Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Systematic review of the Requests for Adminship process Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was keep/no consensus This is not to exclude merging, which has significant support, but merging is best done by an interested editor willing to donate time rather than a committee. However, between merging and keeping, there is no clear consensus. Mango juice^talk 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphical timeline of human evolution

Content forking. We already have timeline of human evolution, which it can possibly be merged with. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want two articles merged, then propose that on the talk pages of the articles (it would seem from the talk pages of both that you haven't done so). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not neccesseraly, a similar image already exists in human evolution. I believe the image there has a clearer and more understandable design. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The words are easy to click, as they appear right at the timeline, which is exactly what the term graphical mean in the title of the article. Tonytypoon 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- This AfD wasn't submitted because of the quality or usefulness of the article. Can you please explain why don't you think it's content forking? Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per submitter. Content forking and other instance covers issue well. GameKeeper 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep/merge to Timeline of human evolution. The graphical timeline is incredibly useful. --- RockMFR 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Timeline of human evolution per RockMFR -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Keep I hate to see this relisted a 3rd time, but the graphical interface is easy to understand from a visual learner's POV. But, I do see the utility in merging it with Timeline of human evolution. SkierRMH 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per User:Selmo's argument --Haemo 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. Just H 06:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's no content in the graphical timeline that's not in the tabular timeline so a merge wouldn't help, and the "graphical" formatting is 1) Not text-only friendly. 2) Not browser friendly. --⁪froth^{T C} 06:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge—Tokek 07:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep If you don't like, don't use it. We need to be constantly experimenting with new ways to display information. Some will be used more than others, but they all deserve a spot in Wikipedia. Merging will make the other timeline much too big. Both are large articles already. Two on the same page will maximize confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep of course but the image is very bad.--Meno25 11:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and if suggesting a merge, don't bring an article to Articles for Deletion --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep with the main timeline per above. If the both could be integrated somehow, that would be great. TSO1D 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge Would be a more useful tool if combined with timeline of human evolution; seems rather sparse on its own. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge. In a not incontravertible area of science, it would be damaging if the articles' content differs and a merge is the best way to ensure this does not happen. --Dweller 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete or merge to timeline of human evolution, due to similar timeline in Human evolution. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above --Shirahadasha 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Content forking is a guideline. This article is simply another way to present information and doesn't appear to be a content fork. It's also a big chart which may or may not lend itself to being part of another article. Lawyer2b 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Graphical interfaces are quite useful. For heavens sake, don't get rid of it! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per above comment, I do not really agree with removing it. (or maybe merge instead) Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge ~ Flame vip e r 14:11, 10 January 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 Mango juice^talk 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netocracy

Seems more plausible than most unreferenced neologisms, but tags have failed to improve the article. Lots of recognizable names in the piece, is it worthy? Deizio talk 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

comment - I have seen a book in my local library with the title "Netocracy", so it is not OR. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Any ideas about author, ISBN etc.? Deizio talk 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Bard & Jan Soderqvist, Netocracy : the new power elite and life after capitalism (London : Reuters, 2002). ISBN 1903684293. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Netocracy (book) and possibly cleanup. Tarret 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Netocracy: The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism [1]. ISBN 978-1903684290

Is also referenced in the following books:

Organs without Bodies [2]; ISBN:978-0415969215

Images of Organization [3]; ISBN 978-1412939799

A Hacker Manifesto [4]; ISBN 978-0674015432

There are several other books that reference this term. SkierRMH 21:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The standard for inclusion of a neologism is a bit higher than simple passing references to the word. Either the word needs to have spread into massive widespread usage, or it needs to be discussed in secondary sources as a new word that--for example, an article that discusses the new word as a concept that's gaining acceptance. In any of the sources that you mentioned above, how is the word used? (I'm not against including it, I just want to see some stronger examples of where it's used.) Tarinth 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those book through Amazon's "Search Inside" feature, "A Hacker Manifesto" and "Images of Organization" only have one hit for the term - the bibliographical listing of the book's name. Zizek's "Organs without Bodies" discusses the book and its concept for several pages in order to criticize/mock the authors' ideas as "a supreme example of cyber-Stalinism". Bwithh 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Let's suppose the article passes the neologism test (I think it does). What evidence is there that it's notable? This needs to be addressed, instead of just the use of the term. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to re-creation I looked at the amazon.com references mentioned above, but those aren't really references. They are actually just back-of-the-book endorsements by the author of the Netocracy book. I'm certainly open to creating a new article for this term as soon as someone can show some actual references and notability. Tarinth 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Used and useful term per numerous books cited. I have seen the term in the press for many years. Please add the references cited in this AfD to the article itself. Edison 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism with insufficient currency in authoritative published works. While its possible that the editorial board of Wired thought up "Netocracy" at some point amongst the other 999,999 neologisms they've tried to disseminate over the years, this particular coinage doesn't seem to turn up in the Wired archives at all[5]. So I'm kind of wondering about the intro of this article. About 12 unique hits in Factiva news database, half of them in mainstream publications including a few profiles of Bard. 28 hits in Google Scholar - a lot of the hits are just the title of the book rather usage of the term[6]. Ditto with the 8 hits on Amazon books[7]. Note that there's a significantdifference between a work using the term/concept substantively in its main text and a work simply referring to term/concept as part of listing a book title in a bibliography or or passing mention of another author's views.Bwithh 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Bwithh's last point --⁪froth^{T C} 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep citations include major publications and three books. This is the type of word that people need a good article on especially since the usage of the word has changed since it was first coined in 1999. It is also being used for Internet+democracy. It needs a well referenced article and not just a two sentence dicdef. Time magazine has used it. People come to Wikipedia for an explanation--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Has enough circulation & equity to convince me to err on the side of inclusiveness. —— Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-01-04 23:30Z
Keep Quite notable, proof of which is found in the sources provided above. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Sharkface. Cited and properly formatted, a gem. ~ Flame vip e r 14:12, 10 January 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law enforcement in Westchester County

Article was originally created as a fork of Westchester County, New York in order to reduce the page size. However, it was soon discovered that much of the content was a copyright violation. Currently it is only a list of Law enforcement agencies in Westchester. Alternatives to deletion could include: moving to List of law enforcement agencies in Westchester County or integrated back into the main Westchester County, New York article. 24fan24 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating Emergency services in Westchester County for the same reason above. --24fan24 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. -- The article is presently just a list, but in looking around a bit I found Suffolk County Police Department and Nassau County Police Department, both of which are decent articles on similar topics, so it might make sense to leave these as a stubs for someone to make something of. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This makes good sense as a reference from a Westchester County article which can then summarize the agencies adn link on to those of notatbility --Kevin Murray 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Madman 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- By what standard? Law enforcement agencies are widely written about and generally notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -lists of law agencies should be on the main page. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the main Westchester County, New York page is already longer than desired (41 kilobytes). --24fan24 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, too long for main page, clear path for expansion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now per Night Gyr --⁪froth^{T C} 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Nwanner. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge what's useful of the content with Westchester County. An article that's nothing more than a list with no explanation or background violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and can't stand alone. --Shirahadasha 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keepand or merge, depending on if it's improved. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge If expanded, keep it. If not, merge into Westchester County. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep for the moment. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 03:38, 9 January 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. -Doc^g 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Wayne

Deleted once as A7 and once as functionally empty, this article does not include sufficient data to establish wither the singer meets WP:MUSIC. The label is not a major one. We don't seem to have articles on reggae acts I know much better such as the Blood Fire Posse and Lieutenant Stitchie. Not sure what that means. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Googling for "I Wayne" -wikipedia reggae singer found 55900 hits. Unless there is more than one singer with this name, keep? Anthony Appleyard 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these are listed as sources in the article... Guy (Help!) 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep -- Although the article is admitedly empty, he does seem to be at the lower end of notability in his field. 193.129.65.37 10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - completely unsourced, no reliable sources to support notability, notability not asserted. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. More notable people than him have articles, and it was already deleted once. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep well known in Jamaica, needs sources. Daniel J. Leivick 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep if in fact he's famous in Jamaica --⁪froth^{T C} 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and give it sum time for cleanup and made to wp:NPOV, MySpace profile sherd not be the Official site. It mute be notable for music.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep looks like it can be sourced. For example, the articles here: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/search/results.php?eventSearch=1&locationSearch=1&exactPhrase=1&searchType=archives&keywords=i+wayne&x=0&y=0. According to the "Meet I Wayne, author of "Can't Satisfy Her" and roots reggae's latest champion" article: I Wayne has emerged from obscurity to become one of Jamaican music's hottest commodities. He had an Associated Press review here: [8] (Sound Bites: Music Reviews, Associated Press Worldstream, August 25, 2005 Thursday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 681 words, The Associated Press). -SpuriousQ 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not pass notability tests. Springnuts 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Borderline~~ Keep. He has released an album on a label that is home to Sean Paul, a quite well-known artist who has won several major awards. ~~Given that his first CD just came out last August, we should certainly give him time to release more albums. He'll pass WP:MUSIC in time.~~ --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He already passes WP:MUSIC. His first album came out in late 2005 and was covered in at least AP and the Miami New Times as shown in my links above. One of his tracks had rotation at "several urban stations" including Hot 97. -SpuriousQ 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the correction; given what you said, he already does meet WP:MUSIC. I think the article's discography section only mentioned one album, so I got thrown off by that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per additional sources provided. --Shirahadasha 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep With sources, notability is established. Further page is cited and informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's obvious that he is notable in Jamaica. Remember guys, just because you can't find many hits of it on Google or you haven't heard it before doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't notable. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:48, 8 January 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. Mango juice^talk 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JasperReports

The article was previously deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (corporate advertising) but the deletion has been overturned at deletion review based on this version created in user space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep but improve so that it doesn't sound like an ad. A quick google search finds 1M+ hits, so probably meets WP:SOFT pretty easily. First page of results finds this as one example: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2002/jw-0920-opensourceprofile.html ... Article could use better sourcing. Time spent debating an AfD on this would probably be better spent improving the article with sources and by toning-down the superlative adjectives. Tarinth 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I just now edited JasperReports and removed the advertising language. Anthony Appleyard 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate that this product stand out from countless other bits of software. The only print we're provided with is from the zdnet blogs, hardly the multiple/non-trivial/independant coverage. The length of time that this was previously on afd, rolled around on drv, and now back to here starts to add up... It's been consistantly claimed that this could have sources added that show its notability, but oddly that is not happening. I'd strongly suggest that anyone who wants this article to be kept actually get to the page and add multiple non-trivial sources. - brenneman 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Not saying "delete" or "keep" in bold because this isn't a vote and my stand is clear enough.

Comment It doesn't have to "stand out" as you put it, merely be in either widespread usage or talked about in other media. That much was obvious from the google search. Frankly I don't care enough about the product/company to edit the article and add sources--I'll leave that to people more knowledgeable about it. I just don't think that deletions should be fired off soley on the basis of poor sourcing, which can be improved over time. Tarinth 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just tossing it around, but "Obvious from Google" has been said often and led nowhere. The guideline is clear: All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. If no one cares enough about this topic to find and add in sources, it should not simply lie around until the day when someone might. I'll withdraw from the floor now, to let others speak. - brenneman 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you were arguing. One thing I'd like to state, in addition to what's been said thus far, is that a lack of interest on behalf of the particular editors who happen to watch WP:AFD/T to fix an article is not a reason to delete the article either. WP does have facilities such as {{or}} and {{fact}} to push editors toward improving articles. If we removed all articles that included the latter, WP would be sparse indeed. Tarinth 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nominator said he had "no opinion" and that this was a procedural listing nomination. "Delete per nom" doesn't make sense here. Dugwiki 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve. I see enough news hits with non-trivial coverage. According to ComputerWire Issue 5242, for example, "San Francisco-based JasperSoft has already established a beachhead among Java developers with its open-source reporting engine, JasperReports. The company claims to have seen over 420,000 downloads from the Sourceforge.com website and says is currently being used by 10,000 companies and ISVs worldwide." -SpuriousQ 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Me = broken record: I've hounded the person who brought this to deletion review to provide sources. I've hounded at least one person who supported bringing it back to AfD to provide sources. If one more person says "don't delete (yet) because there are sources out there" I am going to eat my hat. Please, if they are there, put them in the article. - brenneman 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
'Wait and give time for additional sources. This article (in addition to WP#SOAP and WP:NPOV issues) has almost no sources listed. The google hits suggest they may be out there, but they need to be provided given the posture of this article. Proof a previous AfD was incorrect should be provided by the person seeking overturning as a matter of course and this requirement should be enforced. Keep if additional sources are supplied satisfying WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE, Delete otherwise. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Where are the sources? "Maybe someday soon, sure, you bet" aren't sources. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional delete unless reliable sources are added before the close of the AfD. WP:V is non-negotiable, and overrides even concensus. It is the job of those who wish information kept to provide sources when challenged or suffer the loss of the information, and this has clearly been challenged. If the subject is actually notable, then five days should be plenty of time to come up with some sources to demonstrate that notability. -- Xtifr _tälk 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is not 5 but already 10 days as it is contested. Mukadderat 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems mostly harmless. ~ Flame vip e r 14:14, 10 January 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 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Square Village

It's an ordinary bulding. Should we have entries for every building? Partingale 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete interesting and complete article, but needs to assert notability otherwise it is just another building. Daniel J. Leivick 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
merge/weak keep Should assert notability, otherwise it should be merged into another article -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete Just another housing estate dating from the late 1950's. Half the article is about the site which it is built on. We've deleted better articles, and articles on more interesting subjects than this. Ohconfucius 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per Ohconfucius. Realkyhick 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep An interesting article with ties to several distinct topics including the history of New York, architecture, city planning, and NYU. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable and interesting to read. This is what Wikipedia is for. Why were articles even better than this deleted? We add every cultural reference in Family Guy episodes to articles as if they were from the mouth of God, and there is no room for this? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep; important and well-known buildings in New York City. -/- Warren 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It needs some work, but the building seems notable for its association with various topics in mid-20th century urban renewal. - Eron ^Talk 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep A notable enough building. Yes we should have articles about similar buildings, if they are verified and have this amount of history. The part about the buildings before makes the article better still. A "normal" building should probably be part on another article until it reaches this level of verified detail.Obina 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above: places and how they change is an important topic worthy of Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 15:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - more comprehensive than can be included in the NYU residence halls article. It isn't a historic building, but the history appears relevant. In any case, I don't see any compelling argument for deletion. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - should be included with Washington Square North and Washington Square Park on a Washington Square, New York page similar to Washington Park, Chicago. TonyTheTiger 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This is the type of article Wikipedia should have with respect to United States culture instead of all those Family Guy and South Park minor character stubs. Notability eminently established. The article itself is well-written. The facts are supported by verifiable reliable sources. --Charlene 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep A well written encyclopedic article of all verifiable material. Assertaion of notability is very well established. --Oakshade 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait for sources, if not forthcoming Delete. It's a very interesting read and seems to be filled with information. Where does this information come from? As Ohconfucius points out there are almost no sources cited, and the sources cited (e.g. the private web site) aren't reliable sources for etablishing WP:N. The minimum notability criterion is an objective one -- show that the subject is mentioned in multiple published sources. This hasn't been done. THe area seems to get mentioned as a background fixture in media, e.g. here, but are there any WP:RS sources that actually discuss it or its history as a subject? --Shirahadasha 02:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. These buildings were one of the reasons for which Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities. You can see multiple entries about the buildings in The New York Times. Ipeirotis 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability, especially related to Robert Moses's efforts to clear what he declared were slums and create sleek high-rise towers on superblocks, for which Washington Square Village was a prime example. While community protests failed to prevent construction of Washington Square Village, plans to run a new street, "South Fifth Avenue", through Washington Square Park failed, and were some of the precursors that led to the ascendancy of Jane Jacobs and her Death and Life, and the demise of both the Lower Manhattan Expressway and its chief sponsor, Robert Moses. Several articles have been added from The New York Times, which should meet WP:RS concerns, and go a long way to addressing any and all issues with this article. Alansohn 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep A notable building that has been cited in many works. The article is quite good, too. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:57, 8 January 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 Opabinia regalis 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baggage Airline Guest Services

non notable corporation, prod removed Brianyoumans 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This page has existed since 25 Sept 2005. Merge with a page about running airports? Anthony Appleyard 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Cleanup. Reads too much like an advertisement. Perhaps there are other similar services in the country? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'd think a new subheader under Airport#Attributes would be the best place for a general description of this service. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is at least one other company, Baggage Direct.com. --Brianyoumans 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article is linked from several other pages (most notably, Walt Disney World and provides valuable explanation for services offered there and by a number of airlines. For that reason the article is encyclopedic rather than advertising. Wikipedia would be a poor place to advertise such a company anyway. Another alternative would be to create a article on the kind of services run by Baggage Direct and BAGS. This information definitely doesn't belong in a page about running airports though a link from such a page would be appropriate.

Additional references have been added to the article. --Rtphokie 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Rewrite and Merge into a generic article. Existence of links is in and of itself not a reason to keep. Company fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 09:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:CORP. MER-C 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no evidence presented that this company meets WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No independent sources at all, hence can't meet WP:CORP. Article says little to suggest that waiting would be fruitful,, but if WP:RS sources are provided will revise my view. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think so, Tim. ~ Flame vip e r 21:16, 10 January 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 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Cartoon

Only content is unverified claims of tattooing notable people, and a mini business directory for him and his friends in the external links. "Has inked a few rappers" not yet a staple of WP:BIO. Deizio talk 20:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I've re-read the article, pondered it, and did some quick-and-dirty searching. Upon reviewing the edit history of this article, I can't find the phrase "Has inked a few rappers", which seems to be an inaccurate paraphrase. What I do see is a rather notable client list. Appears to have a respectable number of ghits and non-trivial media coverage, which verifies the information in the article (ie.here and here). Meets WP:BIO. Agent 86 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep thanks to Agent 86's improvements. Your NPR links above were dead though... fixed now. -SpuriousQ 19:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This link worked. sources meet WP:BIO. Thanks Agent 86. --Shirahadasha 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, seems notable enough. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Significant ghits, quite good, actually. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Murder, not-notable. ~ Flame vip e r 21:45, 10 January 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 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Garver (musician)

Singer / songwriter, music entirely self-released or released on "Pilcrow Records". As Pilcrowrecords (talk · contribs) is the author we have a clear conflict of interest and an apparent failure of WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:V. E4 / E5 is his "latest studio album". Deizio talk 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, also per nom. --Haemo 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, also per nom. Realkyhick 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as well as his other contributions to Wikipedia. —Tokek 08:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Sopoforic 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete could not find sources. -SpuriousQ 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Seraphimblade 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Professional is something you pay for buddy. PAK CHOOIE UNF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.15.123.58 (talk • contribs). — 71.15.123.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:V S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Quite Oyster Meat (short film)

A walled garden of articles (two short films and their director) with no assertion of notability, no inbound links, no worthwhile information obtainable by internet search, and no reviews or other independent references which would allow us to verify the article. Submitted by Raphaelite (talk · contribs) (the films are produced by "Raphaelite Productions"). Raphaelite, who only edited Wikipedia briefly, has not edited in several months, so it's not viable to ask Raphaelite to provide better references or additional information.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Article fails to assert notability. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. MER-C 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all nothing notable here --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. WP:COI and no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I could not find any evidence that this film is notable at all. TSO1D 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete All per nom _SUBWAYguy 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, borderline speedy as failing to even assert notability. Seraphimblade 16:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:00, 8 January 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. Proto::► 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Trautwein

Non-professional athlete with no significant claims of notability; prod removed without comment. --Alan Au 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Totally non-notable. --Haemo 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Barely notable. If he improves (and he may), we can put it back later. Realkyhick 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"If he improves"? So we should determine who gets an entry based on how well we think an athlete plays? That's ridiculous. Even if that were the standard, Trautwein is an All-SEC starter on the 2006 SEC champion college football team, and a potential national champion. Further, he is a scholar athlete award winner. Combined, he's easily notable. He's quoted frequently in the local, state, and even national press, and his name is synonomous with the UF offensive line. Finally, there are hundreds of similar pages for less notable athletes on less notable teams, and no one has yet had a problem with them. Keep this entry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.104.190.22 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Reading the above, I started thinking this might be a keeper, but a search indicates that he's a second-team All-SEC selection, I didn't see a mention in reliable news resources for the scholar-athlete award, and he came up only in three Google News links listing the All-SEC selection. Normally, I'd think a starter on a national championship contending team would be notable enough, but I don't see any good reliable sources to suggest notability at this time. Delete with no prejudice against recreation when better sources are available. His senior year will probably help. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice per Tony Fox. If he improves, indeed, because then he will be more notable, as will presumably be demonstrated in reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Charged with protecting Leak’s blindside this season, Trautwein has been an integral part of a UF offensive line that has yielded just 22 sacks in 13 games. He has started each of Florida’s outings this season, and graded out at a team-high 82 percent following the 21-14 win over Georgia in Jacksonville. His recognition as an All-SEC performer by the league’s coaches is the first of his collegiate career." Taken from: http://www.gatorzone.com/story.php?id=11344&html=football/news/20061205052100.html&sport=footb

Not to mention, Trautwein is one of only a very small group who has graded out as "champion" (a distinction reserved for only the best game performances) every week of the 2006 season. To anyone who follows Gator football, it's a no-brainer that Trautwein is notable.72.196.99.99 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for verificaiton of the scholar athlete award, but he won it the week of the LSU game. Maybe CBS keeps a chronicle of winners, but I don't know...Gnewburn 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines for bio notability: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level."

