justifying deletion (keep in mind also "include, but are not limited to,"). The right thing is to avoid trying to put words in the mouth of others, to stop trying to suggest hidden agendas and act neutraly and to the point with no discussions about the article's subject itself but just about its content. ℒibrarian2 07:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Librarian2, thank you highlighting which issues you believe the article violates. For future reference, please only list the relevant AfD issues rather than including the entire article -- it only clutters the AfD. Disclosure: I am not affiliated with the website in any way.

1) Advertising - Please specify *why* you believe this article is an advertisement, as it does not promote or endorse a specific product or service. Yes, it is about a specific internet site. By that logic, however, we shouldn't have articles about Google either. What is important is notability, which brings us to...

2) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia - No rationale is given to support this accusation. Websites should not have a different threshold for suitability than any other topic, namely notability as addressed by neutral third party sources. Both of which have been addressed in the article proper.

3) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - Article has a fairly extensive and detailed citation list, so I'm not sure where this accusation is coming from.

As far as I can tell, no support has begin given for the accusations at hand. The complaints raised seem to simply be a large, unsupported laundry list in the hopes that the sheer volume will persuade a conclusion. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets see...

a) If I didn't include the whole article someone would jump saying that I just choose what to take from it (happened before)

b) Was not refering to you about disclosure

c) The article enhances the image of the org, it lacks "observer" talk

d) The largest percent of sources are selfreferencing

e) Assumptions that someone "wants" to have the article deleted are self-marginalizing, the article is assumed to be "evaluated " as deletion candidate or "evaluated" as non deletion candidate, no wanting or agendas, good faith goes a long way.

f) No need to insist on debate, outcome must be by the qualities of the article not the qualities of the subject or the editors involved in the AfD.

Thank you for sharing your opinion ℒibrarian2 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain The problem here is not that Quackwatch isn't notable enough or does not have available V RS material. The problem is that the article is an obdurately one sided entry that is promotional, fiercely resisting coverage of legitimate, V RS criticism, that after a year, has only marginally improved coverage, including the deletion of links soliciting donations and subscribers. I would most regret deletion simply because of the loss of edit and talk histories that might lose prior points, perhaps inviting re-invention of the wheel. May our "bones" (of contention) reproach the real pseudo-whatever partisans. If this article can't be better balanced, and less an ad, I suppose stubbing it to the current intro and locking it there for 6 months might be appropriate, to chill out things.--I'clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and close this AfD. This nom is still listed? . . . is this the process now? If the article doesn't look like you think it should, delete it? (and possibly start over? To what end?) Plenty of refs are there, if we delete this article, then we need to get rid of a lot of the rest of wikipedia. It's notable and sourced, this nomination is ridiculous. R. Baley 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bad faith nomination resulting from POV-pushing. What a bunch of crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magno

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

This person doesn't seem to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. No multiple, reliable sources asserted, only a MySpace link. A search of his albums returns little to no results from non-trivial sources. Spellcast 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why twinkle listed those non-related AfDs. Spellcast 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the template screwed up and listed everything beginning with "Mango". The other AfD's listed are unrelated, as one might be able to tell at a glance. This is the FIRST AND ONLY nomination for this page. (Note added later: additional listings have been removed) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (actual !vote this time) Article establishes notability according to WP:MUSIC, we just need sources which can probably be easily found. Rhapsody, while not necessarily reliable, can at least attest to the discography. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a non-trivial mention. Notable artists on Rhapsody at least have a biography. It in no way asserts he is notable. Spellcast 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a sniff of notability I can find. MarkBul 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources (WP:YMINAR), can't be verified. Realkyhick 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, Lack of reliable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Atheist Society

Danish Atheist Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, small atheist group. No assertion of notability, no references. Hornet35 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. Does not assert notability of the group. Jakew 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete, doesn't assert notability, recently formed, only a few hundred members. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, 300 members is not very impressive. Skarioffszky 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, not notable, not reliable sources. Realkyhick 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not a speedy, but 300 members is not a notable organisation, so delete. — BillC ^talk 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. I have no problem with a future article on this organisation if notability can be established, and my vote should not be taken as support for future speedy deletes. Mdwh 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom.PelleSmith 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the nominator is a sock of an indef banned user, although the article lacks notability the AfD is done in bad faith and should be closed so a good faith AfD may be started by a reputable user. Darrenhusted 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: The status of the editor has no baring on the value of the AfD. Are all the delete voters here socks too? Appropriate action against editor behavior should be taken up elsewhere.PelleSmith 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is no proof that I am a sock-puppet, your claims constitutes libel. --Hornet35 08:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're advised to read WP:LEGAL before going down that route. Ttiotsw 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the deletes above based on number of people is a fallacy that disregards the small size of Denmark - around 5 million people. Extrapolate out the ratio of the Denmark population to the US and this would give 60:1 * 300 = 18,000 members. Notability for small groups in non-English language is hard to obtain but the issue for Wikipedia is if it is referred to by 3rd parties,....

• Article in Danish here referring to the organisation (ps: My Danish is shit - not only I don't know how to ask for a beer in Denmark, I couldn't afford many anyway from what I saw when I visited Denmark in 2005 - nice people though) and Kristeligt Dagblad is in the Danish Wikipedia - [66] so it a reliable source as any. Related link here [67] plus google for "Ateistisk Selskab"+Dagblad gets hits, albeit nothing much in English.
• Listing here on Richard Dawkings net. Now you could argue that Dawkins web pages are partisan but who cares - Dawkins is a well known scientist so it's really a matter of showing that his web site is unreliable in its content management.

Thats all folks.Ttiotsw 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like a case for notability on the Danish language version of Wikipedia.PelleSmith 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Whats the policy here ? Personally I see all EU languages as legally equal (the core EU ones at least anyway). If something is notable in one language then wouldn't it be notable in all other languages by default ? Ttiotsw 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Though I agree that the group doesn't appear to have gained sufficient notability (yet?), I'd like to annotate that this has not much to do with number of members. There are and have been internationally notable groups with a similar or even smaller number of members. WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable however due to the existence of a number of websites that appear to demonstrate minor notability at least within the atheist and secular humanist movement [68] (listing on the Atheist Alliance International website), [69], [70], [71]. —AldeBaer 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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