Trautwein CLEARLY meets these criteria. He's a second-year starter on the number 2 college football team in the country (which could be the national champion on Monday), and he grades out among the top offensive performers nearly every week. Couple that with his academic credentials "e.g., "Scholar Athlete of the Week," and there's no question he meets the wikipedia standard. This article should be kept--like the hundreds of similar articles that have been kept without controversy.Gnewburn 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Unfortunately, I think you misread the notability requirement... "or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities. Obviously college football doesn't even come close to fulfilling that requirement. Trautwein may be having a decent college career - but in my opinion, he hasn't sufficiently distinguished himself from the other thousands of college football athletes. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The very next clause in the sentence you cite reads, "...including college sports in the United States." Obviously that includes college football. And my point is that Trautwein is sufficiently similar to (in fact, more notable than) the hundreds of other college athletes who have non-controversial wikipedia pages, that his page should remain as well.72.196.99.99 04:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think the "including college sports" clause is meant to cover sports for which there is no professional league, which would make the college version the "highest level." --Alan Au 05:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the "highest level" language to mean the highest amateur level, which includes college sports. And college football is not only a "mainly amateur sport." It's an entirely amateur sport. Even if we just use "football," that sport is also clearly "mainly amateur." Pop Warner, middle school, high school, city league, intramural, and pick-up football games are all amateur. There are thousands of independent amateur football leagues around the country, and only two professional leagues that I'm aware of (NFL and Arena League). Of the thousands of amateur football leagues, NCAA college football is the "highest level." Further, by your reasoning Troy Smith, the 20006 Heisman Trophy winner, isn't notable because he hasn't been paid yet. But certainly a Heisman Trophy winner is more notable than some fifth string NFL player no one's ever heard of. "Getting a paycheck" shouldn't be the standard for athlete notability, and isn't according to the WIkipedia guidelines. Amateurs can be notable, and Trautwein certainly is.150.104.190.22 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, that "athlete notability" bit has got to go, and this thing is yet another argument why. Notability requires multiple non-trivial secondary source mentions, period, and no such thing is shown in this article. Seraphimblade 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Abysmal failure of WP:BIO. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Florida Gators just won the national championship, in large measure because of the play of the offensive line (particularly Trautwein's side). He's absolutely notable... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.99.99 (talk) 03:00, 10 January 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.--Hús ö nd 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Forever Game

Non-notable drinking game; prodded, removed with minor change, no citations. SkierRMH 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Daniel J. Leivick 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Haemo 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Velvet elvis81 05:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Sopoforic 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete *burp* Danny Lilithborne 10:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I could not find any references for this, thus it would at least fail WP:V, and then it doesn't seem to be notable as there are virtually no other links on the web about this "game". And then, sentences like: "he challenge is initiated by the playing of "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles, within hearing range of any other player." kind of makes me think that this is a WP:HOAX TSO1D 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete does no assert notability, or even factuality for that matter. Only possible answer is delete. — Arjun 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:01, 8 January 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. Consensus is that verifiability issues, if anything, are passed. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ozero

del about dachas of Russian politicians and tycoons. 100% based on russian shit-digging newspapers, hence way beyond WP:Verifiability threshold. `'mikka 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

weak keep well I can certainly buy off a little on the verification by shit-digging news site issue. However, I can vote to keep for right now. I would think a vacation community populated by the powers that be is reasonably notable. Imagine a condo community owned and populated by GW Bush, Bill Gates, Bob Dole and Michael Jordan. Montco 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because I can't find neutral sources about this and Mikka knows of what he speaks in matters of Russian press coverage. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Are Novaya Gazeta and Lenta.ru shit-digging? Don't you mix up "non-shit-digging" and "government-controlled"? Colchicum 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
i.e. I consider the statement "100% based on russian shit-digging newspapers" biased at best. Novaya Gazeta and Lenta.ru are among the most respected Russian language media, though non-state-owned, yet they take this issue seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colchicum (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- Newspapers are sources for news (i.e., events), not for data. There are no references to original sources. But whatever. You like it, you keep it. `'mikka 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Colchicum. Seems to have a lot of sources, and deciding what each newspaper does or does not dig for is beyond my expertise. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable resort referred to by multiple third-party verifiable, reliable sources. --Charlene 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand. -- Petri Krohn 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article is quite well-sourced, most sources appear to be newspapers and the like. Opinion of the quality of those newspapers is, well, opinion. Nominator asserts that they are "s***-digging", but provides nothing to back this claim. Seraphimblade 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The nominator has some extreme bias issues here. The article is sourced well. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was:Speedily deleted

[edit] Charles Baldwell

I can't find reference to this guy anywhere. Not sure if it's just really obscure, or a mispelling, or a hoax. Anyway, I'll settle for: not notable! Glendoremus 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: When I come across an AfD for a truly disconnected article, I check the creator's contrib history to see if that might provide any background. In this case, the article was created by an IP editor (User:198.105.8.48), but when I check the user contributions that edit is not included. I don't know why that occurs or what, if anything, it says about the article. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, not that this means anything, but I found it. It was buried amidst other edits, but it's there. Wavy G 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Borderline A1, rather less borderline A7, but it's possible that it could be expanded in the meantime. Tevildo 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--E va ^bd 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete- Virtually no content, no sources, and I can't find anything on Google. Reyk _YO! 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - A1/A7. So tagged. MER-C 06:44, 4 January 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. Shirahadasha and DGG make particularly cogent arguments in favour of this. Proto::► 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Galambos

no real assertion of notability, seems to be a non-notable crackpot. Delete. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO--Tarret 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Bucketsofg 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, widely referenced and written about crackpot, ideas who have been influential among libertarians and Objectivists. Hell, just look at the nontrivial independent sources in the external links! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the three pages you link to, the first essentially merely refers to Galambos, rather than referencing his work in support of the author's arguement; the third is a book review, and the second, Galambos' eulogy, reads, I quote, "he never wrote a book or appeared on national radio or TV. His renown will be limited mostly to those who came in personal contact with him." Not exactly a strong endorsement for inclusion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

entry in Language Log. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability. There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue? We don't need thousands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The personal websites of people who themselves have no assertion of notability do not constitute "non-trivial published works" as required by WP:BIO. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He also turns up in several books, and Harry Browne isn't exactly a person who himself has no assertion of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Borderline notable. Realkyhick 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails verifiability. I'm unable to find any printed material on him. Self-published books, and personal websites are not acceptable as reliable sources. DrKiernan 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I see enough discussion about him on the web to assume notability. I think that the discussions above confuse the words "prominence" and "notability", the latter is a much lower standard purposely chosen by the writers of WP guidelines. There is no mention or implication in the guidelines that eulogies and book reviews are non-trivial. --Kevin Murray 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Most people who die, meaning most people, get a eulogy. Those people tend to be the primary subject of their own eulogies. Sometimes, people see fit to put that eulogy on the internet, a medium to which anyone is free to publish. In what way is a eulogy not a trivial source? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

When it's written by a prominent, reputable figure, has extensive coverage of nontrivial events, and demonstrates that the guy actually has done something worth writing about besides exist? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also that eulogy wasn't just published on a personal website, it was first published in Liberty Magazine, another nontrivial recognition. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep For someone who left the scene some time ago (he developed Alzheimer's in the 1980s), it seems like his ideas are still interesting to a certain fringe element of libertarians. "Galambosianism" gets 283 ghits by itself. --Brianyoumans 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I do not see non-trivial support for notability here. He met with notable people, was a professor at one point etc. No major books and no long list of academic publications. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) & WP:Bio--Nick Y. 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Mentioned in It usually begins with Ayn Rand, ISBN 0930073258. Regarding the links, considering the notability of the authors, I'm inclined to consider their self-published works about Galambos to be considered reliable. But still not really that notable. Argyriou (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the article indicates, he wanted to keep control of his ideas to himself and didn't want others disclosing them. The reliable sources so far indicate that his wishes have been almost universally honored. Perhaps we should be similarly respectful. If there are later published/independent sources indicating his views have gained more currency since his death, my view would change. --Shirahadasha 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Swpb's second comment and ESPECIALLY Shirahadasha's above. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Source mentions appear to be mainly trivial, or in relation to his death rather than his work. Seraphimblade 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, Seraphimblade, Swpb's second and Shirahadasha. Anville 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - article does not assert notability. Also per Shirahadasha. HEL 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete-- this is an easy one. The article refers to him as professor, but he has never been a professor. The article calls him a astrophysicist, but he has published no astrophysics. He claims to have been an engineer, but there are no patents or other work to cite. The article puts him in the philosopher category, but he has published no philosophy. His only claim to notability of any sort is as a libertarian. But his work has been totally inored except in vanity publications, all on the web, all on private sites. It is time we stop judging people who have done no science as scientists.-- DGG 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here, here! — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The linked essay by Browne convinces me that Galambos is notable. Browne is qualified to opine as to who is "an influential libertarian". JamesMLane t c 07:54, 9 January 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 (G11).--Hús ö nd 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zugara

Obvious advert, no sources Delete Daniel J. Leivick 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy G11 as spam - just tagged as such. Blatant advert ( particularly given the article creator ) - Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Advert Chrisch 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above Bucketsofg 03:49, 4 January 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. Nishkid 64 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parchester Village, Richmond, California

Master-planned communities do not warrant individual articles; nothing asserting notability that isn't touched on in the Richmond, California article remains once POV-text is factored out. Bumm13 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There are other articles about Richmond neighborhoods, though their notability is up for debate as well. Maybe it would be a good idea to merge those into the main city article, though that article is a bit long. Realkyhick 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Cities and towns are inherently notable. Neighborhoods within are not. This one does not assert much in the way of notability. Resolute 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Neighborhoods are not inherently notable, but not inherently non-notable. So we return to that old stand by, non trivial 3rd part sources. And the references are attached. Thus a notable neighborhood.Obina 15:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable and referenced. I would argue that many neighborhoods that are less interesting and notable than this one are inherently notable due to delineating geographical areas within urban areas. Neighborhoods in the burbs that are only visited by residents and visitors are not. By this I mean that Sunset District, San Francisco, California is even less notable than the neighborhood in question but delineates a section of a city. "Oh yes out on the west side of town over the hill where the little boxy houses are."--Nick Y. 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The outside sources are trivial - one is about a development fight over land next door - allowing that would allow every single neighborhood that's ever been part of a development fight to claim notability; the other is a puff piece. This is a neighborhood in the burbs only visited by residents and visitors. Argyriou (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a notable neighborhood. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:05, 8 January 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. —Mets501 (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspacephobia

Unverifiable neologism return only a couple of google hits Daniel J. Leivick 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. No references to confirm notability. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WJB Chovain 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete phobia-phobically. Bucketsofg 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep-phobia - nn neologism, 12 ghits. MER-C 04:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NEO. Realkyhick 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Neologism. --Folantin 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm afraid of MySpacians, I'm afraid of the world, I'm afraid I can't help it, God is a MySpacian. Danny Lilithborne 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GreyCat 10:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as obscure a neologism as they come. Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete completely unsourced.-- danntm ^T _C 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as attack page. The criticisms brought up here are already addressed in the MySpace article, and Myspacephobia is a neologism. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Idont Havaname. I have nothing but contempt for MySpace, but without reliable sources using this neologism, I agree this page appears to exist only to disparage its subject. - Aagtbdfoua 00:25, 5 January 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. Of those who argued 'keep', I find very little to back up their claims. Richard Arthur Norton's argument that people come to Wikipedia to find out what a word means is untrue - that is what a dictionary is for (and Wiktionary don't accept urban neologisms). Weirdoactor asserts it passes WP:V without showing why, and proceeds to attack all those who opined 'delete'. AnonEMouse says to keep as it's a 'many-off joke' (I do not understand this). RockMFR admits it has not been the subject of multiple reliable references yet suggests 'keep' anyway. Tarninth's keep is ignored. House of Scandal's keep is based on 'I like it'. Lyrl states it has multiple reliable sources, when it does not. Pseudothyrum states it ought to be kept as it will pass into the mainstream at a later date - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots, finally, fails to address why the article should be kept with any reference to policy or guideline, instead saying that it should be kept as there are people who simply know whether or not someone is Jewish--and they really do, there is a set of signals; not a good reason for an encyclopaedia article.

The "delete"s surround its lack of reliable sources (agreed), original synthesis (maybe), trivial coverage only (agreed), it being a dictionary definition (not really correct), and being a neologism (agreed). I beliebe the arguments for deletion strongly outweigh those to keep, and thus, delete. Proto::► 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewdar

This was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdar. The article had a substantial re-write after most of the "delete no sources" weighed in, and although the sources were weak, they were enough to nullify the previous arguments. I closed it as no-consensus and suggested that it be renominated so that there could be frank discussion of the quality of the sources. It's oddly gone through Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29 first, but right back here it is. No opinon at this time. - brenneman 01:55, 4 January 2007

Delete per original nom. Washinton Post ref looks like a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece to me. Chovain 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per original nom. References all appear to use it jokingly, word hasn't seen widespread use (in contrast to the similar 'gaydar').--Velvet elvis81 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per original nom. MER-C 06:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, tongue in cheek usage is still usage. People come to Wikipedia to have neologisms explained, and The Washington Post was a good reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- For this sort of thing, people ought to go to Wiktionary instead. —Psychonaut 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- If people come to Wikipedia to have neologisms explained, they will be sorely disappointed, since that is not and has never been the purpose of Wikipedia. They should go to Urban Dictionary instead. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary has no references, its a blog that anyone can post to. Wikipedia certainly is the place to go and I have rarely been disappointed. Wikipedia has a threshold for acceptance, but they are still here, and in more detail than a dicdef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, all the sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions. Approaching an original synthesis as well.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per my original statement from December 29th. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete My crap sense is tickling. Danny Lilithborne 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article now provides a lot of references, but these are all to mere use of the term. Notability would be established only if the term were the actual subject of multiple, independent published works. If such citations can be provided, then the article can be kept, or recreated in the future, but as-is it doesn't meet WP:N. —Psychonaut 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
STRONG/Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:V in triplicate (which is policy, not a guideline, as is WP:NEO). The Delete votes here (as in the original AfD) seem to be either jokes ("crap sense"?), "per" votes (which is laziness/bad faith, as this is a debate, NOT a vote) or they don't quote actual policy. Using bureaucracy to commit article murder is bad faith. Shame! You hug your mother with the hands on the same fingers you type these delete votes with? Oy! You should BE so lucky! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i c wut u did there. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete it's a one-off joke. Coverage is trivial, not substantive. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep it's a many-off joke. Coverage is not heavy, not solely focusing on the term in the articles, but not passing mentions either, they're important parts of each article, the articles would not be the same without them; and there are a lot of articles. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The original concerns seem to have been dealt with. WP:NEO does not apply - this is not newly coined. Dicdef does not apply, as the article in its current form goes beyond a simple dicdef. WP:RS seems to be taken care of, though it is debatable whether Jewdar has been the subject of multiple works. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, if you take out the stuff that is sourced to Urban Dictionary, mailing lists and forums, you're left with "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews." Why anyone would want an encyclopedia article on a joke neologism that has zero impact on society anyway is beyond me. Recury 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You're also left with citations from Salon and the Washington Post. You must have left that out that whilst rushing to edit an article about NASCAR, which no doubt has a HUGE impact on society. “Delete” arguments that posit how an article does not impact THAT PARTICULAR editor’s life never cease to amuse and entertain. Keep ‘em comin’, folks.-- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Citations to reliable sources that say next to nothing about the topic, yes. Maybe read a little more closely before posting next time. But tell us, then. How have Jewdars affected you? Recury 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - If by "next to nothing", you mean "articles that assert the notability of Jewdar", then you are SPOT ON. I'll read more carefully if you promise to do the same, especially before making counterfactual arguments in an AfD. And re: "Jewdars" (sic), the term has no plural; much like deer or moose. As to how Jewdar has affected me; I have it, passed from my mother and father, and it has led me to MANY tasty meals and lovely parties. So there. I’m not sure how jewdar has affected me PERSONALLY should be relevant as to it’s inclusion in the encyclopedia, as the last time I checked, it’s called “Wikipedia”, and not “weirdoactorpedia” or “recurypedia”, and thus the entries should probably reflect a broader range of needs and experiences than yours and mine. After all, what is Wikipedia but “a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field”, correct? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I'm not talking about notability (although that case for deletion can certainly be made). I'm talking about having sources to actually write an article from. Even if they did assert notability (which they don't) that would leave us with an article that says: "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews. Jewdar is a notable neologism that has been used upwards of 3 times in published writing." Find some reliable sources that talk about the term enough that you could actually write something substantive about it, or it's going to be deleted. Recury 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Wow. Were you using your "scary voice" just them? Oooooooooooh. Booga booga. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        WP:CIVIL User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Flipping my Twoface coin. Heads! ---> ~~KEEP!~~ ~~Delete~~ Keep WP:IAR for the win! Tarinth 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no reliable sources of the widespread usage of this article. And please discount Tarinth's !vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, but can we at least agree that this should be nominated for WP:LAME if it comes back to AfD again? Tarinth 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per original nom. Still has insufficient sourcing showing widespread use. Bwithh 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete :: IMHO neologism; dict-def required rather than deep analysis; divisive, quasi-racialist; entire subject represents a thinly-veiled attack page -- Simon Cursitor 08:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Question Is there any support at all for a merge to Jewish humor? I'm leaving on a trip in a few hours, and won't have Wikipedia access; but I thought I'd toss that idea into the ether. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. It provides information that Wiktionary can't provide and that might be of interest to many. Many of the comments given above, such as stating that it appeared in a tongue-in-cheek op-ed piece, discussing how it has affected us, or saying that the term is "divisive, quasi-racialist" are irrelevant. Yes, the term is used "jokingly" - that's the nature of the term not a basis for deletion of the article. BTW, I think "jewdar" is stupid, unclever, and (yes) quasi-racist term -- but it is of interest to Wikipedians and my opinion of the word doesn't matter. I suspect some people have axes to grind and they are attacking the article because they don't like the subject of the article. Note that this is the THIRD attempt to get rid of this article. -- House of Scandal 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It provides information that Wiktionary can't provide and that might be of interest to many. What information, exactly, are you referring to? And, yes, I think a merge to Jewish Humor might be appropriate.--Velvet elvis81 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is of interest to Wikipedians. Please see WP:ILIKEIT. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic neologism GabrielF 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Still not notable. Bad sources, too. I see urban dictionary as the first one. Anomo 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Anomo. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, insufficient sources. The Mob Rules 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename Suggest creating an article on "goydar" ( which I've heard more often, and sounds less racial ) and merge to that. Squidfryerchef 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't that be like renaming the "gaydar" article "straightdar"? Seems odd. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep has multiple sources establishing notability. That it is currently mostly a dicdef is not reason for deletion - it has the potential for expansion similar to gaydar. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- It has zero reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- this article has potential for expansion once the term becomes more widely known and used in time. If this is deleted now I can imagine that it will only have to be re-created at a later date once it passes in to the mainstream. --Pseudothyrum 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment that is generally what would be done with a neologism, it would be deleted and the article recreated later when it could be demonstrated that it is a mainstream term. wikipedia isn't a crystalball and we don't keep articles around waiting for the day they pass muster.--Isotope23 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per GabrielF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because half the sources are trash (and the joke of citing The eXile on any topic, let alone this one, is in seriously bad taste) and the rest is insufficient to establish persistent notability. (Basically, several of the authors may have arrived at the term independently and none of them seem to be likely to use it ever again.) —xyzzy_n 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable term, and there are no sources establishing notability of the term. It's nothing more than a joke spun off of the "Gaydar" concept, which can be applied to many groups. A few writers coming up with the idea, possibly independently (as the above comment states), is not evidence of a widespread notability. WarpstarRider 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per GabrielF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Kuratowski's Ghost 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic, or even close for that matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, "joke" neologism that if anywhere, belongs at Urban Dictionary not Wikipedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism. Beit Or 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New material added

Without even trying very hard, I found uses of the word in New York Press, Artforum International Magazine and The Weekly Standard. One assumes the reader already understands the term; another regards it as a serious ability. I doubt these additions will make a difference to those who have made it a personal mission that Wikipedia not have an article on this word. House of Scandal 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's not relevant that this term has been invented by multiple newspaper columnists. The fact is that "Jewdar" is not a cultural phenomenon to the extent that there is one coherent idea of it which deserves its own article. The ideas expressed in this article belong in articles where their information will actually be helpful such as Judaism in America, rather than making a neologism out of them. Ashibaka (tock) 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC

Comment If Wikipedia was around 25 years ago, we'd be having this argument about "Yuppie". And I think there is definitely a phenomenon where, if you're in a particular group, you can tell who is and isn't one of your group even when you can't go by physical appearance. The use of the terms "Jewdar" or "Goydar" are allusions to the obvious example of this phenomenon, "Gaydar". Squidfryerchef 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is a reason to delete rather than keep. While new words & expressions appear daily, most vanish without a trace. That is why we do not have articles on neologisms. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't? Seriously? Really? None at all? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Humus sapiens says that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on neologisms, yet "Category:Neologisms" is alive and very well stocked; in fact, there are about 150 words in that category (not to mention "Category:Portmanteaus," "Category:Slang," among others) and I just added that category to this article. Echoing User:Weirdoactor, just a brief look around Wikipedia and one finds such words as Tillmonkey, Yak shaving, Kripkenstein, Cosmocrat, and Fraudience, among MANY others -- these pages are in existence and are not disputed (and are not as notable and/or widespread as Jewdar), the only sources supporting most of those articles being the Urban Dictionary and various informal blogs. In fact, some of those articles don't even have sources and yet no one disputes their existence, while this article has at last count 12 sources (including the Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, The New York Press, salon.com, etc).

At base this is an issue of what is and is not considered 'JC' by the people (overwhelmingly Jews) that create, expand, and upkeep articles dealing with Jews, Judaism, and Jewish issues -- there are certain people here that let their own personal views of Jewish issues cloud their judgment when it comes to keeping a NPOV in regards to Jewish-themed articles and vehemently (nay: FANATICALLY) oppose anything that is not entirely squeaky clean and 'JC.' This is obviously what is happening here. --172.132.170.249 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other articles exist is not a reason for keeping this one. WarpstarRider 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you neglected to read the info-box at the top of that page -- I quote: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." The part about "not being a policy or guideline" is, as you know, quite important, so I'm not why you would try to present it here as binding Wikipedia protocol. Finally, I would just like to say that the continued irrationality and blatant POV with which this article deletion (or 'vote') is pursued only reveals the true motivations of the people advocating for its deletion. --172.135.86.62 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Velvet elvis and others. 6SJ7 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article, with the new material, convinces me of its relevance and notability. The basic cultural question is, Who is a Jew? There is no really quick answer, although I guess a lot of folks would differ with that assertion. Writing about Jewdar is uncomfortable but it makes the point that on the one hand you have a complicated definition with a lot of nuances and debate and angst, but, cutting through that, there are many people who simply know whether or not someone is Jewish--and they really do, there is a set of signals. It would never fly but Who is a Jew? should link to this article. It shouldn't be dismissed as a joke; it reveals an uncomfortable truth. Darkspots 01:03, 10 January 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 (as no consensus). -Doc^g 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rafed.net (2nd nomination)

A prior no consensus closure was overturned at deletion review for lack of reliable sources and is now back for a second round here. Please consider both prior discussions before commenting. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm spamming the participants in the deletion review. Just so we all know. - brenneman 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think to maintain neutrality per the sexy new WP:CANVAS also informing participants in the first AfD would be in order. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ahh. Bugger. Another new "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." I'm about to go offline and eat food. I'll do it when I come back, but to avoid any appearance of impropiety, the non-overlapping group is below. -brenneman 02:26, 4 January 2007
    
    SkierRMH • Itaqallah • Trebor • Zereshk • Jayden54
Delete, no references which explain its notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep

WP:WEB states the following: Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

In other words, if Rafed.net is the subject of more than one (1) non-trivial (2) published works (3) whose source is independent, then the site is notable per WP:WEB. It clarifies that this includes published works in all forms, without giving restrictions. It does not demand that the other sources need to be (a) Notable (b) reliable or (c) neutral. This is indeed when writing an article, but not to establish notability of Rafed.net, all according to WP:WEB.

As an example of this, i present Faith Freedom International, an anti-Islamic website created by Ali Sina. It has underwent an afd were it was deleted, but then it was recreated and underwent a second afd. The result was no consensus. After all this process, the main article does not present one single (b) reliable source or (c) neutral source, in accordance to WP:WEB.

As for this site:

Daniel Heradstveit, Helge Hveem in his published book Oil in the Gulf: Obstacles to Democracy and Development writes regarding Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani: "several Iran-based internet sites, such as www.Rafed.Net, contribute to spread sistanis scholarship and legal opinions" [9].

This is a published book using Rafed.net as a prime example of sites that spread Sistanis scholarship. Now, for those who do not know, Sistani could arguably be said to be the main leader of Shi'as around the entire world, following his equally well known teacher Grand Ayatollah Abul-Qassim Khoei.

Joshua Teitelbaum, a Senior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University writes: "Many in Saudi Arabia’s minority (about 12%) Shi‘i population seem to spend much of their Internet time at Arabic-language Shi‘i sites in Iran. Rafed.net, based in Qom, and other such sites, report that 45% of their traffic comes from the Kingdom. These sites are apparently banned, but the owners switch domain names often and users have developed techniques to get around the Saudi censor." [10]

I would like to point out that Iran is specifically writing this site in Arabic, a foreign language to Iranians, in order to target Shi'as in Saudi Arabia! Qom, were the site based on, is the main Shi'a center for scholarship in the entire world and has a long history as such, back to 1503 CE, having a Islamic history back to 7th century.

Joshua Teitelbaum was referencing Joseph Braude in his published work Iran: A Growing Internet Market Weathers a Temporal Storm by Pyramid Research Advisory Service, May 18, 2001. [11]

This is again echoed by shianews.com in their list of blocked Shia sites in Saudi Arabia.

Alexa Internet, a provider of information on the web traffic to other websites gives this site a 15 000 trafik rating [12] and ranks it as the third most popular Shi'a internet site [13], only followed by al-shia.com, the site of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani himself with 14000 hits [14] and Islamic Republic News Agency of Iran with 12000 [15] .

Google itself manualy Page ranks this site among the top ten Shi'a sites [16].

seestani.com gives a full review of the site, allas in Arabic [17].

Now, this should not come as a surprise considering that the main audience of the site are arabs, easly seen by the fact that the opening page of http://rafed.net/ is in Arabic.

al-shia.com, the site of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani himself also has a page about it in Arabic [18]

Now, after all this, if you still do not feel that WP:WEB is meet, i would like to remind that it is a guideline designed to establish notability, it is not law. In the end, you are free to use it as a guideline.

Now, considering that it has been mentioned as an example by (a) multiple scholars from universities and also by (b) two published books, (c) that it is baned in one country, (d) that the ban is discuses and that even though it is baned there, (e) it gets 40% of its traffic from there, (f) considering that it is affiliated with Sistani, the Shi'a leader with most influence in Iraq and the world and that Sistani reviews it on his own site, (g) and that it outrivals all other Shi'a sites except sistanis own site and the Iranian official site, can you with good conscience state that this site is non-notable? Does it hurt wikipedia do represent this site, with all this infomation, or does it become more informative internet site?

Also, the site is mainly in Arabic, and i could not do a better job proving its notability and presenting full reviews in Arabic, since i do not know Arabic. --Striver - talk 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This reference is just a drive-by mention, it is NOT an article which discusses the website. Find ONE article, in English or Arabic, in which the discussion of rafed.net is the FOCUS of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, here, did you miss it? And unless im misstaken, so does this. Here is how you confirm it: Go here, sistanis own page. It mentions rafid.net and gives an arabic string to the right of it, "مركز إحياء التراث الإسلامي", to my knowledge, Arabic for "Rafed Network for Cultural Development". You can see that the same string is used as the headline of both the links i provided in this reply to you. --Striver - talk 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note I've done a machine translation of the second source mentioned in the immediately preceding comment. It's on the talk page of this AfD. I'll leave someone else to do further translations if they wish. Tyrenius 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Faith Freedom International has a better citation (from law.harvard.edu) for being banned in Saudi Arabia than Rafed.net, which, BTW, appears in the 2002 list of URLs Blocked in Saudi Arabia - "R" from Harvard, but that's beside the point, which is that faithfreedom.org has reliable sources ... and for the record, Ali Sina and faithfreedom.org are now just redirects to that article because they both failed WP:N ... Rafed.net should redirect to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, just as Al-islam.org should be a redirect to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project (which in turn should be a {{mergeto}} with The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, but Striver removed the tag.) --Dennette 08:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment, commenting in the middle of my text hinders the flow of it. peace.--Striver - talk 10:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. First you argue that FFI has a better relibale source, then you note that Rafed.Net is also included in that source. How is the FFI a better source, if Rafed.Net shares the same source? I was not aware of the source, so thank you for presenting it. Now, you just characterized the law.harvard.edu as a RS. Well that's great, since that would mean that you now acknowledge that Rafed.Net has RS. This is not a requirement from WP:WEB, as is evident per my above argument, but it is great that we have more than required. As for Al-islam.org should redirect to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, that is not relevant to this afd, as for Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project redirecting to The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, why should it? They do not share the same source, one is an organization of volunteers, the other is the organization of Grand Ayatollah. And that goes against merging this to The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center. They are independent of each other, Sistani's greatly endorses the work of Rafed.net, and Rafed.net are in a kind of "internet information warfare" directed from Iran to Saudi Arabia, but that does not mean that Rafed.net and Sistani are dependent on each other. Close relations and being allies is not synonymous to dependence.--Striver - talk 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete:~~ Merge and redirect: The core issue is WP:NPOV ... if Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is the source behind Rafed.net, Al-islam.org, al-shia.org, and sistani.com, then how can any citations from one of his websites be viewed as "independent" coverage to satisfy WP:V or WP:N for another of his websites? Yes, Sistani is notable, but his websites are not notable just because he is, and although they are worthy of mention in his article, this one certainly does not have enough verifiable notability to justify its own article in Wikipedia ... as for using popularity based on Alexa and Google PageRanks as a substitute for WP:N guidelines, see The Harley-Quinn.com Argument ... if the website's only claim to notability is its popularity, then Sistani's article should have the sentence

"One of his websites, Rafed.net, is one of the most popular Shi'a websites according to Alexa internet and Google Directory."

and use the citations ... but a Wikipedia article based only on that? I don't think so! —Dennette 08:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is for "Merge and redirect" not "Delete". WP:V allows for self-published sources for material on the author. Tyrenius 09:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I convinced myself of an alternative to "Keep" or "Delete" while composing my response and neglected to amend it before saving it ... but I'm confused by your comment about "self-published" because the subject of this AfD falls under Notability (web), not Notability (people) ... there is no "author" under discussion here. --Dennette 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rafed.net is not dependent on Sistani, it is an independent website that cooperates with Sistani, per above given links.--Striver - talk 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete sources are apparently not independent. Walled garden. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way is Daniel Heradstveit (author), Joshua Teitelbaum (Israeli University researcher) and Joseph Braude (author)in the same "garden" as Rafed.net? I did not know that Israel and Iran were in the same "garden"... --Striver - talk 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think this is the third time I vote to save this article scince the last mounth. Keep it per Striver.--Sa.vakilian 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no reliable sources -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is not reliable? And could you also explain why a RS is needed for establishing notability in WP:WEB?--Striver - talk 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can write about an NN website, which is why any web resources used to assert notability must pass WP:RS -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer why Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is not reliable. --Striver - talk 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WB:WEB Brendan Alcorn 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Weak Keep - Having carefully read through this AfD, the previous AfD and WP:WEB I don't think it passes WP:WEB, because this website has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The examples by Striver only mention the website in a single paragraph, and the website is definitely not the subject. But I am going to ignore WP:WEB here and vote weak keep on the basis that this website actually seems quite notable in the Arabic world, as demonstrated by the sources Striver provided. Alexa also confirms the popularity of this website. I am of course open to debate, and willing to change my vote if any good arguments are made. Jayden54 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what you mean is that you are invoking WP:IAR. Sure, that works. I would really appreciate if you could inform me why the coverage of Joshua Teitelbaum and seestani.com is not considered independent by your standards. Thanks and peace.--Striver - talk 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Find Sourcesand keep, or otherwise delete. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Joshua Teitelbaum's quote and Joseph Braude's book together with Sistanis full length review and the rest of the quoted material not enough? Would you please give me a detailed response on why each one of them fail? Thanks. --Striver - talk 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think you can argue that the quotes in books are "non-trivial"; they give a passing mention to one of a number of sites they are describing. The Alexa and Google rankings are immaterial - as I've said before, popularity is not equal to notability. It's harder for me to judge the seestani.com review, but I'm worried by both its independence and reliability. You say that "close relations and being allies" isn't the same as dependence and that might be true, but it certainly does not encourage independence. You also say that reliability is not an issue (interestingly the primary notability criterion on WP:N recently had reliability added to it) but I can't agree with that. By that logic, if I reviewed a website and posted it to my personal blog or homepage, that would qualify as a source - clearly absurd. So I'm still going to support deletion. Trebor 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bro, what i find it strange is that people demand notable sources, and when they get that from sistani, the top representative for Shi'a, then it somehow is not good enough. And when the sistani coverage is "too good", then it somehow does not count. Well, even if you consider that the page was owned by sistani, wich it is not, then that fact would make it notable. You seem my point? But in any case, the site is NOT dependant on sistani, and nobody has claimed it is. And by the way, if you wonder why some of those pages has poor layout, consider the state of IT-technology in some of those countries, for example, Iran only has pre-paid dial up internet, from what i have gathered. --Striver - talk 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about the poor layout, it's the relationship between the sites that worries me. It isn't black or white whether something is dependent or independent (in my opinion), it's more of a sliding scale, and being closely related would tend towards the former. Would the comments about the website be objective? Doubtful I think, they'd surely be influenced by the relationship and shared ideals. To clarify, I don't think this deletion is clear-cut one way or the other, and you've done an excellent job arguing the case for keeping it. I still feel, though, that the articles will have length and sourcing issues, and will tend towards merely a directory entry. This looks like it'll end as "no consensus" anyway, so it probably won't matter. Trebor 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No references of notabity and horribly written.--Sefringle 07:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I dont know why there is so much eagerness to delete a page that can serve as a gateway to much needed information about Islam. This information is badly needed, considering the current state of affairs. If the article has problems, well then fix it! Dont delete it.--Zereshk 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment (negative): And just where did you get the impression that Wikipedia has either a role or a responsibility to "serve as a gateway to much needed information about Islam" or anyother subject, for that matter? Leave the missionary work to Some Other Website ... Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links and this article has no "information content" beyond being just a "gateway" to the subject's website, whose only claims to WP:Notability are (a) its "popularity" relative to other Shi'a websites based on its PageRank, (b) being a vehicle for the ideology of a well-know Muslim scholar, and (c) having been "banned in Saudi Arabia" like thousands of other websites including AltaVista and Amnesty International ... I mean, the fact that the Saudis have recently banned the sale of cats and dogs is far more notable than this website being banned. --72.75.85.159 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please spare us the antipathy. At least muslims dont eat the poor creatures like some other people do. And I got "the impression" from Wikipedia's stated definition of being an encyclopedia: "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." If providing knowledge to readers about a topic which we're fighting a fucking war at does not qualify as knowledge, then I dont know what does. Anyhow, I added in some information to the article. Hopefully that will help straighten things up a bit.--Zereshk 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Muslims just put people in prison for having them as pets. (Talk about distracting from the debate by going off-topic!) ... So, are you implying that this primarily non-English language website from a country in which no American troops are stationed is somehow providing useful "knowledge" related to the War on Terrorism? (Or is the United States at war with Islam in general, regardless of country?) Because this article sure doesn't tell me anything, and I don't read Arabic, so why have you been adding references in violation of WP:EL#Foreign-language links instead of creating this article on the Arabic language Wiki? (BTW, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?) --72.75.85.159 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The additions are not in violation of WP:EL#Foreign-language links, he just did not add the Arabic tag.--Striver - talk 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding in the site a few more times as a primary reference doesn't change anything. Neither does the fact we're fighting a war, or the fact that people eat cats or the fact you can swear. Try to construct real arguments. Trebor 07:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

His argument is clearly that the site is notable, and added facts to that effect in the article. for example the fact that the site is from a notable Iraninan institute. i was waiting for this kind of information to show up when an Arabic reader would investigate the material, and it did. More third part coverage are in this afd and remain to be added to the article. --Striver - talk 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A reminder of CIVIL is in order here, and Manual of Style - Foreign language sites would be useful too. Tyrenius 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment the article should be renamed to "Rafed Network for Cultural Development", considering that that is the name of the organization behind the site. --Striver - talk 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like again to point out that Faith Freedom International is far less notable and after undergoing the last and recent afd it has been established that the article is to be keept on wikipedia. --Striver - talk 15:20, 9 January 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. MER-C 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community College of Southern Nevada Police Department

Non-notable police organization Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close. I have boldly merged and redirectly this to the Community College of Southern Nevada article. Ohconfucius 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Will close in a few hours if nobody objects. MER-C 04:51, 4 January 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, nomination withdrawn. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of elected or appointed female heads of state

~~I have two main reasons for nominating this list:~~

Scope appears non neutral. Why have a list of heads of state that expressly leaves out female monarchs and dictators? This seems to inherently suggest that there is something wrong with those governmental systems.
Superfluous. The topic is already aptly covered by Category:Female heads of state and its subcategory, Category:Queens regnant. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (nomination withdrawn see below)

Keep. (2) A category can't replace this list (e.g. it can't be annotated or re-sorted). (1) You may want join the discussion on the list's talk page, if you want to rename it or redefine its scope. A reason for the current title may be that female succession to the throne seems more common than election or appointment. -- User:Docu
Keep As the list contains considerably more information than a category can provide, I don't think the latter could/should replace the former. I also have no particular problem with the scope, and if you (the universal "you", not specifically referring to the nominator) do, you should suggest changes, not deletion. -- Kicking222 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I believe that this list works better than a category. And it certainly is manageable considering it cannot go beyond two hundred something. TSO1D 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep POV concerns can be addressed, and I agree that this works better as a list than as a category. Resolute 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Monarchy is a fundamentally separate institution, and the article doesn't mention "dictators" at all. —Sesel 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw nom. In light of the views expressed here I recognise I may have been over-zealous in nominating the article. It is clear my POV concerns are not widely shared (and could potential be sorted by another route). I am also persuaded by the arguments as to why a list is more appropriate than a category in this case. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:11, 4 January 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, unless and until we have articles on Braindead, Mo and Murder you for the price of a coffe, New York. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bum Fuck, Egypt

Nonsense page, fails under WP:NEO, is neither notable, nor encyclopedia. --Haemo 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blah, someone just deleted my justification for keeping this page. Anyway, the term may be a neologism (though it's a least 25 years old), but it's certainly not "nonsense". I've already linked it into the Placeholder name page. Is this really that much different than, say, "Podunk"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- Is that the same place as Bumblefuck, Ohio? ~ trialsanderrors 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The term "Bum Fuck" may mean a particular place, but it not a common term. This is even more true of the term Bum Fuck, Egypt, which appears to have absolutely no reference whatsoever. The author of the article is not even sure where the slang originates, nor does the article provide any references to support their contention. By contrast, the term "podunk" cite repeated usage, and has extensive historical merit. None of this is displayed by Bum Fuck, Egypt, and I am strongly inclined to believe that it is simply a total neologism. Delete. --Haemo 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (I'm the nominator, anyways!)
~~Delete~~ Transwiki to Wiktionary as a colloquial dicdef. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The definition has it right, but it's going to be very hard to document this. Google will just turn up anything where people refer to BFE, but what I understand of the definition is pretty much echoed in the entry. Certainly wiktionary has room for fairly well-known (albeit obscene) colloquialisms. Not enough to keep here - it is, after all, a dicdef. Vote changed as such. --Dennisthe2 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - For Wikipedia it is impossible to document, as there are no sources at all. For Wiktionary, it appears to be actually very easy. I found the phrase in several books, so supplying quotations in order to satisfy Wiktionary's attestation criteria and to demonstrate meaning should be easy and uncontroversial. Uncle G 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"per nom"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete unless some very good and verifiable reliable sources can be found, this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Gwernol 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article cites no sources. Searching, although it is possible to find people using these three words in sequence, I can find no sources that actually properly document the notion that the article claims they denote. It's possible for a Wikipedia editor to deduce documentation for the notion by analysing how people use this phrase, but that would be original research, which is forbidden here. This shouldn't have an article until it is properly documented outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The term appears in the first two dictionaries of slang I looked at, with essentially the same meaning as I witnessed it being used 25 years ago: [19] [20] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- Neither of these indicate that this is not a neologism. Openly editable online dictionaries are not reputable sources, nor are they what is meant by "dictionary" in WP:NEO. Furthermore, even if we accept this, it is apparent that this article does not qualify under WP:NOT#DICT for slang terms, as it contains nothing other than a guide to the term mentioned. --Haemo 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And when one finds oneself citing Urban Dictionary as a source, alarm bells should go off immediately. Uncle G 12:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense and/or attack page Bucketsofg 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Well, this is not attack, nor nonsense for that matter. I've heard this term (and similar terms; "East Buttfuck," etc.) to describe exactly what the article states, (ex: "I had to go all the way to Buttfuck Egypt to find a gas station....") but there is nothing notable or encyclopedic about it. Unless some reliable sources are given, it should be deleted. Wavy G 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- Wikipedia's not a slang dictionary. Twinxor t 05:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - a stub about a neologism/slang term. Not even worthy of a transwiki, in my opinion. Like Twixnor says, this is not a slang dictionary. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense article. Not notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as either nonsense or a non-notable term. JIP | Talk 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
KeepThis useds to be a Redirected, before a newby sided to make it into an article. Just revert back to the Redirected.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 12:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The redirect should definitely not be restored. It is patently offensive and there is no supporting evidence (least of all in the article) to suggest that this term is used to refer to this particular region of Illinois Gwernol 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The redirect was to a real place. Do you have any evidence at all that this is an alternative name for that real place? If not, what is your justification for a redirect? Uncle G 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No vote, but SOMEONE's using this term since it pulls in 21 hits in Google Books [21], 24 in Google Blogs [22], and as part of a Creative Writing MFA thesis at West Virginia University [23]. It even gets 16 hits on Google Map, though the exact location appears to be unsettled. [24] --Calton | Talk 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the things that the search locates. Additionally: Arguments that a word or phrase is in use are what Wiktionary deals in. This is Wikipedia. We write encyclopaedia articles on subjects, here. For those, we require sources that are about the subject denoted by the article title, and thus our arguments deal in the existence of sources. That a word or phrase exists does not make it an encyclopaedia article subject, and doesn't magically supply sources telling us about Bum Fuck Egypt — where it is, what it is, and so forth. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And a work of fiction is not a source. Uncle G 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of the change being discussed. I've copied the interesting to detail to Placeholder_name, and I have no particular objection to this one being deleted. I feel strongly, however, that it should not be a redirect to Little Egypt, which is what caught my eye in the first place. That's simply not an appropriate direct association (perhaps there is something etymological going on there, but I've never heard of it). For what it's worth, I can respect the filter you're trying to apply here, but I think that a considerable part of Wikipedia would not pass it. 69.149.223.52 13:29, 4 January 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 Proto::► 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbad

Only held the World Wrestling Council's heavyweight title for a month. 650l2520 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete -nn pro wrestler--Nick Y. 00:07, 5 January 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, sock or no sock. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Kombat: 8

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At the moment, there is very little information known about the development of an eighth Mortal Kombat title. RobWill80 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and relevant WikiProject discussion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you link us to the relevant discussion? Koweja 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Er, well, it was more of a "I still have the same opinion". :-) New MK8 article: delete or keep? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as crystal balling. Koweja 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not currently enough information to warrant an article. Jacquismo 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for now; article can be recreated if/when game is verifiably announced. --Alan Au 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. GreyCat 10:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:Crystal, no point in guessing if and how the game will be developed. TSO1D 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Forget the Crystal ball thing, let's look at it practically. It has next to no references, and states very little is known in the first sentence. I don't have to read a single WP guideline to see that it's all speculation. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Apart from WP:CRYSTAL, the lack of sources makes the article unable to be expanded, and it it is unlikely the game will be called Mortal Kombat: 8, so chances are it won't be remade either. --Scottie theNerd 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete until the project is officially confirmed by Midway Games. Alan Shatte 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons above. ^---SilentRAGE! 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not verifiable. Fails WP:RS Jessica Anne Stevens 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for the time being. Should be brought back after more info is known. Pugman3000 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and protect per above. Gisele Hsieh 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete until more information is known. Brad Guzman 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete lacks reliable sources Joel Jimenez 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. GhostHack 08:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Wesborland 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Jimfbleak

[edit] Conservative Legacy Foundation

Delete. No assertion of notability. Organization's name gets 65 ghits, the url gets 45. Prod contested back in October but no improvement since. — coelacan talk — 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chovain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom Daniel J. Leivick 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM and so tagged. Ohconfucius 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG. MER-C 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's an advert, pure and simple. (And I'm a conservative.) Realkyhick 06:27, 4 January 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 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling Debate

poorly written rehash of ideas already discussed on the Recycling page Daniel J. Leivick 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This article is an eyesore and is remarkably unencyclopedic. Babcockd 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Not encyclopedic, more like a rant, and a horrible-looking one at that. It would only be worse if the font were changed to Comic Sans. Realkyhick 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. Doesn't really come under any CSD criterion, though. Tevildo
Delete per above. Fails every policy in the book, except WP:N. MER-C 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete A poorly written article that is unneeded. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, someone's personal rant. JIP | Talk 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete it is utter non-sense. TSO1D 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as spam. --Fang Aili ^talk 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technocash

Self-published article by user with same name as article. Ronbo76 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Probably spam ::mikm t 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - looks like self-promotional spam to me. --Haemo 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 04:43, 4 January 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 07:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coco Rocha

No assertion of notability. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Was on the cover of Italian Vogue[25], lots of people talking about her on message boards, seems somewhat notable. —Chowbok ☠ 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Use of the word "supermodel" is a pretty strong assertion. Subject seems to be a lot more well known than even the most notorious ANTM contestant, with plenty of credits per her website which check out, on the surface. 37,900 Ghits but there are a lot of blog entries amongst those, but plenty of hits in other languages (Spanish, italian, japanese, chinese). The Phoenix cites her as being an "international model"[26] Ohconfucius 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. May become more notable in near future. Needs stub tag, though, or expansion . Realkyhick 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Her page has no independent sources and reads like an advert. She may be notable but G11 (delete spam) is applicable. Eluchil404 07:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
keep please this is not spam at all really it is a stub about a notable canadian supermodel with reliable sources too Yuckfoo 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article only has two unique sources cited, and both are also listed as external links. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

there are now 4 unique sources cited please feel free to help add more and make the article better Yuckfoo 10:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people considered greatest fighter ever

Apart from the fact that the category name is wrong (where's the "the"?) it seems too WP:POV to be meaningful. Who is allowed to consider a fighter the greatest? How is "fighter" defined? what does "greatest" mean? The list is unmaintainable. Gwernol 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Daniel J. Leivick 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A perfect example of original research. There is no "authority" that confers this title. --Polaron | Talk 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. (Closing admin should be sure to remove the link from List of silliest lists ever.) Bucketsofg 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom--Velvet elvis81 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete sujective title. I consider that Hong Kong Phooey was the greatest fighter ever, can he go in? Guy (Help!) 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the title is subjective and the test will have an inherent POV. TSO1D 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete even assuming all the entries could be properly sourced, the scope is far too arbitrary.-- danntm ^T _C 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV issues as above Dugwiki 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Polaron. Wikipedia isn't some sports governing body that chooses "the greatest fighters of all time". Quack 688 07:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all. This may not be the place to discuss this, but there are a number of "Lists of somethings considered the greatest something ever" that come up for deletion. Some are kept and some are deleted when they're all equally subjective.Pianoshootist 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That's a fair question. The way I see it, if an external source makes the claim "Joe was the greatest fighter ever", we can mention that claim somewhere on Wikipedia. That's not OR, as it's not the original thoughts of the Wikipedia editor. It's just reporting on speculation that's been published. What we can't do is say ourselves, "Based on Joe's stats, he could be considered the greatest fighter ever" - and that's exactly what this article does. Quack 688 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sax by Popular Demand

Article does not assert notability as to why this particular youth band is distinct from many others that exist; has been marked with {{importance}} template since August 2006. Bumm13 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete school or college band not notable by consensus. does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. One of zillions of youth/high school jazz bands. —Chowbok ☠ 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC miserably. MER-C 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 12:18, 5 January 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 05:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N. Venkatachala

Lawyer bio article created by an anon that doesn't state noteworthiness clearly. No real articles link to him. Tokek 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It needs some sourcing, but if you follow the link you'll see he is more than a lawyer, but a former justice on the supreme court of india; a google seems to produce quite a few news paper articles, which a lexis-nexis search confirms: 384 articles. (As the article says, he is some kind of anti-corruption crusader who's in the news a lot.) I suggest instead of deletion, we bring it to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject_India Bucketsofg 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep google seems to confirm that he's a former Indian surpreme court justice, as well as making the news often. Needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: he's also a former Times of India "Karnataka Person of the Year". (No clue what that is, but it sounds important.) —Chowbok ☠ 03:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep A current or former Supreme Court justice of any major country is notable. A former Supreme Court justice of the second most populous country on Earth is very notable. --Charlene 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - SUPREME court justice.Baka man 01:19, 7 January 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. Cbrown1023 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wong Shun Leung's Profound Knowledge of Fighting

Duplication of material found at Wong Shun Leung; content almost entirely quotations OscarTheCat3 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, should go on Wikiquote if anywhere. —Chowbok ☠ 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikiquote. So tagged. MER-C 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete- POV in the title. move to wikiquote makes sense anything else can be moved to Wong Shun Leung --Nate1481 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - POV - Duplication of material found at Wong Shun Leung.Peter Rehse 05:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant dupe. ~ Flame vip e r 21:49, 10 January 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 G1 by Fang Aili. Tevildo 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoup & Kozlowski

Article is filled with nonsense. Ronbo76 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Daniel J. Leivick 03:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:BIO Chovain 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - notability not asserted. MER-C 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Belk

Suspect conflict of interest article. The subject does not appear to be at all well known, and fails WP:BIO. 186 Ghits, most relevant hits are wikipedia, his page on philosopedia, and wiki mirrors. Other hits are mainly directory listings, forum postings, geneology sites, with no useful articles which could ascertain his notability. As for his "famous consulting website", it has no Alexa rank. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Smells like a hoax. Paronomasia is not a medical condition. Tevildo 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Chovain 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)`
Delete per nom. Ronbo76 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd.

Not speediable borderline spam which has survived a sparsely attended AfD in August 2005. It does have an assertion of notability in the form of an award from the Poul la Cour foundation, a small Danish foundation dedicated to wind power which itself scores 6 unique Ghits.

Delete. Ohconfucius 03:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; reads like an advert. Realkyhick 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ronbo76 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. X201 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this spam. Liveforever22 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crissy Moran

Non-notable porn star. Despite the claims made in the last AfD, Moran does not have any credible claim to notability sufficient to allow keeping this article. Utterly fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO, as evidenced by the lack of any reliable sources writing about her. Valrith 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

weak keep, don't the many stories that google turns about her conversion to christianity count as sources about her? Plus she's had movies with her name in the title and a song made about her by a notable artist. Not many porn stars have that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Reliable sources for those "many stories" would be a great help. :) Tevildo 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - much as this pains me, there are a number of porno actors with stub bios on the wiki. Ronbo76 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- not only is she reasonably well known, among the connoisseurs of such things, but her recent conversion is an interesting example of the JC's Girls phenomenon in action. Credmond 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Very notable pornstar during her active years. — Wackymacs 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It should be noted that Moran is most notable for her appearances in over 100 photo shoots, not movies. — Wackymacs 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Crissy is a person of intrest because of her recent conversion and work with fighting the adult industry Thenext 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable on a number of fronts. 23skidoo 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. She's hot, been featured recently in Hustler as a centerfold, and her conversion to Christianity makes her an interesting character study in this genre. --68.250.102.14 19:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Credmond has already said why. <KF> 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Besides meeting whatever various standards, few porn stars have songs named after them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Nearly all of the foregoing discussion by those wanting to keep this article can be summed up as keep because I like it, which is not a valid justification for keeping an article. No one has yet supplied any reliable sources writing about Moran's porn career (which is her only claim to notability), which means there can be no verifiability. No verifiability means this article must be deleted. Now let's see how well WP adheres to its policies... Valrith 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, I've added a few more details and references to the article. As for the comment from Valrith, it seems to me that up to now the discussion has been about -notability-, and several people have demolished the argument that Moran is non-notable. Now suddenly we're supposed to be talking about -verifiability-? Well, yes, it's not so easy to document a phenomenon that exists primarily on the Internet (i.e. she's a real human being, but mostly she is an Internet figure) but several links have now been provided; the woman is not exactly hard to find in even the most superficial web search. I think the text as it now exists is pretty solid. Credmond 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Credmond. Zz414 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Rockwell

I created this almost 2 years ago as a newbie just filling in a red link. She is a two term city councillor [27] and ran in the provincial election but lost. Does she meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? You be the judge. maclean 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete She apppears to be a non-notable politician. TJ Spyke 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think this article has potential to be useful for historical purposes. I'd like to see a reference included (certainly a local paper's website should mention her). JN322 06:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not notable. Realkyhick 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable losing election candidate. MER-C 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Good to see an editor revisiting the missteps of their early days.--Matth e wUND^(talk) 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Agree that it is notable the original creator nominated AfD. Ronbo76 15:32, 4 January 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. Teke ^(talk) 05:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Monaghan

Article is filled with nonsense.Ronbo76 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Total gibberish. --Haemo 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - typical teenage drivel. MER-C 04:45, 4 January 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. Kusma (討論) 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shlaka

Article is very poorly written with no verifiable internet search hits indicating such an animal existed. Ronbo76 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax. Tevildo 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clearly a hoax. Claims hunted by main predator the Puma, but Pumas are not native to Africa! --Haemo 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hoax. Realkyhick 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - obvious hoax. MER-C 07:03, 4 January 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. Conflict of interests (see WP:COI), blatant sockpuppetry on this discussion lead me to be disinclined to count any arguments for keeping this article. No objection to a reliably referenced, neutral article written by people with no connection to Brilliant Earth at a later date. Proto::► 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant Earth

AfD nominated by SauliH with reason: "Listed Brilliant Earth as it is a private jewelers website." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Private Jewelers website which exists as advertising and not encyclopeadic in nature. Topics of confict free diamonds are covered at Conflict-free diamonds, and Blood Diamond. SauliH 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Related Afd nominations are Beth Gerstein, and Eric Grossberg. SauliH 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I belong to a number of environmental groups in my area and we strongly support the mission of Brilliant Earth to end dirty gold mining. This is an important organization because of its social mission, and it is important that the public have access to information about it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob1114 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Keep - I have edited the article to present a less biased tone and have included additional links to industry criticism of this company. While it is clear that the article as orignally written was not neutral in tone, this company is definitely notable within the jewelry industry. This is the only retailer in the emerging "ethical jewelry" category to be singled out by diamond industry leader Martin Rapaport in his recent publication on the subject (see citation in main article). A Googletest on "Brilliant Earth" diamond on January 7, 2007 yields 1610 results, apparently all on the subject of the company and its positions on blood diamond issues. JamesB70 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Only editor to article is User:Egwiki, who may also be the co-founder of the company Eric Grossberg - initials Eg..... see edit history SauliH 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have included my edits as well. [User:JamesB70:JamesB70] 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Have tracked this issue for some time and Brilliant Earth and its founders are significant contributors to the debate around conflict diamonds. Recent articles in New York Post, USA Today, Business Week, San Francisco Chronicle also recognize Brilliant Earth and its founders as leaders of the ethical and fair trade diamond industry. mstanleybrown 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--The preceding comment was entered by User:69.181.71.232 (Talk) and not by mstanleybrown see edit compare -- Note I (mstanleybrown) did enter the above comment but I didn't log in first.

Delete, probable WP:COI Realkyhick 06:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI confirmed as per comment below. SauliH 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as possible corporate vanity. MER-C 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Article reads like a corporate press release with the second major paragraph reading: "Briliant Earth received much press attention in December 2006. . ." Ronbo76 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Have blogged about this issue a number of times before, and Brilliant Earth is very relevant within the conflict diamond debate. --64rywn9 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Confirm that Egwiki is a co-founder of Brilliant Earth but topic has merit as Brilliant Earth is one of central industry players in opposition to the World Diamond Council's position on conflict diamonds. --Egwiki 02:49, January 6 2007 (UTC)

Keep- issue is relevent, BE is a player in defining the conflict diamonds debate. BE has aappeared in a number of mainstream media, such as Businessweek, and in the blogsphere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hske (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Editor had page moved from Brilliant Earth to User:Egwiki/Brilliant Earth on November 26 see here - after a ({{db-spam}} tag added). Article was recreated at Brilliant Earth on December 26. SauliH 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is not fit for an article.--C J King 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Have suspicions of sockpuppetry. SauliH 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep- the debate about conflict diamonds is an important one, and deserves more attention, The BE article contributes to this debate.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of aircraft carrier deployments

Very incomplete list that seems to serve no purpose, the article seems to have slipped through the cracks. Before bringing it here I posted on the Military Project asking if it could be salvaged, it was recommended to propose it for deletion. One Night In Hackney 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Makes little sense. Realkyhick 06:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ronbo76 15:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Yuser31415 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete too arbitrary, and would likely become unmanageable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Objectives in Black (video game)

Almost the entire article is based on speculation. Speculation cannot, by definition, be objective fact or encyclopedic. Bumm13 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, blatant WP:OR. BryanG^(talk) 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "This contains detailed speculative information..." Enough said. MER-C 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, even without the speculation, this would be a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OR-tacular! -- Kicking222 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete- concur with nom. Article reads "This contains detailed speculative information regarding the possible background of the secondary objectives in BLACK. Please note that most of these items are purely speculative, and are based solely upon the displayed title of each objective as it is completed and discovered." which indicates it may not be useful information.
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a game-guide. Koweja 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:OR Alan Shatte 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all discussion above. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above (WP:OR, etc.).--Alan Au 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. It's a game guide that belongs on GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 06:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NOT, WP:OR Gisele Hsieh 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete It doesn't seem like concensus is going to change. Brad Guzman 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with speedy delete per above Joel Jimenez 04:27, 6 January 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 G1 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 08:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complementification

Article is a made up word with stick figure (>:|} and ("Now! Leave dammit" on the bottom of the page) - clearly indicating some did this for mischief. Ronbo76 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete. Not really sure if it's speediable - it has _context_ (as a dicdef, reason enough for deletion itself), so it passes A1, and it's not _patent_ nonsense, so it passes G1. G3, perhaps? Tevildo 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Vandalism. Realkyhick 06:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 07:05, 4 January 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. JIP | Talk 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario mayhem

Non-notable Mario fan site, fails WP:WEB notability guiedlines. Unverifiable and no reliable source about the site. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. --Sopoforic 09:54, 4 January 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, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:BRENNEMAN. Proto::► 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bio-art

neologism, non-notable "recent development[] of contemporary art" - crz crztalk 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly needs to cite sources and is a pretty short article, somewhat POV, and it's full of all that ridiculous self-glorification/importance that it unfortunately wedded to most discussions of "art." That said, it mentions a number of practitioners of the form and it's roots/influences. Seems to sufficiently posit notability to me.--Velvet elvis81 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Both this and Eduardo Kac could use a bloody good clean, and maybe end up as a redirect at worst. Guys like Stelarc have been doing this for donkey's, it gets coverage because the photos look great in the paper, etc. In the event that my lazy arse has not done anything to this article by the time this debate comes to fruition, a magic wand shall pass over those words to be replace them with "Delete because no one cared enough to clean it up." - brenneman 06:20, 4 January 2007 Hey, closer man, no embolded words for you today! It's not a vote, you know.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Gerstein

not notable, and used as linking page to Brilliant Earth spam page SauliH 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only editor of page is User:Btgerstein. Quite obviously the co-founder of company. Related Afd nominations are Eric Grossberg, and Brilliant Earth. SauliH 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Beth Gerstein is, along with her co-founder Eric Grossberg, a philanthropist who has established the Diamonds For Africa Fund to provide royalties back to indigenous African peoples harmed by the conflict diamond industry. Gerstein is frequently requested for speaking engagements and lectures on the topic of conflict diamonds and fair-trade alternatives mstanleybrown 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--The preceding comment was entered by User:69.181.71.232 (Talk) and not by mstanleybrown see edit compare --The preceding comment was in fact entered by mstanleybrown. I just forgot to log in first.

Delete per nom. Blatant WP:COI. Realkyhick 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - concur with nom. Article is related to parent AfD. Appears self-published. Ronbo76 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Confirm that Btgerstein is a co-founder of Brilliant Earth but topic has merit as Beth Gerstein is one of the most prominent diamond industry opponents of the stated position of the World Diamond Council. Other users should be allowed to expand on this topic. --Egwiki 02:55, January 6 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI noted as per comment. SauliH 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have suspicions of sockpuppetry. SauliH 05:23, 6 January 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 Opabinia regalis 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Grossberg

not notable, and used as linking page to Brilliant Earth spam page SauliH 05:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Related Afd nominations are Beth Gerstein, and Brilliant Earth. SauliH 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Eric Grossberg is frequently invited to speak at industry events and is considered a leader in the debate concerning fair trade diamonds and mine-level tracking. The non-profit he established, Diamonds For Africa Fund, is a contributor to African communities impacted by the diamond trade mstanleybrown 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--The preceding comment was entered by User:69.181.71.232 (Talk) and not by mstanleybrown see edit compare -- mstanleybrown did enter the above comments. I just forgot to log in first.

Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - concur with nom, article is unreferenced and linked to an AfD. Ronbo76 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Confirm that Egwiki is a co-founder of Brilliant Earth but topic has merit as Eric Grossberg is one of the most prominent diamond industry opponents of the stated position of the World Diamond Council. Other users should be allowed to expand on this topic. --Egwiki 02:55, January 6 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI noted as per comment. SauliH 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have suspicions of sockpuppetry. SauliH 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Blam. ~ Flame vip e r 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Naconkantari (A7). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richie Scarlett

Has a website which verifies much of the article. But is someone notable by virtue of playing in Ace Frehley's band? I don't think so Daniel Case 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:31, 4 January 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. Verifiable != notable. As a side note, I went through the University of Bristol halls a while back, and the ones that failed to have any assertions of notability outside being a building with rooms where students live all got deleted and redirected to the university. Proto::► 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gannochy House

Also nominated is John Burnet Hall. Per precedents, University halls of residence are not usually considered notable (as a default), and these do not seem to be any exception. In fact, these are poor stubs with feeble, if any, assertion of notability. So I beg to move: Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unremarkable student dorms. MER-C 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't the someone just merge all these St Andrews' University halls articles and save us the trouble of deleting perfectly verifiable information.--Doc^g 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - could create one good article from all the information in the several scattered articles we have on halls at the University of St Andrews. Suggest Halls of Residence of the University of St Andrews M0RHI | Talk to me 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Halls of residence have been organised into the category University of St Andrews halls of residence. This seems to be the normal approach for posting halls of residences for British Universities on Wikipedia (for example: University of Bristol Halls of Residence, University of Manchester halls of residence, University of Reading halls of residence, etc.) --John345er 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While a category would indeed be useful for large universities such as Manchester, with a student body six times larger than St Andrews, one well sectioned article would be preferable, and cumulative notability could be gleaned, at least to me, than six to ten stubs with limited notability. Of course things could still be linked with anchors to each heading. M0RHI | Talk to me 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't confuse notability of the subject with organisational structure within Wikipedia. This hall is a pretty bog standard hall which few outside the University will have heard of or would ever want to find out about. Unless anyone can find reliable sources attesting to its importance, it should be deleted. Putting several non-notable subjects together into one merged article does not make the article encyclopaedically, nor the multiple subjects any more notable. Ohconfucius 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per above. —ShadowHalo 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no indication, or even hint, of notability. Merging will create one large article instead of many smaller, but that is still going to be non notable. Nuttah68 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable residence halls. No sources, so nothing verified to merge. Eluchil404 07:50, 9 January 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. HappyCamper 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hare Krishna Senga

Delete. Vanity article, written by User:Rellon, the quoted nickname of the subject. No sources cited. Borderline A7, marginal assertion of notability (one published book). Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. Tevildo 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of WP:BIO notability from WP:RS. Most information violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, violates WP:V big-time. Realkyhick 06:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - same author is creating similar articles D' Elites which shed some light on this article. SkierRMH 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unsourced promotional autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO as far as I can see. Jayden54 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - concur with nom. Redirect is obviously self-published and becomes vanity. Ronbo76 15:48, 4 January 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 debate merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hare Krishna Senga. MER-C 09:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rellon Senga

This is an article that redirects to Hare Krishna Senga which are created by user with the name, Rellon Senga, which makes this a bio article. The second article is full of nonsense. Recommend speedy delete on both pages. Ronbo76 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Close - This should be at WP:RFD. Probably best to wait for the result on the main article, then go for an R1. Tevildo 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator and Keep. Navou ^talk 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be nothing more than a dictionary defintion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renunciation of citizenship

Just created a new page to replace an incorrect link (pointing to a religious meaning of "renunciation"). Will keep adding more info tomorrow.Dr.007 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Transwiki WP:NOT#DICT would appear to be the applicable principal here. Would it be better to move the information into the Wiktionary project? Navou ^talk 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I plan to add more content along the lines of Naturalization where denaturalization is also extensively covered. Do you think it should rather go there? Dr.007 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Surely this is a concept that offers potential for an article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition; there are plenty of legalities involved, the action has significant consequences, it probably works very differently in different countries, etc... For a couple of ideas about what this article could be, Cecil Adams wrote about this topic -- from a solely American viewpoint, sure, but that's not a bad start. -- Captain Disdain 10:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Stub encyclopaedia article" is not synonymous with "dictionary article". (For one thing, complete dictionary articles are rarely short.) A dictionary article is an article about a word or an idiom. A stub encyclopaedia article is a short article about the person, place, concept, event, or thing that the word or phrase denotes. The concept here, quite clearly, is the renunciation of citizenship.
Furthermore: Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we only delete stub encyclopaedia articles that it is impossible to expand into full articles. We don't delete articles simply because they are currently stubs. To argue that an article that is currently a stub should be deleted, it must be shown that it is impossible to expand it beyond a stub. Neither NeoChaosX nor Navou have shown that. Indeed, neither has given any indication that xe has looked for sources at all. NeoChaosX certainly didn't have all that much time to look for sources in the 2 minutes between the creation of the stub and the time that xe first nominated it for deletion. Uncle G 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems like a reasonable subject for an article. Akihabara 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - for now, but it needs expansion. If necessary we can discuss this article again in a few months, and then possible delete it per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jayden54 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is legitimate, and referenced to a credible source. This is a stub that begins at the beginning. AFAIAC this sort of stub should be kept even if it takes a long time before anyone gets around to expanding it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, needs expansion, not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the topic is notable and the article could be expanded (for instance by describing the legal aspects, the procedures in different states, etc). TSO1D 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Neo's nomination was valid. Here is what the article looked like to begin with: [28] The "give it a chance" argument [wasn't] especially valid [in that situation]. Stubs must have more than just a one-sentence dictionary definition to warrant existence. All that said, the article is filled out nicely now. Neo should probably retract his nomination unless he has another grievance. –Gunslinger47 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is not only valid, it is policy. I suggest that you read and famliarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, too. Uncle G 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Likewise, I suggest you read and familiarize yourself with WP:SPIDER. Similar to the deletion of a single sentence from Wikipedia, this is a matter of critical importance. –Gunslinger47 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination I apologize to Dr.007. At the time this was created I really only saw a dictionary definition, and hadn't completely thought out how this could be expanded into a decent article. With that in mind and the they way the article has been expanded, I humbly ask that the nomination just be ended now. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks to everyone for encouragement and to NeoChaosX for his apologies, which are hereby accepted. Now it's my turn to apologize for inadvertently creating this debate by using the controversial approach of a stub. I book this under "lessons learned" and will from now on initiate new articles with more material. Dr.007 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw recommendation for the purposes of closing this debate. Navou ^talk 23:17, 4 January 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. Again, verifiable != notable. Proto::► 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Salvator's Hall

Default non-notability of student halls of residence. However, saving grace (per notability) is that William Windsor stayed there for a year (not that everywhere the second in line to the British Throne goes is notable). Ohconfucius 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep even without William this is a verifiable neutral article on a public building. If there's not enough information it should be merged with a St Andrews University related article.--Doc^g 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just a student hall, with nothing notable about it (as far as I can tell). Jayden54 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the main University of St. Andrews article. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to something such as Halls of Residence of the University of St Andrews. Content is worth keeping, just does not warrant its own page. M0RHI | Talk to me 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Halls of residence have been organised into the category University of St Andrews halls of residence. This seems to be the normal approach for posting halls of residences for British Universities on Wikipedia (for example: University of Bristol Halls of Residence, University of Manchester halls of residence, University of Reading halls of residence, etc.) --John345er 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't confuse notability of the subject with organisational structure within Wikipedia. This hall is a pretty bog standard hall which few outside the University will have heard of or would ever want to find out about. Ohconfucius 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, article offers no notability. Nuttah68 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete simply non-notable. No sources, so no verified content to merge. Eluchil404 07:59, 9 January 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. Agent 86 04:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Melville Hall

Default non-notability of student halls of residence. The article is full of unsourced subjective appreciation and spam links. However, saving grace (per notability) is that it was designed by a famous architect (not that all works of famous artists are notable), and that the design was so badly executed that it cost tons of taxpayers' money in remedial work. Ohconfucius 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep The building is considered (by some) to be one of the most notable C20th buildings in Scotland (http://www.e-architect.co.uk/scotland/scottish_design_show.htm for example). However I agree that some of the current content is not of encyclopedic quality, but this makes it a candidate for editing rather than deletion. WhaleyTim 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep strangely, per nom's reasons. --Doc^g 13:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article establishes the building's notability as such: "It has become an important architectural landmark and has been ranked number 12 in the top 100 Scottish buildings of the last 50 years." (That remark should be sourced, though.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Halls of residence have been organised into the category University of St Andrews halls of residence. This seems to be the normal approach for posting halls of residences for British Universities on Wikipedia (for example: University of Bristol Halls of Residence, University of Manchester halls of residence, University of Reading halls of residence, etc.) --John345er 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deception in the Unification Church

Almost every sentence violates multiple content policies. Article cannot be saved. Drake Dun 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Textbook POV fork. Anything that's not already in the "Controversy" section of the main article can be safely ~~merged there~~ added to it. Tevildo 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Better? Tevildo 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and merge to main article with major cleanup. Realkyhick 06:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion and merger are mutually exclusive, because of the requirements of the GFDL. I suggest that all of the above editors pick either one or the other. Uncle G 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Ronbo76 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Tevildo. Generic POV fork, no no no. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - complete POV fork. Jayden54 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete there is not a salvageable part to the article; a classical POV fork. TSO1D 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - allow time for expansion and addition of citations/references. Smeelgova 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete Everything in this article is obviously implying a complete bias and many assumptions. Sounds like somebody made it all up. Termination very neccessary. Total POV fork. Horcado 23:57, 8 January 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. Jinian 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Currie

Well sourced though the article is, he only became newsworthy by dying and WP:NOT a memorial. One Night In Hackney 06:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. This site is clearly not a memorial, and is rather an article on a figure of some interest in a notable crime that occurred in New Zealand. There are a wide range of other articles, such as Jessica Bergsten, Holly Jones, Rachel Scott, Anna Wood, Reena Virk, and Elyse Pahler, to name only a few who have become posthumously notable. I don't see why we are singling out this particular case when there are other similar articles already included. The article is well-sourced, and appears to have been widely reported in New Zealand. I don't see any compelling reason to remove it - sometimes, sensational crimes create notable personages of their victims. Their deceased status has no effect on this. --Haemo 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not singling out any particular article, I saw this one and saw on the discussion page I wasn't the only person who had concerns about his notability. I don't consider murder victims notable generally speaking, and it is possible to find press coverage for a majority of murder victims. One Night In Hackney 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Other articles like this exist" is a problematic keep argument - see WP:POKEMON. But to address Haemo's specific examples - Jessica Bergsten was murdered by a US sports celebrity and the case was the subject of a critically acclaimed documentary. Holly Jones - this article does a poor job of asserting encyclopedic notability, making only a vague implied claim that her murder led to a change in Canadian law. An initial google search shows that there is at least some evidence for this, with at least one Private Member's Bill proposed in her memory[29] - further research needed to see if these changes in the law took hold. Rachel Scott - victim of the Columbine massacre and subject of much religious coverage, including several books, due to the misattributed story involving a religious question asked by the killers. Anna Wood - at centre of Australian moral panic over ecstasy;Reena Virk - article asserts encyclopedic notability but in a vague unsupported way. This seems to be the weakest of this article group; Elyse Pahler - article does not assert encyclopedic notability well - but case is deeply associated with a band which seems to be solidly encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

sidenote: I have substantially enhanced the Reena Virk article's claims to encyclopedic notability now Bwithh 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Abundance of source article indicates this may have been a well-known event in NZ. Realkyhick 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The crime may be notable for the manner in which it was executed, the perpetrator is less notable than the incident itself. The news articles focus on the perp or the trial as the principal subjects, and the victim gets trivial mentions. Furthermore, the deceased, god bless his soul, is just a random victim of a wanton act. I agree with nom: Wiki is not a memorial. Furthermore, Wiki is not a crystal ball. Posthumous fame has not yet happened to Currie, unlike for the above victims. Ohconfucius 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Tragic, but wikipedia is not a news report archive or a memorial site. The article does not assert encyclopedic notability and, though obviously very serious for those involved, is not even a major news event. Being a widely reported event is not an automatic indication of encyclopedic notability. Newspapers and other news services have coverage criteria which are substantially different from an encyclopedia Bwithh 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The documented notoriety of the crime provides notability to the victim. --Kevin Murray 07:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

News notability is not the same as encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive Bwithh 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The victim is, sadly for him, totally non-notable. The incident is also non-notable. What is special about it? Did it create a legal precedent? Was it the first incident of this kind in New Zealand? -- RHaworth 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Move top clarify that it's about the case, if it is genuinely considered of legal significance, otherwise delete since Wikipedia is not a directory of homicide cases. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, as the primary author of the article there is probably a conflict of interest in any comments I make. I would like to see the article kept for the reason the crime was at the time prominently reported in the New Zealand media. Of course looking through Wikipedia:Notability (people) I can see it probably fails beyond being featured in multiple non-trivial published works. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, well-cited and seems noatble enough. No harm is done by keeping it. ~ Flame vip e r 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Allowing non-encyclopedic material in an encyclopedia harms the reputation and composition of the encyclopedia Bwithh 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Lots of wikinews about the event, due to notability within NZ. John Vandenberg 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a news report archive. That's what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is separate from Wikinews. They are not the same project. Bwithh 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article still doesn't even contain a claim to encyclopedic notability, let alone a sourced, substantive one Bwithh 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ardeshir falaki

Self-published article by user with the same name. Recommend speedy delete. Ronbo76 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete being a conflict of interest (I still call it vanity but I digress) is not necessarily a reason to delete but the subject is a non notable business executive who does not pass WP:BIO.
Speedy delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - copyvio from [30]. So tagged. MER-C 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhole society

Orphaned, no verification. Not notable. Delete. Just H 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also seems to be a neologism. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced and uverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism, 221 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ronbo76 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable neologism Jayden54 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete it's a non-notable neologism that cannot be verified. TSO1D 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete insufficiently sourced neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 22:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support for evolution

As my user page shows, I am certainly not a pseudoscientist, but this type of article isn't good for the health of Wikipedia and coverage of evolution. The article is a clear POV fork, something which shouldn't be created and in my experience can actually cause POV problems in the opposite way that was intended. By sequestering this information into its own article rather than adding it to the appropriate articles such as Creation-evolution_controversy, the page decreases the support for evolution in the articles that people will actually read. POV forks shouldn't be created just because it is difficult to make the proper articles have a neutral point of view. As a note, I should also mention that much of the material doesn't seem very informative. Evolution is an accepted scientific theory, and as such I would think that support for it by scientific organizations would be presumed. Listing scientific organizations that support evolution is like listing financial organizations that deal with money. --Philosophus ^T 07:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I no longer propose deletion and now support the solution outlined below, with the page being moved to "Opinions on Evolution" but being redirected to "Evidence for Evolution". --Philosophus ^T 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure that's clear. It couldn't be both moved to "opinions on evolution" and made into a redirect to "evidence for evolution". Well, I guess it could but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. — coelacan talk — 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is to move the contents of the page to an article titled Opinions on evolution; while a user searching for "support for evolution" will be redirected to Evidence for evolution since he/she is more likely to be looking for the ideas that support evolution, rather than the people.

If this solution is adopted, it will involve manually resetting the links that currently point to Support for evolution. Philosophus, correct me if I am putting wrong words in your mouth, and I will strike out this post in order to avoid confusion. Abecedare 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct. That is the idea that I proposed somewhere in the depths below. --Philosophus ^T 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Response The entire area that concerns this controversy is immense, over dozens and dozens of articles. The Creation-evolution_controversy article is a tiny tip of the iceberg. I have begun documenting some of the voluminous number of articles at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles. This area is too large to be contained in one article by far. One could of course dismiss the entire subject by saying "there is no controversy, so all of those articles have no reason to exist". But in fact, there is a thriving controversy, with immense sums of money being expended on both sides. Dozens of court battles have been waged. Many states have implemented laws or flirted with implementing laws associated with this. The list of arguments on both sides runs up into the hundreds or thousands. Of course, WP cannot address all of this. But what WP can do is to provide some sort of structure to some of this material so someone from the outside can access it and understand it. At the moment, the Creation-evolution_controversy is too long and is poorly written and hard to understand. What I would like to do is to provide a service for the average reader like the high school kid who wants to learn what it is about and the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, the parent who is trying to understand the situation, the creationist who wants to have a clear view of how to change his or her strategy, the politician who wants to get up to speed to understand the issue, and so on and so forth. It cannot be written for philosophers of science, as many of the articles in WP on this topic are; they are worthless for the average person. It cannot be written for scientists who already have their PhDs; that is what we have in a large fraction of the evolution articles which do not acknowledge that the controversy even exists (nor should they, in my opinion). Problem areas in the argument which arise over and over and are huge sources of confusion should be written clearly with copious references on both sides, as I have done. Every charge and counter charge, involved in some way with support, I have found sources for both sides. If I have to rewrite it to make it more balanced, then so be it, I will do it.--Filll 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Because you haven't provided a justification yet, I will leave a comment for now. There is no article like Support for creationism or Support for intelligent design, so an article like this is a bit cumbersome. Add the fact, there is also no chance for this article to ever succeed at not violating NPOV. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long - I had the justification written and was editing it when I pressed Ctrl-W to delete a word in the way that works everywhere else in Unix - except for Firefox. And then I ran into an edit conflict... --Philosophus ^T 07:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Delete per what I said and the nomination. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete. While I agree with the article and the motivation of its creator, it _is_ inherently POV - Wikipedia is not talk.origins. I appreciate User:Filll's motives in trying to ensure that we accurately characterize the debate and the nature of science, but I don't think this is the way to do it. Tevildo 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Filll was trying to help here. I've written a longer explanation as to why I think this article could be harmful to Wikipedia on Filll's talk page, and it probably should be copied here. --Philosophus ^T 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Perhaps the organization information is not presented in the best possible fashion. We are considering a map format instead to make it more presentable. This can easily be resolved so it is not such a laundry list. I also have multiple statements in the text stating the opposing position, with links to 4 creationist organizations and their lists of hundreds of supporters as well. To satisfy the NPOV concerns, I propose to create a seperate prominent section where I collect all the contrary evidence that disputes support for evolution, prominently, and call it dispute for support for evolution. I also propose to change the title of the article to something more neutral. I do not believe that this article is an inaccurate description of the current situation. It is a straightforward description of the level of support for evolution, both positive and negative, in various domains. It states claims of support or lack of support in each domain, and then bolsters it with evidence on both sides. I also propose to create separate articles on support for creationism. I am currently logging the articles that support creationism and describe the arguments that creationists use. There are many of these; many more than there are evolution articles. This is because evolution mainly concerns itself with science on WP, and does not state its case in any way except by describing the nature of the science. On the other hand, creationism is in an aggressive stance with numerous arguments and organizations and strategies that are laid out in a very impressive suite of articles, dwarfing the "creation-evolution controversy" article and the small section in evolution attempting and failing at answering a few critiques of evolution by creationists (and doing it quite poorly and incoherently, and basically of no value to the reader at all, frankly). Even the creation-evolution controversy article spends relatively little space describing the details and aspects of the controversy. Most of it describes the accusations/objections in vague terms, and then the opposite side as well in vague terms. A reader who is not schooled in this debate will gain little from this overly academic imprecise hand-waving description. I ask that I be given a stay of execution to at least bring the article up to snuff. --Filll 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been here for quite a while, and have been fighting pseudoscientists like Aetherometrists, Anti-relativists, Pull-on-finger-to-diagnose-cancerists and New-age-quantumists since I created this account. I've experienced POV forks and their effects before, and know that creating POV forks like this isn't the right way to go about editing. The information itself in a POV fork can be NPOV, it is the content that is the issue - you are moving content which should be on one page into two pages, creating a battlefield of opposing articles. The consensus on Wikipedia is that this should not be done due to the many ill effects of doing so.

As for the Evolution article, it should not contain significant information about the controversy. The article is about science, not media and religious controversy. Since creationism doesn't satisfy the appropriate source requirements (from the Pseudoscience ArbCom case) to be presented as scientific, it shouldn't be afforded space in the article. The controversy information belongs in the controversy article, which is about controversy, not science. But even then, creationism doesn't have appropriate sources to allow for defence against criticism in proper sources. You are viewing this as a battle, when in reality, it isn't one. --Philosophus ^T 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I will make it more obvious in the article that it is balanced and NPOV. It would be great if we could fit all this entire topic into one article. But there is no way to do it. It can be divided up by subject, by subtopic or whatever, but it is too big. A very small investigation shows that to be eminently clear. In fact, I think it would be great if we could wave a magic wand and make it completely disappear and never have to worry about it again. I do not think that is going to happen, given that the support level for evolution operating without supernatural interference in the general public is around the 10 or 15 % level in the US, and a good half of those surveyed were unable to pick the correct definition of "evolution" from a list of several possible definitions. Given that in the last couple of presidential elections, politicians on both Democratic and Republican sides have pledged to allow creationism in the science classroom, this is a movement with momentum, like it or not. Given the fact that the Santorum amendment is now in the records and will be treated as law to allow creationism in the science classroom, and the courts so far have not yielded, this is not going away. Given the vast sums of money on both sides involved, this will not go away. So you can claim there is nothing to write about here. You can claim that the entire subject is stupid, which it is, and no controversy exists, which it doesn't, in one sense. But that will not stop this creationism leviathan.--Filll 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the evolution article itself, I have pleaded to get the nonscientific nonsense out of it several dozen times. If a person tried to do it, I can promise that the editors who are protecting it would rise to the attack. I would not suggest it. You are welcome to try, however. It would be entertaining to watch, that is for sure.--Filll 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Drastically

Because of the comments here, I have changed the article substantially:

the lists of organizations that support evolution are gone now
I have a list of 4 organizations that support creationism
I can introduce a much longer list of organizations that support creationism. I am partway through a survey now and I can lengthen it considerably from 4 to maybe 50 or more creationist organizations.
I have put the creationist organizations in their own section and made them far more prominent.
I have devoted more space to creationist arguments and I will add more references. I have removed pro-evolution material.
I propose to enlist the assistance of some creationist editors to help add more creationist material.
I can change the title to make it blander. Perhaps the world support is too strong.
I can include more material about how creationism will probably come into US classrooms in any case because of the political situation, in spite of the supreme court rulings and other rulings.
There have been frequent calls from the creationist movement to recall all US judges (several tens of thousands) so that a proper judiciary can be installed. I will see if I can find the references to this and play it up as a good idea to balance things and make it more fair for creationists. People are angry at judges and they have a right to be. We dont need communists legislating from the bench. We need someone that knows the law and will give the US what it wants, which is a banning of evolution.--Filll 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this. A new article which explains your point of view much better than the several existing articles on the subject is called a POV fork and is almost always a bad idea. We already have extensive coverage of this topic. It doesn't matter that you're pushing the mainstream view here, it's still a fork. Incidentally, Filll, the immense sums of money are only being spent by the creationists, I think - evolution has no need of promotion these days, it's accepted as the default hypothesis even by many Christians. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Sorry - but Delete.~~ It's great, full of useful information, etc. But it really should all be included in Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, Evidence for evolution, etc. To fork it off in this way gives a hostage to fortune by suggesting that it is possible for a scientist to NOT support evolution. If I nominate nonsense like Argument from beauty for deletion on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I must do the same in the case of this article. Snalwibma 11:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- After watching the article develop for a while, I now change my opinion to keep. I am particularly impressed (and persuaded) by the way it fits into the schema at Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Snalwibma 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork. Article is already covered elsewhere, as descirbed above. Unnecessary and looks like a POV fork/soapbox for griping at creationists. Titanium Dragon 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pov fork. -Doc^g 13:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. POV? Evolution is a fact, and there has to be a full listing of all the information that states it is a fact. For anyone that follows the various articles that deal with Evolution, including Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, these points have to be made and remade numerous times. This article will save many keystrokes (and possible strokes) when in discussions in all of the articles. We all know that Evolution is fact-based; the flat earthers don't. Orangemarlin 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't pretend to be neutral about a topic like this and don't intend to try, but it seems to me that support for evolution would belong in another article first at least with summary style, which doesn't seem to be the case here, in order for this not to be a pov fork. Homestarmy 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge POV-fork with evidence of evolution. The distinction between "support" and "evidence" is not well-argued in my mind. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can legally say what I am about to say, but can we go with Merge as a compromise? I think this is a great idea. Orangemarlin 22:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but expand scope and move to Opinions on Evolution. As is, the article is a POV fork. In line with what I told Filll at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV, I think the solution in general is more information, not less. There's good reason to talk about the nature of the debate and in particular where prominent individuals and groups stand, but only reporting on one side is a problem. – Anþony talk 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, this article is phenomenally well-sourced and researched. I don't think it is a POV fork, as it documents the subject fairly well and has room within it for critical analysis. I could see an argument for merging it with Creation-evolution controversy, but not for evidence of evolution which deals purely with the scientific evidence. The previous commenter's suggestion of naming it Opinions on evolution is a good one, however, and might avoid some POV bias in the title (and probably prevent someone from creating "Lack of Support for Evolution"). I have noted that Opinions on evolution is currently a redirect to Creation-evolution controversy, but I think this deals with a fundamentally different topic. Tarinth 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Creation-evolution controversy, of which this whole article is a facet. Zahir13 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep following rewrite, and Move to Opinions on evolution per above comments. I still can't help feeling that this material would be better in Creation-evolution controversy, but that's a battleground I don't really want to traipse into. Tevildo 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move to Opinions on evolution as a sub-page for Creation-evolution controversy, where it would make a suitable main article for the #Common venues for debate section which at present states "Most Christian denominations have an official stance on the controversy.... Some groups that explicitly advocate for creationism and against evolution include..." then lists sample denominations, but has no information on those supporting theistic evolution, and little info on other venues of debate. ..dave souza, talk 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and move as per above. Although who support evolution and who don't is briefly described in various places, I believe it would be good to devote more space to the phenomenon. Readers of Wikipedia that want more than a short paragraph on the support of evolution could then be directed to the (merged) text. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should provide facts where facts are needed, and the contribution of Filll does just that. --EthicsGradient 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into evidence of evolution. There's nothing wrong with including this information in Wikipedia, but we don't need yet another separate article doing so. Make it easier on the reader by consolidating. — coelacan talk — 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Snalwibma and DGG have flattened out my opinion. I don't know exactly how I would vote now, and so I'm just retracting my earlier vote without replacing it. Pretend I never walked in the door. — coelacan talk — 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's really quite good, but it just doesn't work on its own as an encyclopaedia article. I'm sure this information can be housed in a related evolution article. GassyGuy 01:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that more of a "merge" then? — coelacan talk — 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't particularly like this redirect, a lot of this info is already found elsewhere, there's no one article into which it should go, ~~and I don't know that having the fork's edit history is a particularly good idea~~. GassyGuy 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Understood. — coelacan talk — 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This was my opinion as well - that the information was essentially good, but needed to be dispersed among various articles, and redirecting "support for evolution" to an NPOV page on the controversy would be somewhat difficult to justify. How about the following: the article could be moved to Opinions on Evolution as others have suggested, which seems to be a proper title for the content it is covering. Support for Evolution, instead of being redirected to Opinions, would be then be redirected to Evidence of Evolution, since after all, evolution's greatest support is from evidence. If this is agreeable to others then I will retract my nomination. --Philosophus ^T 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - well put. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and on those grounds I will retract my "delete" response. Move to Opinions on evolution. Snalwibma 09:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree–to meet GassyGuy's concern about edit history, would it be better to cut and paste the info rather than using the move function? Regarding dispersal, it's my understanding that several articles make reference to the extent of opinions, but don't have space to cover the point in so much detail, so this would be a useful resource making summary style sections fully adequate for each article and avoiding unnecessary duplication. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentThis was our original intent on writing this article. Note that this article was not just written by me; I had coeditors when it was in a sandbox form for the last couple of weeks. I did not invite enough people to help probably; I will not make that mistake again. I would expect that all of the relevant articles would have a sentence or two that describe this, and then hopefully a link to this central subarticle that summarizes as much of the information on this topic as possible. It is not possible to do justice to this in another article in any depth, and I do not think it is desirable. I am not in favor of making our main articles so long and bulky that they are unreadable. I also will note that I have encountered this argument over and over by creationists; there is no support for evolution by the public, by religions, by scientists etc. Also evolution supporters are often a bit foggy about the level of support in each of these domains for evolution. This article attempts to describe very accurately what the situation is. Where creationism is strongly supported and how firm that support is. Where evolution is strong and how strongly supported. It does not ignore the ambiguity that exists on either side, which I do not think is useful for either party in this controversy, and not helpful for someone who is looking in from the outside and trying to understand the nature of the dispute.--Filll 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I too think that Opinions on evolution would be a better title for this article; with Support for evolution being a redirect to Evidence for evolution. Abecedare 15:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The new Opinions on evolution can also cite the relgious oppositions and the concerns in the public sphere. That should also eliminate the POV concerns. Abecedare 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've stricken the edit history concern. I meant more I just didn't want anything with that title to be directing anywhere, but I suppose a move would take care of that. Not sure I like having this name redirect anywhere, but certainly better the proposed way. GassyGuy 14:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is relevant, well-written, covers the different aspects and POVs, and is referenced. Abecedare 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete topic already covered in other articles as above (Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, Evidence for evolution, etc.) Billlion 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unencyclopedic. --Wildnox (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep We obviously need to be careful about POV concerns here but given the size of the main articles on this subject a fork was clearly necessary. JoshuaZ 01:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is not the first fork. Each of the individual creationist positions has its article, and its arguments are presented in a sympathetic way. So do various aspects of evolution. It was never possible to keep a single article on evolution with all of the material--there is simply too much that needs to be said. I do not see this article, or the many creationist articles, as a POV fork, but a content fork. The creationist movement is notable enough and diverse enough to need articles on the movement--those coming first to these topics might not realize the range of possible positions. The movement itself is notable, many of the people are, and some of the publications. We have separate articles on the (you name it) view of evolution, and rightly so.
Similarly, the movement to support evolution is deserving of an article in its own right, as are many of the people, and some of the publications. It is not reasonable to always present the positions as a Q and A exchange.
This particular article is neither. it is an eminently fair article on the state of the controversy, not on the merits of the positions. it is far better that this be centralized in an article exploring it in depth than presented in a superficial way dozens of times. This is an article on the state of the debate, not the merits of the theory.

*As a practical matter, anyone who has tried to edit any of the articles concerned will realize they are best edited separately, or else we have 10 subpages or 10 linked articles each saying the same thing. What is needed on all of these is depth. This article is a start. The POV question is whether the articles as a whole are fair, and they are. False statments in any of them should be challenged, but it is impossible to deny thaty the different views exist, and that there are intellectually honest people who support each of them.DGG 04:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I was extremely skeptical about whether an article like this could be POV or valuable, after seeing the title. However, upon actually reading the article, I was amazed by how interesting, well-referenced, neutral, and most of the article is. This is an impressive accomplishment, and although I am a strong mergist in general, the sheer amount of information here makes it clear that full merging is not currently an option; if editors find that a large portion of the information is unencyclopedic, redundant, unreferenced, or non-noteworthy, then they can trim it, and after the trimming we can rediscuss a merger. Currently, though, the article's contents and topic seem to merit a distinct article. Could someone explain to me why it does not? I am not closed to the idea of deleting it, because I am wary of POV forks, but right now it seems like we'd just be losing a very interesting and useful article (albeit one that could still use a lot of improvement, sure). -Silence 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, oppose move to Opinions on evolution or anything of the sort. The current Support for evolution article is tight, concise, and focused; I worry that if we made it as vague as "Opinions", it would rapidly accumulate trivia, cruft, and a wide variety of unrelated issues. Plus it just seems like a less encyclopedic topic; gauging how much broad support there is for evolution among various people is clearly an academic topic, but simply listing a random group of "opinions on evolution" seems too arbitrary and unfocused. If the reason this move is being proposed is because of concerns that people will interpret this article title as a POVed Wikipedia article in support of evolution, then my proposal is to move this article to a title that clarifies the current topic, not to a title that would dramatically change the topic. So, I'd recommend a move to something like Level of support for evolution, not to Opinions on evolution. -Silence 08:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I had suggested something with the word measures or measuring in the title. How about Measuring support for evolution ? Evolution support metrics ? (possibly too complicated) Gauging evolution support ? (probably too complicated) Measures of support for evolution? or if opinions have to be used, Measuring opinions of evolution? Measuring evolution beliefs? Evolution belief statistics? or something similar. I gather that a while back there was an article called Evolution poll or something similar but it was deleted through AfD. The words "poll" and "survey" are ok, but this article also includes petitions, and statements etc to try to express support for one side or the other, so "poll" and "survey" are too narrow. The reason I chose "support" over "opinions" or "beliefs" originally was that "opinions" sounds more just a whim, based on no information, and "beliefs" sounds too religious. Both "opinions" and "beliefs" sort of make scientists queasy, and "support" sounds more neutral in that sense. I did ponder the conflict with evidence for evolution before I named it, and wondered if there would be confusion about the name. But these names are not easy to come up with. I should mention that I think the word "level" is fine as well. --Filll 14:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Level of support" simply because it avoids a self-reference. This isn't an article about measuring the level of support for evolution (i.e., explaining the statistical and polling methods in great detail), it's an article about the level of support itself; statistics and metrics are just a means to that end. -Silence 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. "Measures" and "metrics" suggest that the article describes the polls, surveys, petitions, fatwahs, etc. It does, but only tangentially. It is more what the measurements are, but "measurements" is a very long word.--Filll 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep reasonable subarticle of Creation-evolution contraversy, also linked from several other articles. Well sourced, verifiable, encyclopaedic. Is this a content dispute or something? WilyD 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a dispute over POV forks which died after a reasonable solution was devised. --Philosophus ^T 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, well sourced and decent subarticle, and per Philosophus' comment above. --HassourZain 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have continued to add material on both sides and add citations for the unsourced statements. I am now going to add more cites of political material, as per the plan on the article talk page. If one looks, one will see that evolution has more support in some ways, and creationism has more support in other ways. There is plenty of ambiguity in the situation as well, which I try to capture. --Filll 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, well-written and references a-plenty. ~ Flame vip e r 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. The article is nicely focused on the support for evolution within different communities. It isnt attempting to describe Evolution or provide Evidence of evolution. I would be just as happy for a well written Support for creationism to exist. John Vandenberg 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Bulldogge

I'm not finding much in the way of evidence that this is a notable or recognized breed of dog. Indeed, the article seems to read like an advertisement or press release for a particular breeder, and evidence indicates that any use of the term "British bulldogge" is an alternative/antiquated and possibly typographically incorrect spelling (very few Google hits) in reference to the current standard accepted breed of bulldog (or other "bulldogges", such as the Olde English Bulldogge, which actually is CKC recognized).

Delete due to lack of WP:RS; no redirect to the correct spelling. Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I found this article via recent changes patrol and was very suspicious of the article's tone, but I wasn't completely sure since I'm not too knowledgable about dogs. The author of the article has also created Bulldogge, Bulldogges, British Bulldogge Kennel Club (which was speedy deleted and then recreated) and Bull baiting (which I've turned into a redirect to the better-written bull-baiting). I don't know what the author it trying to achieve by creating all these redundant, unsourced articles, but it bothers me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: if this article goes, then Old English Bulldog needs to be cleaned up to remove the section that is essentially a duplicate of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'll do that. The user also added the content of bull baiting (which was an unsourced POV bit) into bull-baiting. He's also created Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club, which screams "spam" to me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This page (and the one that was speedied) is more or less an ad for Tim Kelly and his breeding. There is no sourcing that this is some new recognized breed. Montco 07:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Borderline G11, entirely unsourced. Tevildo 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The breeder is one of the founders of this breed of dog... you are allowing Olde English Bulldogges which is the name invented by David Leavitt... and now the breeders have broken gain into Leavitt Bulldogs and British Bulldogges -- these are the inner working of the breeders at the center of this movement... the circle of breeders includes Tim Kelly who is the founder of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club which you allow on wikipedia. He has indeed founded a new club the BBKC... I am not trying to spam about the club, while I am a member -- these are rare breed dogs that deserve a small corner of the universe to tell their story... and I simply want to put them on the pages where they belong... the breeding programme that started in the 70's has progressed and the different strains are now established and the circles are evolving and the story should be able to be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsoren (talk • contribs)
- There are two issues here. The main one is the lack of reliable sources for the entry. We'll need some third-party sources to establish that this is a recognized breed. The second one is notability. I don't know enough about dog-breeding to offer a definite opinion on this issue, but (presumably) the CKC recognition that the rival breed has obtained is enough to establish Olde English Bulldogge as notable. (Is CKC, as opposed to AKC or UKC, recognition actually enough? If not, perhaps the other article should go, as well). This breed needs to establish that it's at least as notable as its rival. Tevildo 07:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete adding "ge" to the end does not make this an encyclopaedic topic, especially since there is apparently only one breeder. Is it just me, or does this look like a People's Front of Judea kind of thing? Also, it reads like an advert. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable breed of dog developed recently by one person. No indication of kennel club acceptance.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the Bulldog is the same as the British Bulldog, there is no such breed as the British Bulldogge. The Old English Bulldog is an extinct breed of dog and warrants and article. Headphonos 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per the comments above. Jayden54 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete apparently an unrecognised breed available from only one breeder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above comments; note that I've proposed deletion on Wilkinson Bulldog, which this article's author mentioned as an article similar to this with little outside sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
delete - even less notable than Olde English Bluudogge. When someone outside the community of breeders writes an article about the attempt to revive the old English Bulldog, then we can bring some of these articles back. Argyriou (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as non-verifiable, as there seems to be little if any external corroboration of the existence of the breed. However, reserve the right to restore the article if such external verification should become available. Badbilltucker 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) changing opinion to

Keep I have been informed by someone whom I believe is better informed about these issues than I am that this breed is known to her, and I have faith in the character of that editor. The lack of external evidence tht we now have can probably be corrected, and, if it is not with time, the page can always be nominated again. Badbilltucker 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

keep important reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanAmericanHistorian (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 08:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bethlehem Tadesse

Vanity article about some girl. Reads like nonsense. Recommend speedy delete. Article was changed by the user after the AfD tag added. Please see history. Ronbo76 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As it stands, it's an A3 candidate - not sure if it would be legitimate to delete it for that reason, though. Tevildo 07:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. A3, A1, A7, conceivably G2 - take your pick. :) Tevildo 07:54, 4 January 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 A7 by Angela. Tevildo 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vizier of Damascus

Musician. Almost certainly autobiographical. No references. Dubious notability. -- RHaworth 07:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - CSD A7 Jayden54 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be a Bear

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Notability not asserted. Royalbroil^T : C 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 11:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

===Jackie and the Bellringers===Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd. 2

Appears to be some type of parody of Rush (band). Note the surname of some of the band members. Zero Google hits. Notability in question. MegX 07:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The only source provided does not mention the subject, meaning there are problems with verifiability and reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 09:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and might even be a hoax. Jayden54 11:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. MER-C 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of Emotional Tone in Mediation

An essay; notability is not asserted. Akihabara 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Essay, fails WP:OR. Tevildo 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Quite obviously just someone's essay. --Folantin 08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete OR, non-notable --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as OR essay. What, another mediation article? Author's contribs should be checked, AFAIK there were a whole bunch of "mediation" type articles created by the same person, all of them speedied or speedily redirected a couple of weeks back. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - completely WP:OR and fails WP:V Jayden54 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Actually I believe a merge is appropriate, otherwise per above Darkcraft 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge the info into a real article Tragic romance 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as spam. utcursch | talk 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragon Disk Wiper

Non-notable software Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And co-nominating these two articles created by User:Paragon Software as non-notable spam --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete all as corporate vanity. So tagged. MER-C 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - non-notable software, possibly advertising. Jayden54 11:12, 4 January 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 DVD+ R/W 06:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hari Ananth

No real claim to notablity whatsoever, no coverage in third-party sources. [31] [32]. Punkmorten 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Improving it is impossible as no sources exist. Fails WP:RS/WP:V, several points of WP:NOT and WP:COI. People who say keep fail to demonstrate the meeting of these policies. Punkmorten 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Ananth is becoming accredited for his role in the movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, and is rumored to be taking a role in the acting industry. He will undoubtedly have his own page after filming another movie, so this page may as well stay. PatrickOMoran 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by PatrickOMoran (talk • contribs) was actually added by 65.26.234.226 (talk • contribs) -
- Well, he is not accredited, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor a place to spread unsourced rumours. Punkmorten 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - could be improved with time, as he is becoming increasingly popular among young adults. Cberlet 13:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by Cberlet (talk • contribs) was actually added by 65.26.234.226 (talk • contribs) -
- He is not popular, not the slightest, there are no third-party coverage on him outside of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. His claim to fame is hardly worth mentioning. Jayden54 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - concur with nom. Ronbo76 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. An actor with even a small role in Citizen Kane or Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is notable. --Eastmain 01:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- He is not an actor, and did not play any role. Not even IMDB lists him. Punkmorten 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wakey wakey Eastmain! Citizen Kane was released four decades before it's claimed that this non-entity (or similar) was born. -- Hoary 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) .... This comment was deleted by User:HariA08 at 05:18 10 January. PS Oh, right, I get it, he's supposed to have had a part in a remake of Kane. Trouble with that is: (i) what looks at first sight like evidence for the existence of this film is just flim-flam (there was a note with a link to a page that didn't mention it); User:Hari08 (a dual-purpose account; puffing Hari Ananth and vandalizing apparent obstacles to this) added a credit to Hari Ananth on the article about the original, genuine, worth-thinking-about-for-more-than-ten-seconds Citizen Kane. -- Hoary 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no non trivial coverage of his role, no other sourced claims to notability. Eluchil404 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Born and raised in extreme poverty and then entering at the Indian Institute of Technology meets his Bio.DoDoBirds 08:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not when there is no verifiable third-party coverage about it. Punkmorten 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Punkermorten, as described in his profile, is supposed to monitor pages that deal with geography, Norway, and sports. Therefore, he should leave this site alone and get a life other than Wikipedia. You're in college. You're 20. Go have fun and stop ruining everyone else's. Furthermore, Mr. Ananth is obviously not some Will Ferrel, Adam Sandler, Kal Penn, or the like, but you never know where life will take you. He may very well rise to the top of Hollywood. And then what? The British came to India and took everything from us. Now when we try to regain our status, you try and bring us down again? What is it with white people? I demand a deep and sincere apology! --Ashwin Betrabet 21:12, 9 January (UTC)

Reply -- Hi! Ashwin Betrabet, I agreed to your comments. Please make it sure whether this artilce is there in the India deletion page.DoDoBirds 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment readers may be interested to note that what appears to be a "Keep" vote by the username "Ashwin Betrabet" is actually "signed" with the article Ashwin Betrabet, now undergoing AfD (although its AfD notice, like that on Hari Ananth keeps being removed). -- Hoary 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.DoDoBirds 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

- Keep I saw a short clip about him while on the plane from Mumbai.--65.29.46.101 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Fascinating claim, Mr/Ms IP. Would you care to provide some verification for that? -- Hoary 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    - No, I would not. Why don't you call up Air India and ask them for the list of their programming on Mumbai to London flights from August 2006 if you're so worried about it?65.29.46.101 05:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Because I'm not the slightest bit worried about it. If you have evidence, let's see that evidence. Till then, your anecdote is of no import. -- Hoary 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        You evidently are, otherwise you would have never made that first post. I'm right until proven wrong. Call my "anecdote" a theory and accept it.65.29.46.101 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this silliness, and cut out the sock/meat-puppetry. -- Hoary 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious, as revealed by the telling "1941 remake of" the Borat movie. JuJube 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep faulty editing, my friend. Madndndrumr711 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment By the way, none of the links gives any proof of this guy's notability, not even the IMDb link. JuJube 05:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Keep IMBD does not list every single person that appears in the movie. If it did, there would by thousands of people on there. Madndndrumr711 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Why provide a link that does not source the page at all, then? JuJube 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Keep First of all, I am not the one who posted that link. Feel free to remove it. Second, why do you care so much? Madndndrumr711 12:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom + sock/meatpuppetry—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obvious hoax. Tintin (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I checked the sources--neither offers a hint of this person's existence. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- And on a second note, this article was speedy-deleted while I checked sources--in any case, I endorse speedy deletion, DVD R W is right. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 06:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. Even if not hoax, utterly unimportant. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 10 January 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. Proto::► 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shemale art Transgender art

This article is completely unsourced, and horribly, unsalvageably POV. Without any form sort of evidence, I'm very cynical that such a genre exists in the form described here at all. Junk like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rebecca 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Someone's summary of their friend's drawing styles does not constitute encyclopedic content, even if it were a genuine, citable genre. - Mark 05:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No credible references, not verifiable, not encyclopedic, not to mention incredibly bad taste. Wikipedia may not be censored, but we aren't hustler or penthouse either. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also... want to note that someone removed the AFD notice and moved the article. I don't know if they were intentionally trying to cover up the AFD, but I replaced the notice. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research and with no credible claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. Ronbo76 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Close as ritually incorrect, and move to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. AfD is not the place to discuss deleting redirects. The page I saw attempts to redirect to transgender art. An AfD notice has apparently been added to that page, but it redirects to this AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was moved after the AfD was opened. This is the article under discussion. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've retitled this AfD and removed the tag from the redirect page. The redirect can be R1'd when this AfD is finished. Tevildo 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - shemale porn yes, shemale art no. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge anything worth saving at futanari, at least pending some kind of consensus as to what an optimal English language subject for such an article would be. The current article at transgender art, which is apparently the original subject of this AfD, contains data which is perhaps as well referenced as it can be, given that it involves a rather obscure genre practiced by amateur cartoonists. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge I believe that a quality article could be written on this subject. The editor provided links which should probably have been used for inline citations. I think the proper editorial guidance could save the article. However, that may be a burdensome task. Merge useful infor as above. TonyTheTiger 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

{

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JzG. MER-C 10:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizon blog

Not notable CiaranG 09:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This article is about software which is still in beta. No independent sources are provided and the only external link (to the official site) is not working. Apparently this software does not meet the WP:SOFTWARE criteria. --Metropolitan90 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, obviously. Yet to be released, unverifiable, perhaps original research. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:31, 4 January 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. -Doc^g 11:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micro Multinational corporation, List of micro multinational corporations

Proposing deletion per lack of WP:V. ^{[Check Google hits]}; the term is basically nonexistant, and the article uses nothing but jargon. Seems like its sole purpose is to justify articles for some non-notable companies in the examples section, which are also being listed with this nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete a mix of neologism and puffery. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - per WP:NEO and maybe WP:NFT. I think this is just a fancy made-up term for a startup company. Jayden54 11:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - nn neologism, 13 ghits. MER-C 11:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NEO. Insanephantom please see my Editor Review 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olde English Bulldogge

An attempt to re-create a type of dog that died out. An attempt by very few people. And not recognised by the Kennel Club, so they formed their own kennel club to approve it, but it diesn't do other breeds. Looks like advertorial. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - This dog breed exists and is significant enough to warrant an wikipedia entry, see the external links at the bottom of the article or perform a google search to confirm it. Headphonos 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Existence is not significance. See WP:N. Where are the multiple non-trivial external sources? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep verifiable information, see [33] --Doc^g 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ads.aspx? "Do you want to see your own ad in this section"? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No [34]. I think that just means the ads beow the article.--Doc^g 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The British Bulldogge is definitely a hoax. However, this breed isn't. Which created kennel club are you referring to? Also, that type of dog didn't die out, it evolved into the modern bulldog. And though registry with the Continental Kennel Club proves very little (they'd accept any group of dogs that may possibly, vaguely resemble each other to be a "breed") resgistry with the American Rare Breed Association is far more significant[35]. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, maybe merge. Not notable. All sources derive from the club breeding this dog. The organizations which recognize the breed appear to recognize any breed which has an organization supporting it. Until there are sources discussing this breed from other than from breeders of this dog, it's not a notable-enough breed for its own article. It may deserve a mention on the bulldog page. Argyriou (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Should probably also look at deleting Winston Olde English Bulldogge. Argyriou (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~ changed vote to neutral, see below. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Headphonos. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or possibly compress into a solid paragraph and merge into another bulldog article. Apparently the breed is only recognised by those trying to breed them. When the AKC recognises it, an article will make more sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep for now, possibly could merge in future. Article appears to be the work of good faith editors and is reasonably encyclopedic. Addhoc 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is actually a pretty good article about a non-notable subject. There are two or three breeders breeding this dog, and there seem to be no mentions of this dog by anyone other than the breeders. If that changes, or if someone can supply a reference not related to the breeders, I'd be happy to change my vote to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Having taken another look, I think I was overly impressed with the references and external links. Also, I probably misread the nom and was primed for a WP:ADVERT instead of a mundane WP:N. The references don't appear to be about this breed [36][37], the external links are reasonably impressive, but not entirely convincing. A Google search lists plenty of the external links type and Ebay adverts for puppies, but again doesn't really convince. I'll strike my 'vote'. Addhoc 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep; here are some sources: [38]

"While his lineage is unknown, he appears to be an Olde English Bulldogge, authorities said Tuesday. That is a fairly uncommon and new breed"

"Glorasteen White, 54, was charged in February after Norfolk authorities seized an 80-pound Olde English Bulldogge named Sire at her house on Elkin Street."

--NE2 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not a source, or a reliable one at that, for the purposes of an encyclopedia. This source only verifies that the breed exists—actually it doesn't even do that, it only verifies that a layman was told the breed exists or thought the breed to exist. Regardless, it does not substantiate anything in the article. —Centrx→talk • 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It boggles the mind at how little knowledge people have about a particular subject, yet they feel compelled to participate. -:) Headphonos 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete seems like an attempt by the breeder community to create notability for their dogs.Montco 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What are you basing this statement on ? If we use your logic we would have to delete all dog breed articles and all other animal breed articles. Headphonos 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice of advertisement: User:Headphonos has advertised this discussion on the talk pages of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. —Centrx→talk • 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am not an anonymous user and I did not spam and I did not advertise, I advised members of the Wiki dog project of the deletion +tags so that they can participate in the proceedings. Headphonos 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - This is exactly the type of thing that ticks me off about Wikipedia. An overexhuberant, proffessional wiki cop article deleter, trying for a barnstar. As if Wikipedia has more credibility than the OEB. This is a legitimate breed and there are A LOT more than 3 or 4 breeders of this dog. BTW, I don't breed or even own one of these dogs but I'm not so stupid as to think that it's not a legitimate breed. It breeds true and has done so for over 30 years.I think if anything, the article needs to be watched and improved to protect it against advertorial abuse.User:DHollerman

Comment - according to this link [39] there are 13 breeders, which is more than 3, but possibly not enough for their own article. Also, Guy describes himself as "surly", which in my humble opinion is more accurate description than "overexhuberant"... Addhoc 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - there are no existing guidelines for notability in dogs, which I regret, so I have to assume that the only basis for deletion is lack of verifiability, which is not the case here. Certainly, we can always merge the page to another one later. Also, I would like to join in welcoming DHollerman to wikipedia with his/her first signed contribution above, and hope to hear more from this editor in the future. Badbilltucker 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment according to WP:N "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Personally, I'm not convinced this has been complied with. Addhoc 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Very strong keep — The two books cited on the article page discuss a very real trend by breeders to move away from the physical ailments of the modern English Bulldog. The Olde English Bulldogge is a very big part of that trend as it is one of a number of alternative bulldog breeds (e.g. the Victorian Bulldog) that exist now. Read the two books if you don't believe me. The books and authors have been cited on the front article page. I won't do your work for you. This breed and other alternative bulldog breeds have existed for many years. The person who originally posted that this article should be deleted believes that recognition by major kennel clubs is a necessary criterion for having a Wikipedia article. If we follow that logic, then you all better be prepared to remove dozens of articles on various dog breeds and hybrid breeds. My goodness, the Shar Pei was not even recognized by the AKC until 1991. But anyone with any true knowledge about canine breeds knows that the Shar Pei has been in existence long before the AKC and its supporters were ever around. For the record, I am not a breeder or even a pet owner. I discovered this breed through my own research because one day I probably would want to own a pet. This article should NOT be deleted and should be free for any person to peruse. Prospective pet owners are entitled to have as much information as possible available to their fingertips in order to make a wise and informed choice. This article should never have been nominated for deletion. User:Ranger Rabbit

Comment - neither book mentions this breed [40][41]. Also Google books doesn't turn up a single mention [42]. Addhoc 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The 160-page Jenkins/Mollett book details the current English Bulldogs origins, its serious health issues and the creation of Victorian Bulldog and the Olde English as viable alternatives. READ the book if you don't believe me. And by the way, a simple Google search is not research. You're not going to find information on rare dog breeds in that fashion.User:Ranger Rabbit

Yes, I know the book has 160 pages, because this information is given in the link I provided. Also, yes I know the book explains the creation of the Victorian Bulldog breed for the same reason. I haven't read the book and I'm not convinced you have either. Could you provide an extract? Overall, I'm not convinced there are multiple non-trivial external sources; I suggest you have a look at WP:N. Addhoc 18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This is one of the bulldog articles on Wikipedia we should keep. At least that is what the editors at Dorling Kindersley publishing house decided. I will have questions about several of the other bulldog breeds mentioned and/or with an article on WP (peruse my talk page where I'm working to sort this out for myself), but, this one, per my research so far, IMO, is currently a keep. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a search inside using Amazon.com's feature may help some reviewers of this AfD. For example, see this search I just performed. Keesiewonder 12:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Keesiewonder. The link demonstrates multiple published sources, the excerpts would appear that at least in some cases the mention isn't trivial. Addhoc 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Per Keesiewonder, there appears to be some outside references, but more references from above should be included in the article, and the article needs a serious hacking at - much too much trivia. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep. I'm sorry that a few of the people here are not familiar with this breed, but I must state that they have no idea what they are talking about SIMPLY because they know nothing about the topic, the "Olde English Bulldogge". Refer to Wikipedia's definition of a breed then refer to the American Rare Breed Associations website www.arba.org . Then refer to the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club www.oldeenglishbulldoggekennelclub.com . Also, two books written by Carl Semencic, "World of fighting dogs" and "Gladiator Dogs" not only describe this dogs origin back in 1984, but quotes the breeds creator. Unfortunately the breed was abandoned by it's creator back in 1994 and as aresult many unethical Bulldog breeders took the opportunity to capitalize on his departure from the dog world by creating Hybrid Bulldogs and attaching the name Olde English Bulldogge to them. As the President of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club, I can attest to, in a court of Law, the bloodlines of this breed which are now being preserved by the O.E.B.K.C. Only Olde English Bulldogges that can be traced back to the original foundatoin can be registered with the OEBKC. The registry contains over 550 Bulldogges, past and present. There is much to this story, but the story is long and I don't believe that is what people are looking for here. However, I am disappointed that statements have been made here that CLEARLY have not been researched before they have been made and are TOTALLY INACCURATE. These are the type of people that have given the unethical breeders a market for their Bulldog Hybrids. People that are unwilling to do their homework before spewing their opinions. I could be wrong here, but I thought Wikipedia was opposed to that type of ignorance? User:donpelon

Where are your independent sources? A book which quotes the original breeder may not be terribly independent. Argyriou (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I need some help determining whether the following three users are distinct or the same.

Headphonos

User:donpelon

User:Don Pelon

As I've said before, this article deserves to be kept. I am not (yet) comfortable with the variety of bulldog articles (see list at my talk) present overall, and I am not feeling like all users participating in various places are distinct users. What is the WP term for this? sock puppetry? So, if someone can help me figure this out, I'd appreciate it. Keesiewonder 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not "Don Pelon"...bye! Headphonos 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. When I placed something on donpelon's page, you immediately moved it. Usually completely separate users don't maintain each other's pages so quickly, but fine. What about "donpelon" and "Don Pelon"? Keesiewonder 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be me, "Don Pelon" my real name is Leo Paulding. I'm new to this discussion system. "donpelon" was the result of my first post. I'm getting the hang of it. I will update my personal page soon.Don Pelon 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for the clarification and for joining us. Keesiewonder 21:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep there seems to be multiple mentions of the breed on a variety of different webpages. There are published standard [43], its recognised by some kennal clubs, many breaders use the term, theres many other local groups who have accepted it [44],[45]. So maybe the bigger national Kennal Clubs have not recognised it, but wikipedia is not the mouth peace of these groups. --Salix alba (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is my stance that a well-written, correctly formatted, and referenced article deserves to stay, or at least have its content remain. ~ Flame vip e r 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Weak Delete This article should either be deleted or completely redone. I agree that parts of it sound like advertising and there are serious POV issues as well. Some info is unverifiable as well. Whatever the case, serious edits are in order and I think this article can be greatly shortened by deleting irrelevant info.--RexRex84 21:29, 11 January 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. Consensus suggests that the Trinity Broadcasting Network is indeed notable (5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high). However, it could certainly use some cleanup (e.g., sources: even if they're "out of print" as the article suggests, or NPOV: "teaches God's word"). It will be tagged as such. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colby's Clubhouse

First of all, I was unable to find a notability guideline for TV shows, which strikes me as a little weird -- perhaps I just didn't know where to look. Or looked very badly. Anyway! Colby's Clubhouse gets 359 Google hits, and for a TV show that's still being broadcast (in reruns, sure, but still), that strikes me as very little. I couldn't find any links to anything that actually discussed, reviewed or in any way noted the existence of the TV show, other than scheduling information, a few fansites and whatnot -- nothing that would indicate that the show had been noted in the media. Going by the general notability guideline -- specifically, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" -- I don't think it qualifies. On the other hand, it should probably be stressed that they show it on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and I kind of get the feeling that what they do over there doesn't necessarily make a big impact on the, ah, more secular world... so the Google test may once again be a little weak here. TBN is apparently received in five million households per week, so potentially, I guess the show could be a fairly big deal... but I don't think it is. I guess one question to ask here would be "is every TV show notable?" I'm open to arguments to the contrary here, but I'm thinking no. -- Captain Disdain 09:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not aware of any specific guidelines for TV shows either, but it lacks reliable sources to show notability, and fails WP:V. As the nominator states, Google only gives 359 hits and Google Google News gives nothing. Jayden54 11:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 11:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a Christian show for very very small kids, so it's hardly likely to have an online fan presence like The Simpsons or Star Trek (that said, there does appear to be at least one unofficial fan site for it). While I'm not sure I want to go on record as having said that "all TV shows are notable", it seems to me that a TV show that lasted 3 seasons and is STILL on air on the largest Christian network in the world is notable by any reasonable definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep As embarassed as I am to admit it, I saw this show a couple times in my younger years. As mentioned before, the ghit count isn't particuarly telling because it's a show for very young children and, on top of that, it serves a niche market. Because christian entertainment is certainly notable and this is a fairly well-known example within that market (perhaps not quite on the level of The Adventures of McGee and Me or Superbook but still well known) that makes it notable.--Velvet elvis81 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The nominator found 359 Ghits for a show still being broadcast in reruns unimpressive. I consider it a sign of notability that the show is still being broadcast. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - seems notable enough to keep. Liveforever22 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Think of it this way. If someone stumbles across this TV show one day (as I have in the past), they may look to Wikipedia for information about it. That's exactly what I did. Tamajared 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but it badly needs cleanup and someone to see what happened to the cast. If that still hasn't happened, THEN I would consider removal.

208.7.212.243 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Show is national (at least), and should be kept. It does need cleanup, though. -- azumanga 06:59, 6 January 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. No reliable sources for making an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 13:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing to Lose (Heroes)

A single episode of a not enormous TV series. There is already an episode list article. Past experience suggest that redirtecting will be speedily reverted, so I brought it here for discussion. The article is functionally empty. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no point in keeping an empty article on an episode of a semi-notable tv series. Jayden54 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's a great show if I do say so myself, but individual episodes of not-very-widely-viewed television shows generally are not notable. Redirect to the show's main article. Srose (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - A lot of shows have articles for individual episodes... Heroes is very popular, earning several nominations for numerous awards... if you delete it now, it's just going to be recreated in a few weeks when the episode comes to pass. We don't have to go trigger happy on the delete button just because the article was created a few weeks in advance... --light darkness ^(talk) 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And that justifies one-line articles on episodes whose title has yet to be finalised? I don't think so. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - All the other episodes have their own articles, why can't this one? Besides, the closer it gets to the air date, the more it will fill up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.249.94 (talk • contribs) on January 4, 2007 (UTC); Please sign your posts!
Keep - Lots of shows have individual episodes listed. Liveforever22 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Okay so it was posted a little early.. big deal.. It will be back up within 2 months with full detail. Question to the people above who say it's "not-very-widely-viewed," Isn't the series the number 1 or 2 show of the new freshman class? With over ten million viewers an episode, and thats just the US. I wonder what widely viewed means to you deletionists.. EnsRedShirt 08:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mergists, actually. You'd gat about 70% less server space used if you merged the episode articles into a series article. That woudl also remove the objection that the episode articles mostly appear to be functionally empty. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. JZG, I can appreciate what you were trying to do here, but this article has asserted its subjects notability pretty well, and I'd say it's better over all than...oh...Distractions (Heroes). I make no bones about this being a stub and not a great one at that. Still, it just seems odd, if not unfair, that any user persist on calling one article's deletion over others, especially after it's been improved rather than simply reposted. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - episodes of a TV series are inheritly notable, encyclopaedic and of wide spectrum of interest, reasons for deletion seems nullified due to the fact it's a stub now but when the episode airs it will grow exponentially. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Standard episode page. Someone should add the upcoming show template, though. - Peregrine Fisher 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
General comment. It's projected to air on 12 February. The title could change by then - it's already been switched around; the series could even be cancelled by that date. Additionally, all episodes of TV shows are not inherently notable, and 10 million viewers for an hour-long program is not really that great. Srose (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cancelled? That's a stretch. Any title change can be handled by link repair and/or redirects. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

...or merging to an episode list. Which makes much more sense and looks a lot less like fancruft. Incidentally, there are shows which have had ten million viewers in the UK alone. I don't think that's a huge figure for the US. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the highest rated show of the night, with about 15 million. see here. - Peregrine Fisher 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, no offense, but isn't it a bit unfair to use deletion, or articles for deletion to make the point that we should use a single one "Heroes season" page rather than pages for individual episodes. Should most/all the Heroes eps be deleted, we probably won't have much choice. But as is, "Nothing to Lose" was being used as scapegoat, and I just can't agree with that. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- I'm surprised that you think 10 million people who watch something isn't notable. It is the number one tv show among all the new releases this year, that alone has mean something. I'm wondering, how many people do you believe have to watch the show before you can say it is notable? --Pinkkeith 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If wikipedia has over 200 pages for episodes of Naruto, certainly it can give one up for Heroes. Static Universe 06:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is an upcoming episode confirmed by NBC and not a crystal ball episode. It just needs the upcoming episode tag. --Pinkkeith 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the title seems to be confirmed, and the article will cease to be a stub once the episode airs. Or were you planning to delete the article just for a few weeks? And it's ridiculous to claim this show isn't notable, it's one of the highest rated new shows, the highest rated in the 18-34 and 18-49 demographics, and NBC's highest rated new drama in five years. It also has a couple golden globe nominations. I'm not sure why some seem to be under the impression that only the highest rated shows should have episode articles. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge that mofo to an episode list. ~ Flame vip e r 22:00, 10 January 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 07:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Hunt

Internet marketer, the article was restored on request from prodded deletion at deletion review. The biographical basis for the article is thin though, at best one source that can be considered to meet the original notability requirement (about a Wikipedia spat of course), so I believe this article should be deleted unless more nontrivial sources can be provided. A Newsbank search turned out unsuccessful (i.e. more passing mentions and many stories about a high school senior). PS This is not a procedural listing. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. The "mainstream press" articles linked seem very promotional, making me wonder if Fost has some personal interest in promoting Hunt or BarCamp. In any case, since they're both articles by the same author, and since the articles only reference or quote her (they're not about) her, Hunt clearly fails the "multiple, independent published sources" notability criterion. —Psychonaut 12:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as nomination. Ronbo76 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Valrith 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't Delete Tara, her blog, and her projects are broadly significant. Heyjohngreen 5 PM, 4 January 2007 (PST)
Delete per nomination. Liveforever22 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, thoguhtful and well-reasoned. I found nothing "out there" to contradict T&E's statement above. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Um...I don't know if I'm allowed to do this - as I am actually the Tara Hunt being deleted - but the entry isn't encyclopedic. I will disagree that it was self-promotional. I was informed after the fact that it was entered and I would have certainly written it another way. ;) LOL. At some point I may accomplish enough to be notable (although I do find it interesting that notability means mainstream media references...but I suppose you need guidelines). It may be helpful in the future to keep the arguments unbiased. I can't argue the lack of references, but I find some of the comments here rather amusing and, moreover, un-encyclopedic. User - Tara Hunt 12:44 AM, 6 January 2007 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.121.73 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
- I didn't see any evidence for self-promotion. Only a lack of "mainstream" (known here as "reliable") sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Okay. Well, thanks. I haven't really appeared in that many "mainstream" articles, really. I speak at quite a few big conferences in my industry (including ETech, Future of Web Apps, etc), but I know that doesn't really count. I must say, though, there are a heckuvalotta small-time porn stars on wikipedia. I suppose that there is a notoriety in that - they've been in 'movies'. I just wanted to point out how biased (and a wee bit sexist) the measure is. I saw a good friend kept after this debate because people said, "He is a notable developer on some fairly prominent web projects" and he is not a developer, nor do I see the notableness of being a developer over a 'soft science' type like myself. I, personally, don't need to have a page, but there is alot of weeding you need to do to justify deletes like mine when lots of stuff is kept that is not very "notable" at all. In fact, the measure I would use is: when history is looked at, will this person/place/thing/event have an impact at all? I know that is hard to judge, but it would help with the current weeding. That's just my opinion, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.245.70 (talk • contribs)
    - The fairness of the inclusion criteria is a much-debated issue here and elsewhere (and your criterion is known as the 100 year test). For myself I found the best strategy is to remain utterly non-notable, so that nobody will ever get the idea of writing an article about me. ~ trialsanderrors 07:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - don't see how sexism plays into this argument —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.144.21.78 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 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 move to a centralised discussion. It is clear that there is consensus that these articles do not need to exist and should be deleted. All the opposition to deletion (except one vote) is due to a belief that AFD is not the best way to go about this.

We need to find a way to go about ensuring that there is a suitable opportunity for people who may only have one arbitrary day watchlisted out of the 1400 or so, and enough people have suggested a more centralised discussion for me to think that this is a better idea, as AFD is not the ideal place to determine this kind of wide ranging move (transclusion fixings and the like). I suggest somebody take this to WP:CENT (and refer people to it also via a note on the Village Pump). I will not do this, I am just closing this deletion discussion.

A bot might be helpful to tag all the days with some kind of bespoke 'Please comment on this discussion within 5 days' tag (5 days being the notice people would get via AFD anyway). Please note that the consensus at AFD was, however, that they should be deleted, but this discussion has not been made visible in the way it ought to for each and every article concerned, so further opinion may sway this. Proto::► 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 16, 2005

This is a tough one, so please bear with me. This is in fact a proposal to delete some 1,400 pages, i.e. all the pages in the categories Category:Days in 2003, Category:Days in 2004, Category:Days in 2005 and Category:Days in 2006, or put otherwise, all articles on individual dates in this Wikipedia. I am not going to tag all those pages individually, unless consensus in this AfD wuold be that I have to do it before further discussion is possible. As far as I have seen, all those pages are quite similar, all seem to be created by User:Pcb21, whom I'll leave a notice on his talk page (even though he seems to have left the project), and no new page are being made (except for five ones in 2006). Reasons for deleting: WP:NOT for news reports (and these pages are basically newspaper frontpages), WP:NOT a mere collection of internal or external links (these articles say nothing about the date (not much could be said probably), but only provide links to articles about events that happened on said date, making it a strange and unnecessary variant of the disambiguation page). They are unmaintained, redundant, and orphaned (most of the articles have very few links, and most of those were involuntarily (someone linking the whole date instead of the standard double links to day/month and year), with the additional disadvantage that such complete links do not reflect the date preference set by users).

Older dates (2003-2005) also are transcluded onto a month page (last one seems to be December 2005), which would become largely empty if this AfD is successful. I have no opinion as to the usefullness of these pages, but we can always copy the info for the individual dates to the main month page if needed (as has been done for e.g. January 2006), or use the solution of the portal current events, as has been done since July 2006 (yes, we have currently at least three different methods of maintaining month-year pages, another good reason to get rid of one of them).

I don't know if this unusual AfD will run like a normal one or if some special treatment is necessary; whatever you feel I should do to make this AfD more manageable, visual, ..., please say so, and I'll try to do my best. Fram 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on a bold proposal. Since this is a blanket nomination, I say keep. I do not see how we can argue adequately for each and every one of those articles. And can anyone really claim that some dates are not important enough to warrant an article that is not merely a collection of wikilinks? To me this seems to be more of a policy proposal than a regular AfD. I suggest we forward this issue to Village pump (policy). --Ezeu 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close - I'm anticipating a train wreck. MER-C 11:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is your suggestion to do instead? Fram 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd nominate the most notable one and keep nominating notable ones until you get a deletion. Then go for five in the next nom, then ten, then 15, etc as the notability falls. Or you can have a centralised discussion and delete all on the basis of that. MER-C 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see why this is problematic. We do have articles on each individual date (January 1 etc) as well as articles on each individual year (2005). That's plenty of places to put the information (not to mention the subject-specific lists such as 2005 in film). All of that is well-established and heavily edited. This is not, and neither does it particularly help in finding anything. Hence, delete the lot of them. This is neither a policy proposal nor a trainwreck, this is an attempt to get rid of redundant and unmaintainable information. Wikipedia is not a data dump. >Radiant< 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Close this AfD and seek consensus per MER-C. There has been Afd's before on some of these June 1 2003, December 31, 2005 are two I can find easily - there are many links to these articles and I given the magnitude of the request I don't think that AfD is the place to resolve this ( and possibly the future of WikiProject Current events - Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen those previous AfD's. I just want to say that the individual dates do not have many links (December 16, 2005 has only 5 links, only two to true articles; December 31, 2005 has 5 true links and one via a redirect (oh no, there are redirects to these pages as well!), but only one of these has any real relation to the article; and June 1, 2003 has two links. Then again, January 27, 2006 (which does not exist) has also two incoming links, neither of them of any importance. October 18, 2006 has five incoming links, only one of them of any importance. It doesn't look as if those articles are much missed... But no problem, I would like to hear the opinion of a few more people todecide if we should discuss this at an AfD (this one or smaller ones for individual dates), the Village Pump, WP:CENT, or anywhere else (but please let's keep it in one place!). Fram 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Radiant! --Doc^g 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Discuss elsewhere with Comment. Probably Village Pump (policy). You need to tag each and every article. Otherwise you open up to the possibility of deletion review overturning any deletions. People probably have the articles on their watchlists, and they need to be given the chance to find out about the article's impending potential deletion. Royalbroil^T : C 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Untrue, since WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and the fact that most of these articles have only a single author and thus are unlikely to be watched by anyone. Note that the best "central" location for discussion is WP:CENT (that's what it's there for) with a link from the village pump (which has a rather high throughput and doesn't work well for longer debate). >Radiant< 14:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I am not arguing for keeping the article, in fact I think they should be all deleted. I am arguing that the process is faulty. I once had an article deleted out from under me because it wasn't tagged for deletion because someone didn't want to tag 100 articles (2 articles per state times 50 states). The article was on my watchlist, but I was unaware and thus unable to comment on its AfD. I successfully argued to a second AfD in a deletion review. I don't want that to happen here. How do you know that people aren't watching any of the 1400 articles? A widespread discussion at (you pick the place) makes the most sense to me. Otherwise do an AfD nomination with 1400 entries. Just don't let the process fail again. Don't let history repeat itself... Royalbroil^T : C 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Month, Year. --- RockMFR 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While the author proposes deleting 1400 articles, this nomination is for this one article alone, I would presume to set a precident? At any rate, these articles are lists of news events. Not encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikinews perhaps? Resolute 17:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, please reread the nomination. It is not for a singe article; it is an umbrella nomination to delete all 1400 or so of these articles. The nominator is not suggesting deleting just this particular date and leaving everything else intact. Dugwiki 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Ahh, you are correct. My bad. I read that he intended to propose deletion for all, but misread that he meant all now, rather than just one so to check concensus. Delete all then. Resolute 00:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this entry to set a precendent. Reasoning: it belongs to Wikinews not there. For example, let's compare it with December, 16: the latter has section on events, each of them is notable, and most of them either have their own article, or play important role in another linked article. Then go sections on births and deaths of notable people. Contrary to this, December 16, 2005 mentions mostly minor scandals, none of which worth its own article. MaxSem 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- See above reply to Resolute. This is not a single article nomination - it is an umbrella nomination to deal with all 1400+ of these articles. Dugwiki 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep for now. Articles such as December 2005 are almost completely made up of these types of articles transcluded, so in effect deleteing individual date pages such as this one also blanks those month pages. Probably these should really be subst'd instead, but we'd still probably need to keep the individual dates as redirects for the page history. At any rate I really think this needs to be discussed at WP:CENT or some other appropriate venue, not at AfD. BryanG^(talk) 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No opinion. I think this is a fascinating idea. Fram argued that a single user created these pages, which for obvious reasons are no longer maintained or categorized. I also agree that the information contained in the "day" pages is redundant with what can or should be found in the "month" and "year" pages. There are a couple of other points to make. First, I am not convinced that ten separate events are truly held together by the coincidence that they all occurred on the same day. Of course, the four plane crashes on September 11, 2001 are held together because they all resulted from a single terrorist plan. But there is no relationship between those attacks and the results of games that took place in the Italian soccer league on that day (for example). Second, it seems unreasonable to me that Wikipedia should contain day-by-day entries starting in 2003, but not beforehand. We have some sort of timeline for World War 2, but should we have individual articles for "September 1, 1939" and "December 7, 1941"? Obviously not. In spite of all that, the scope of this discussion is too large to handle in a standard AfD. You could either nominate "day" articles for ten days at a time so that each individual article can be reviewed, or you can transfer the discussion elsewhere, as others have suggested. YechielMan 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm undecided on whether or not to delete these articles, keep them or merge them into existing by-month or by-year articles. The one opinion I do have is that all these articles should be handled the same way. It wouldn't make sense to keep some of them and delete others (except possibly to delete dates which are empty of information). So the only suggestions above I don't agree with are things like "delete this date to set a precedent" or "delete a couple of them and see what happens". Instead, consider all these articles part of the same informational structure, and handle them as a complete unit. If the structure is redundant and/or impossible to maintain, then delete all of it. If the structure can be somehow maintained, and the information appears interesting and useful to readers, then keep it all and maybe look for a project to handle upkeep. Dugwiki 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Seems like these types of articles are notable enough to stand on their own if people add content to them and look after them. Liveforever22 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Normally, batch nominations are to be done with great care. However, all these articles are essentially the same, with the essential nature of each article common to all 1400 articles. Thus, it is feasible to evaluate the merits of the articles in one sitting. Batch noms cause real problems when there are substantive differences between the articles and/or the article's content, causing commentors to split their !votes. That is, all the articles are a bullet point of news headlines for the day's news, with links to those news stories. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and there is such a thing as Wikinews. Thus, I say Delete all. Failing that, I recommend taking this to the village pump for policy development.-- danntm ^T _C 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close, then rethink the strategy without going through AfD first There's very few things these days that make me reach for the speedy keep thingy, and nominating 1400 articles in one go is one of them. I'm not sure if we can form a binding result here and now; if we decide things here and now, the closing admin will have an absolutely sucky afternoon. We need to decide this elsewhere and with less strict time limits. But since the nom asked, here's my recommendation anyway: Turn all of the articles to redirects to the individual days, without merges (December 16, 2005 to December 16, etc), let God sort the mergeable content out; then reach a strong opinion on what to do with them for the future years and as-of-yet uncreated day articles (leave them uncreated or turn them to redirects too). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
'Strong Delete all It would make some sense to create these for the current year, and then delete or merge them, but it wouldn't be worth the work. It makes no sense to keep them indefinitely, because this is the sort of thing done much better by a search engine. If deleting this meant destroyingthe data, of course we would all say keep, but that's not the case. DGG 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Move all to subpages of Portal:Current events to make them work like the pages transcluded at December 2006. Pages for individual dates should usually not exist in the article namespace unless there is extreme cultural significance. We should probably ask people from Portal:Current events to help us with this mess. Kusma (討論) 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If we delete all these pages, we delete December 2005. As Wikipedia is GFDL, we can't subst and delete there easily, so moving these old transcluded pages out of mainspace will be the easiest way not to violate GFDL and not to break the month pages. Kusma (討論) 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Postponed deletion To explain - I think these should go, but that we would clearly need a period whilst pages such as December 2005 could tidied up and allowed to live on their own. For example, we could leave this afd close with the proposal to have them deleted a month after the closing date? This would hopefully resolve the concerns of Kusma etc, which is a valid one but not one for permamnetly keeping unencyclopedic articles. The occaisional day may become notable (January 1, 2000 or November 11, 1918 perhaps stand out as examples that could have articles) but the vast majority will never be encyclopedic --Robdurbar 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

With a note that the suggestions of wwwwolf and Peripitus would probably also work. --Robdurbar 14:48, 10 January 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, without prejudice against a redirect or disambiguation page. —Centrx→talk • 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkus

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-24 08:18Z

Keep, notble name. frummer 08:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? MER-C 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In that it is a Historical Jewish family name. frummer 08:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Turn it into a disambiguation page which lists all people with that surname with Wikipedia articles. MER-C 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Most name articles are worthless. This one is worthless. - crz crztalk 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it has good basic information, and it can be developed even more. Etymology of historic Jewish names is WP:NOTABLE. IZAK 14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep if referenced, delete otherwise.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Delete per Piotr. Just H 20:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Disambig page seems like what this ought to be.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The topic is notable, but the specific references to people should be referenced. I think that the origin of common last names should be considered pertinent to an encyclopedia --Kevin Murray 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete I'm trying to imagine who'd look up this page, and it seems like it would only be people with this last name. That, or a Jeopardy! writer doing research for a category called "Hocus Pinkus." I suppose the case could be made for inclusion in a reference book, but it feels like something that belongs more on a geneological website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthGal (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
Tough call. Personally, as a Jewish reader, I find this exploration of name histories interesting. However, as a Wikipedian (at least between the hours of 12 and 1 AM), I don't see notability or even verifiability. At least 75% of the article should be deleted, and possibly all of it. Normally we expand outward from stubs, but the solution might be to turn this into a stub. 129.98.212.144 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Subject is clearly notable, though the article as it stands needs expansion and improved sourcing. Alansohn 19:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't see why so many people seem to see this as a tough call. We're not a genealogical guide. There are a lot of interesting surnames with long histories, not just Jewish ones. My own last name, which is German, has an interesting history but doesn't deserve an article. Keeping an article on the history of such a name would lay the groundwork for keeping articles on many, many last names. --The Way 19:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep: by the way, the (I thought) famous punchline "Pinkus, pay him the two dollars!" amazingly, is not on line anywhere. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please this name is notable for us to document here Yuckfoo 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the surname is a notable subject. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Would one of the above editors supporting keeping the article please expound upon the reasons why this particular surname is "notable to write about"? Why is this surname more notable than countless other surnames? I see a lot of keeps but no actually valid arguments behind them that are rooted in policy. --The Way 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer No one said that it was, you might want to peruse Category:Surnames some time. While inclusion is not an indicator of notability in all cases, it should be rather obvious that common family names, small town and villages, battleships, individual Simpsons episodes, train stations, commercial albums, et cetera are notable, especially in the context of an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I had no idea there was a category for surnames. Anyways, after looking over that category and clicking around randomly it seems that all the surnames listed there link to disambiguation pages that link to all individuals who have articles and that surname. The article under discussion here is an actual article rather than a disambiguation page, which is why I am questioning notability. I think surnames are different from villages and such, but that is a discussion for a general policy rather than this particular article. I wouldn't mind seeing this as a disambiguation page perhaps with a small intro but I still don't see a reason to have actual articles on surnames. Wikipedia also clearly doesn't actually aim to provide the complete sum of human knowledge otherwise we'd wouldn't have policies regarding notability and only have policies regarding verifiability. --The Way 00:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per the above. Silensor 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Phinehas (create disambig listing if needed) Encyclopedic notability for this name seems to only arise out of association with Biblical figure - recommend merge/redirect into that article Bwithh 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as a clear violation of WP:NOT a genealogy database. Turn into a disambig and/or redirect to Phineas (disambiguation) (as an overall disambig page for what is essentially the same surname) if there are other Pinkuses (Pinki?). Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Misinterpretation WP:NOT is often used as an excuse to delete virtually anything, but the implication that this is a genealogical entry is ludicrous. WP:NOT#DIR excludes "Genealogical entries" and suggest that users "See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project, and Wikitree for a project that aims to be the family tree of the human race." This article can in no way shape or form be interpreted as a genealogical entry. Alansohn 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - See this deletion debate on a similar article (although not as well-written) that also contained "significance of" type of information, detailing where the surname fits into the hierarchy of the Indian caste system. The outcome was to change it from this version, which was deemed to be a genealogy entry, into the current form which is a simple disambig page. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Baleete or disambig. Unreferenced, marginally-notable cruft makes me a sad snake. ~ Flame vip e r 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. MER-C 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best school in nsw

silly and impossible to define, peacock page created by someone who redirects page to Westfield Sports High Recurring dreams 11:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - nonsense redirect. So tagged. Please use WP:RFD in the future for the deletion of redirects. MER-C 11:43, 4 January 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 07:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oleksandr Dolgopolov Jr

Froms speedy. The guy is marginally notable: he is a member of the National Davies Cup team and there are more than 16K ghits (together with his father) Alex Bakharev 11:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Not much information available, but David Cup asserts notability and his ATP rank was 328 in November 2006. [46] Should be enough for WP:BIO. Prolog 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Agree Davis Cup and ranking warrant a keep. Mayumashu 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - currently at number 266 in the world 1/1/07 Rankings, and number 2 in Ukraine - with a slightly different transliteration of his name, and on a Davis Cup team. - fchd 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because of Davis Cup participation. He's young and prospective, so his notability will boost pretty soon. MaxSem 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non (yet) notable. 266th is not enough. David Cup: I see Ukraine only in 2006 Davis Cup and on a marginal match, so definetly non notable. --Cate | _Talk 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keepi know that this article doesn't have to much info but i will try to get more as tennis season will begin ( especialy in Romania, where i am from).I first saw dolgopolov in september 2006 so i didn't get to put together to much info abt him but i am trying so plz keep this article.thank you Alina Rucai 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep International sportsmen no matter what their world ranking appear to be considered notable - indeed there is precedent for any professional sportsperson to qualify as notable. I don't agree with that but that's what we dod before so why not keep this one? Spartaz 18:55, 5 January 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 ignoring new users and WP:COI votes. Actually, this has already been deleted - for some strange reason. -Doc^g 11:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Klein

It's not clear that this person is significant or notable; although a documentary film and a book are mentioned, no details are given, and the implication is that they're produced either by the company that he runs (which would give them something like vanity status) or by one of the organisations for/with which he works (which isn't much better). There's no sign of any sort of peer-reviewed publication or widely available or known work, or of anything significant that he's done or produced. Earlier versions of this article were speedily deleted as they made no attempt to claim significance for him. As it's just being recreated each time, I thought it best to bring it here to see if others shared my view or not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete (just to make things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In my opinion, Klein is less notable than his colleague Ben Goertzel, whose article has also been repeatedly deleted on the grounds of non-notability. I don't see how we could keep Klein but not Goertzel. —Psychonaut 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable, and I don't really see a direct assertion of notability, so might even be speedy deleted. Jayden54 14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Notable because he is 1) CEO/President of Novamente LLC, 2) is the director of the Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute, 3) is co-founder of the Immortality Institute, and 4) has produced a film and edited some books that are in semi-wide circulation. Any of these four things by themselves would likely make an individual notable, but together they undoubtedly make an individual notable. (Cardsplayer4life 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

The first three don't demonstrate notability in themselves; much depends upon the notability of the otrganisations concerned (and they're not very notable); the last would only count if the book and film were genuinely widely (not "semi-widely", whatever that means) circulated — and there's no indication that that's the case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would contend that the organizations are very notable, if a quick Google search showing pages mentioning them is any indication. On the point about how widely the books and film need to be circulated, both have been viewed several thousands of times. (about 33,000 views for the film on Google videos alone which is just a quick statistic not taking into account the DVDs and other ways the film was distributed; I would assume the books have been similarly widely read) I personally would consider that fairly widely viewed. (of course no where near as much as blockbusters, but a healthy amount compared to other similar types of documentaries and books) (Cardsplayer4life 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Keep - This individual seems notable with accomplishments. Also, agree with Psychonaut's comment above on Ben Goertzel; both individuals deserve pages. Liveforever22 02:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Note. This is the twentieth edit from this account; twelve of the thirteen edits immediately before this were to AfDs [the thirteenth was the the account's User page].)
- Don't mischaracterize my comments, please. I never said that both articles should be kept. —Psychonaut 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Not significant. As was noted above, Bruce Klein has no peer-reviewed publications and has made no significant contributions to society that are worth writing about. Should everyone with a website be entitled to their own vanity article at Wikipedia? Publishing an unpopular ebook is not only not notable, but it's trivial in the internet age where free publishers abound and will accept anything for online publication. Unless it's on Amazon best seller list or equivalent, the ebook publication is not notable. Similarly, being the owner/administrator of a website forum that calls itself CEO of non-notable or otherwise questionable organizations is not basis for a wikipedia article. Like I said above, Bruce Klein owns a website, just like millions of other people, and that is not basis for a wikipedia article. --Mnemopis

He doesn't simply "own" a website as you contend. He is the co-founder of one institute, is the director of a fairly large research institute, and is the CEO/President of moderate sized company. He also has websites and such, I am sure, but that was not expressed as a reason for his page to be kept. I do not personally know how much the book was distributed, so if you have statistics to back up your claim that it was "unpopular", I would be interested in seeing them, but if the distrobution of the movie is any indication (it may not be, but they are the only statistics I could find) then it is fairly popular. (as stated earlier, over 33,000 people watched film) (Cardsplayer4life 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

He does simply own a website and his finance degree is not even related to immortality, life extension, or science at all. Anyone can setup a website forum nowadays and label their forum as some institution or company; that is not notable. I labeled his book as "unpopular" because it is not on any best-seller list and also because no-one I know has ever heard of it, nor of Bruce Klein's company. Like I said above, anyone can produce ebooks nowadays. It's as simple as producing a pdf and uploading to a web server. Anyone can do this. And about his "movie" on Google Video, are you kidding? Do you know that anyone with a webcam and video editing software can make these things? Do you know how many people upload movies to Google Video and YouTube every day? Uploading a home video to Google Video or YouTube is not notable. I still have not seen one notable accomplishment from Bruce Klein. I'm still waiting for someone to provide this. Mnemopis 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, anyone may produce ebooks these days, but the book you are referring to, The Scientific Conquest of Death is a published printed paperback available for purchase at places like Amazon, and contains chapters by Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, and Aubrey de Grey amongst others. --Saigyo 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but note that it's ranked #246,564. Not exactly a best-seller or even popular. Producing an unpopular book is not notable. Mnemopis 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Bruce Klein is President of Novamente LLC, an active AI software company with a dozen staff and contracts with major customers. He also was founder of the Immortality Institute, which organized a large conference last year; and organized a conference for the AGI Research Institute this year, which included a number of prominent AI researchers in attendance. By the standards of wikipedia's other entries it is VERY VERY OBVIOUS that Bruce is sufficiently "important" to merit a Wikipedia entry. I believe this attempt to get Bruce, Ben Goertzel and Novamente LLC removed is simply an attack by someone who is angry at Bruce Klein due to internal Immortality Institute politics. I note that in recent weeks Bruce's colleagues have been spammed by some particular person angry at Bruce due to ImmInst politics, and the AGIRI wiki site has been vandalized. It is a shame that this attack has spilled over onto wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.44.37 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

First, running a company with twelve employees does not make for notability. Secondly, anyone can form an institute and organise a conference; it doesn't require, nor does it create, notability. Thirdly, being a conference organiser doesn't make one notable (do you have any idea how many conferences there are every month? I've organised conferences myself; I was co-organiser of an international philosophy conference held in London when I was a third-year undergraduate. It didn't make me notable). Finally, the implication that those who are arguing for the deletion of this page are doing so in bad faith is objectionable, and likely not to help the cause about which you clearly feel strongly, and with which you are personally involved — whoever you are. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This person who posted the above comment with IP address 69.140.44.37 is Ben Goertzel who also had his vanity article deleted. Both the Bruce Klein and Ben Goertzel vanity pages linked to each, which suggests to me that they are both working together to attempt to create their Wikipedia vanity pages. Thus, Ben's suggestion to "Keep" the Bruce Klein vanity article should not be given any merit since this person has questionable ulterior motives that does not include doing what's best for the Wikipedia community. Mnemopis 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was present on IRC when User:Alkivar announced his intention to delete Bruce Klein, Ben Goertzel, and other related pages. Alkivar is a musician who has absolutely no connection at all with either of these individuals or their associated institutes; there was no conflict of interest. —Psychonaut 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not seem to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject himself. CEO of a 12-man company is no kind of claim to notability at all. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Bruce Klein founded the Immortality Institute, which until just a few months ago owned the top rank for the word "immortality". In effect, it has been a hub for immortalist movement for the past several years. The Immortality Institute has attracted notable scientists in the aging field, including Aubrey de Grey and S. Jay Olshansky, as well as other prominent figures in the areas of artificial intelligence and cryonics. The institute's first book, while not a national best seller, included big name authors. The movie may be available for download, but that hardly makes it a "home video". It's a documentary stitched together from dozens of hours of footage of scores of individuals across the country. As for ulterior motives, who is this Mnepomis? His position shows a familiarity and disdain for Bruce that should make his position as irrelevant as he asserts that Ben Goertzel's should be. My "ulterior" motive? I have nothing to hide. I'm a director and former chair of the Immortality Institute. Unlike Bruce, I don't think my accomplishments deserve a page at wikipedia. Bruce, on the other hand, formed a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and secured the support of authors, scientists, and financial donors, and put the Immortality Institute on the map within the immortalist and life extension communities. We have multiple ties with the Methuselah Foundation; Aubrey de Grey is an Advisor at our institute. Bruce now leads the Novamente team, building upon the connections and experience gained in building the Immortality Institute. I say Keep. Jaydfox 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaydfox, the reason you don't have a Wikipedia page is the same reason as Mr. Klein; neither of you are notable. As for my motive, I am trying to ensure Wikipedia standards and to not have any 'John Doe' feel like they're entitled to post their vanity pages at Wikipedia. Maybe this isn't just a vanity page, but may also be a marketing ploy to direct visitors to the Imminst forum to try to get money from them. Whatever it is, I can tell you what it definitely is not: It's not an article over a notable person. You think it's notable that Bruce Klein's website used to have top rank at Google for the word, "immortality"? Are you kidding? Show me peer-reviewed publications, or a Nobel prize or Field's medal, or just anything that's considered "notable" or otherwise a significant contribution to society, and I'll be happy to change my vote. The desperation of the Imminst forum staff to have this page suggests it's partly a marketing ploy and a lame attempt to get visitors to Bruce Klein's forum. Sorry to burst your bubble. Mnemopis 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Jaydfox's above "keep" vote is the user's only edit on Wikipedia and thus should not be counted. -- Schaefer (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - but out of curiosity why do you have a humble wiki page as you call it Mnemopis, since every argument you have asserted against Bruce is just as relevant with respect to your own page? In fact even more so since you claim no notability and demonstrate none.
Why haven't you deleted your own page due to its lack of merit?
Is it perhaps that you don't have sufficient *notoriety* to warrant even this much debate over your page as I have read so far on this page and perhaps envy the interest? His page should be kept for his apparent notoriety if not his still nascent notability. He certainly garners sufficient interest and support to warrant it.
Your disdain for the topic of Bruce's sincere interest and demonstrated commitment to the promotion of human longevity is "noted". Nevertheless it does not require peer reviewed publication to warrant a page as apparently you have such a user page and present no such credentials to support having it. It also doesn't require unanimous approval of the individual. What I see listed on Bruce's page are verifiable facts. They may not be noteworthy to some but they are to others and ultimately it is the interest that they hold at all that matters most as criteria to keep a Wiki user page.
Also the interest shown by many of the members of the forum to keep this page is not a "marketing ploy" since the institute doesn't "sell" anything as a product. It is however a legitimate method of attracting interest in an idea that is at the core of the institution's purpose: to promote longevity through learning and action. Bruce's efforts are noteworthy in that his efforts have yielded some small global organizational result already toward this goal and he shouldn't have to die to be made notable for taking the idea mainstream. Wikipedia should keep his and even keep yours in my opinion Mnemopis. 08:46, 7 January 2007 69.119.142.107 08:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Ken Sills

No matter how many sock puppets vote to "Keep" the Bruce Klein vanity page, it doesn't matter because the real Wikipedians have already overwhelmingly voted to "Delete" it. It's nothing personal. It's just standard Wikipedia policy. If everyone was free to post their vanity pages, then the quality of Wikipedia would go way down. You have your own personal website, so post your vanity pages there. Mnemopis 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So you admit Mnemopis that some people are allowed vanity pages and this is the class of *true Wikipedians*; of which you also apparently define yourself as one as opposed to Bruce, who you declare isn't. What is the class of true Wikipedians and who are the members of this class?
This is not only a form of unfair discrimination by definition if true; it also sounds like you certainly are making it personal. 69.119.142.107 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Ken

I'm finding it difficult to follow this rather ranting set of accusations. What "vanity article" are you accusing Mnemopis of having on Wikipedia? Surely you don't mean his User page — the page that every registered editor has, and which isn't part of the encyclopædia? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they are talking about user pages or not, but getting to Mnemopis's points: 1) Everyone is a "real Wikipedian" as you put it, that is the point of having an open encyclopedia. (and they are not sock puppets, that would infer the same person every time with different accounts, if I understand the term correctly, which is most definitely not the case) 2) Bruce's page isn't a vanity page, that is the whole point of the previous points made on his notability that you have not yet countered. (Cardsplayer4life 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Cardsplayer, the problem I have is that the Bruce Klein page is a mere 4 sentences that contains nothing notable, nor that anyone considers a significant contribution to society. The only people who are voting to "Keep" are either anons, sock puppets, or members from Bruce Klein's web forum who were exhorted to come here and vote but who have never used Wikipedia before. This last part is problematic because these forum members who were exhorted to vote seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a free-for-all and that practically anybody and everybody should have their own vanity page here. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Show me something notable. The absence of anything definitely notable about Bruce Klein is reason enough to delete this 4 sentence vanity article. Bruce Klein might have good intentions with his Immortalist movement; that's fantastic. I, myself, would like to end world hunger and bring world peace; but good intentions are not notable. And neither is having a web forum that is designated an "institution", nor is producing home videos and uploading to Google Video or YouTube, and neither is producing pdf's and making available on a server. You may be under the mistaken impression that a person with lots of non-notable things makes for a person that is notable. Well, a bunch of zeros still add up to zero. Mnemopis 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept that everyone is a real Wikipedian, though in fact that isn't how I put it; editors from anon IP addresses count for little in this sort of debate, and are barred from voting in many debates, precisely because they're not accounted sufficiently part of the Wikipedia community. And the page is vanity (though that term is, I admit, used nonstandardly in Wikipedia). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said I was responding to Mnemopis on that. I agree that they should probably register for an account and get involved in the community, but to say that they aren't "real Wikipedians" is incorrect. (Cardsplayer4life 18:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, so far one "keep" has been registered by an account that has more than twenty edits behind it; the others are either from anon IP addresses, or in all but one case an account whose one and only edit has been here (the exception has nineteen previosu edits, of which twelve were made to other AfD discussions in the minutes before the edit to this one). In my book, none of them count as real Wikipedians for the purposes of taking what they say seriously, or counting them in closing the AfD. I think that I can fairly say that that's an almost universally held view among regular editors and admins. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it humorous that you get to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion. I suppose it doesn't really matter, because I feel confident that Bruce Klein will be "notable" in even the most skeptical of eyes in the next few years as he continues to accrue accomplishments. (Cardsplayer4life 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
Just FYI for everyone, I just put in lots of edits to the page (lots of additional info) with the hope of further displaying notability. (Cardsplayer4life 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Still does not meet the guidelines at WP:BIO for living persons. For example, Mr. Klein has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. I find it rather odd that you classify Mr. Klein as a "social activist", which by definition, is someone who uses intentional action to bring about social or political change, because Mr. Klein has never brought about any significant social or political changes. Like I've said before, merely running a relatively obscure and unpopular web forum and being the editor of an unpopular book are not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Mnemopis 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is evident that I disagree with your assessment, but I will say it anyway. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Keep - Bruce J Klein is a well-known and important person in the life extension scene! DMSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.32.78 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 January 2007 (Note: first and only edit from this IP address.)
Keep - Bruce Klein is a prominent social activist for life extension and artificial intelligence research. As a scientist working in the life extension field, I can categorically assert that his activities are moving this area forward. Trying to delete this entry in innapropriate.Antonei Csoka 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: first and only edit from this account.)
Keep - Bruce Klein is not just another website founder. He is unique. The website he founded is also unique as would be revealed if one spent some time looking through the history and the posts. The movement he represents and has pushed forward with his efforts is becoming mainstream with many of the individuals who gravitated to his website becoming heavily involved in their own pursuit of ways to increase healthy lifespan. To brush-off the accomplishment of not only a website which has impacted individuals to transform their lives, but also a film, and a book, dealing with a subject as taboo as the pursuit of physical immortality, does not do the person who reccomends deletion any favors by illuminating their inability to see the significance of Bruce Klein's contribution.--Kevinperrott 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: first and only edit from this account.)

Keep - the Immortality Institute. which Bruce Klein has co-created and run has been a major force in the world of life extension. The Institute formerly occupied the top spot for a Google search on the word Immortality., but (of course) Wikipedia has now driven it to second place. The Immortality Institute on-line forums are well-utilized and active discussion areas in the subcultures of life-extension, immortalism, nanotechnology, transhumanism, cryonics, etc. The website is currently ranked at about 142 thousand on Alexa.com.. This can't compare to Wikipedia, but it is a high ranking in the context of websites in the world which probably number in the millions. More important, however, is the influence Bruce has had through his organization both in the website and his many other projects in which his profile is much lower than what he deserves. His book The Scientific Conquest of Death. is published in the name of the Immortality Institute, and yet it is really the product of his effort. Similarly, his DVD/video Exploring Life Extension. was not created under his own name, but the interviews were almost entirely produced by him. (He is not even mentioned in this notable and valuable contribution to documentation of the life extension movement.) His last conference in Atlanta, Georgia. was attended by over 150 people, a respectable number for a scientific conference. Bruce has been too much of a "behind the scenes" man to get all of the credit that he deserves, but I believe that he well-deserves to be credited and noted in Wikipedia. --Ben Best 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben you evidently did not read any of the above because you simply rehashed the same spiel without addressing any of the criticisms. Namely, that having a website forum ranked #142,000, and being the editor of a book that ranks #246,564 are not notable at all. It's abysmal in fact. Or of a conference that he helped organize that brought in a whopping 150 people. Are you kidding? Most conferences I've heard of bring in at least over 20,000. 150 people is hardly a conference. I know you're trying to help out a friend, but it's time to face reality. Mnemopis 16:41, 9 January 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. BJAODN avaliable on request if it's not done so already. - Mailer Diablo 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Bra Sizes

Dear God, no. Calton | Talk 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep; there is ample precedent for lists of people by measurable physical feature. See, for example, List of United States Presidents by height order. However, this article should be retitled (possibly to List of people by bra size) and reformatted. —Psychonaut 11:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean precedent like List of redheads? Oh, wait, wrong link: List of redheads. --Calton | Talk 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean measurable physical features. —Psychonaut 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are rather more female celebrities than there are Presidents of the US. Several orders of magnitude more, in fact. And that's before you start to ask about why this particular measurement, rather than, say, shoe size, was chosen. Yup, breastcruft. WP:PHWOOOOAR! LOOK AT THE TITS ON THAT! has never been a valid inclusion argument and I hope never will be. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete seems to be partly an how to guide to fitting bras and partly a list of information that is is mainly unsourced and where sourced uses unreliable sources. Unlike the list of US Presidents, how do we decide who is a "celebrity". The list also has potential WP:BLP issues. Gwernol 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gwernol. This needs to be deflated. MER-C 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT - this is an indiscriminate collection of pointless and unverifyable information. Peripitus (Talk) 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Exactly per nom. I couldn't have put it better myself. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense citing nonsense. The nomination is poorly crafted. If you couldn't have said it better yourself, you lack the expressive skills desired for an editor of a meaningful project. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nonsense citing nonsense" is pretty good description of the article itself, actually. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not reliable sources at all to back up any of the information. Jayden54 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayden makes a valid point, but not to delete; let's seek documentation instead. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even if there were a thousand references from reliable sources in this article, it would still be listcruft. -- Kicking222 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP is full of lists. There are Admins encouraging lists as a centralized link source, to shorten articles. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So what article, exactly, is this article shortening? -- Kicking222 19:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Invasion of privacy, information like this would not belong even in the bios so no reason whatsoever to collect a list over it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a matter of personal opinion being cited as an implied unpublished WP standard. Celebrity bust measurements are commonly published and included in biographies. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity bust measurements are commonly published and included in biographies. Outside of Playboy centerfold data sheets, where would that be? --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - listcruft, inherently unverifiable, the POV issues with who is and isn't a celebrity, and the fact that listing women by breast size is demeaning, unless they themselves make the size of their body parts an issue (and, yes, I am thinking of the List of big-bust models and performers here, which is less egregious than this). -- The Anome 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More personal opinion which is irrelevant tot he application of WP standards. Porno is demeaning but prominently a part of WP.--Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete in every way agreeing with The Anome, especially comparing to the other list. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and BJAODN. Hahahahahahahhahahahaha no. --- RockMFR 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Doomed to be OR, quite possibly problematic per WP:BLP, total lack of reliable sourcing. (And it doesn't list the celebrities I really wanted to know about either.) - Eron ^Talk 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article doesn't include who you want to see included, expand the article -- this is WP! --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, even I had five minutes alone with my favourite celebs and a tape measure, the results would be deletable as Original Research. - Eron ^Talk 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as just about the definitive example of "unencyclopedic". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - is this what we want our wiki and community to be known as? Ronbo76 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Like it or not breasts are a notable subject, and can be an integral part of a performer's fame. I think that more than anything it demonstarte that women can be successful as sex symbols without having enormous glands. It seems strange for evaluators (above) to consider this list "beneath" WP standards considering the huge emphasis on pornography including detailed standards for inclusion of pornstars and their films. I would like to see some references cited, but don't toss this out. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, ~~for treating women like objects. For shame!. Would we even think about keeping List of men by cock size?~~ for including Queen Elizabeth. Recury 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the statistics were published, I'm sure that there would be an article about this as well. --Kevin Murray 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because we would delete it immediately for being unencyclopedic, just like we're doing with this one. Recury 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

STRONG Keep When describing a female celeb. Some stats we use are height, weight, and most importantly, bra size. Bra deserve the same respect as the rest, per above. It would be a disgrace if the article is deleted.--Certified.Gangsta 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some stats we use... We? --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"most importantly"? Astounding. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. While its list is certainly amusing and useful (hehe), this list fits in definition of indiscriminate collection of information perfectly. MaxSem 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per MaxSem. And Kevin Murray, please stop trolling the discussion. Veiled personal attacks are still personal attacks. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Danny, I will call a spade a spade. If editors are mindlessly adding deletes just to jump on the wagon or to express personal opinions it is inappropriate. Pointing out an error is not a personal attack. I don't consider calling attention to laziness or incorrect actions "trolling." --Kevin Murray 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

*That is a massive assumption of bad faith there; please don't confuse humor with laziness. Your comment to User:JzG is absolutely a personal attack. You are not doing yourself or your argument any good by stooping to this kind of behavior. Gwernol 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, anyway. Deletion discussions are judged on the merit of the arguments put forth, not on the number of unexplained soundoffs. Trust the closing admin, stop bugging people, and don't worry about it. --Masamage 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're wright of course. I got carried away. Sorry. Gwernol 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As JzG says at the top of the article, it's pretty obvious why this exists and List of celebrities by shoe size doesn't. If the one isn't notable, neither is the other. --Masamage 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Salt the earth per Kevin Murray and "Certified.Gangsta". Nothing but breastcruft. Not one single serious argument to keep, and no such argument could be made. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Biting my lip to avoid all the jokes that spring to mind, the bottom line is that in most cases there's no reason to sort people by physical attributes. The main exception might be when a physical attribute is typically used by an industry in some sort of official capacity. For example, boxing commonly lists boxers by height, weight and reach, so one could reasonably argue that it makes sense to create lists sorting articles about boxers into weight classes, ordering by height or ordering by reach. By contrast, bra size has no particular official use for (most) female celebrities. It might be possible to come up with some industry that would find bra sizes actually a very useful statistic, but the broad overall category of "celebrities" isn't that industry. Dugwiki 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as sexist trivia unless someone wants to start Celebrity penis sizes. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dugwiki. Well said. GassyGuy 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Besides everything else, possible violation of compilation copyright by Celebrity Sleuth. Argyriou (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, unsourced, not to a list that is arbitrary and poor added value.-- danntm ^T _C 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An Apology: After reading some of the comments above, I feel that I should clear my chest, and be very upfront about my pointed error. I feel like a complete boob about the whole thing -- I was sucked in by the emotion. Clearly my firm standards have sagged and I tried to milk this subject to the bitter end. Hopefully I’ve been weaned from my evil ways. --Kevin Murray 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's not the topic I mind as such (comparing these seems like a popular phenomenon), it's the definition of "celebrity". Basically, this is a list of random trivia about random people, with a little bit of verification problems. Also standardisation issues (I was under the impression cloth sizes aren't universal and manufacturers might lie anyway - Ever seen cloth sizes that actually mean anything? Okay, maybe it's just that I'm a guy and I never read the manuals anyway and I can't make sense of all these weird numbers =) Also, some issues with the content: "Smallest" and "Biggest" are misleading because they're based on the list itself and not any source that would actually say anything about biggest and smallest. Sorting is done by first name rather than last name. The intro about bra sizes is needless and is already covered elsewhere. Etc etc... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic, and subject to change without notice. Having very large (or very small) breasts might be a defining characteristic for some notable people, but the exact size is not notable. This article might be of interest to friends of the celebrities at Christmas or near birthdays, but is of no general interest. Heck, I'm a huge fan of boobs (large or small), and I have no interest in this article whatsoever. Almost certainly impossible to provide reliable sources in most cases (sources may be available in some cases, but are unlikely to be reliable sources). Hopelessly indiscriminate, with insurmountable verifiability issues, and potential WP:BLP problems. (And, at the very least, must be renamed!) -- Xtifr _tälk 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Funny, but no. Silensor 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per Calton and JzG. Relevant policies include: WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. I am voting to note that this page may be appropriate for WP:DAFT. Eluchil404 08:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Except for a few sentences about fitting a bra, the article consists of a list obtained from Celebrity Sleuth magazine. I suggest that the author create the article about Celebrity Sleuth and include a reference (with link) to the magazine's practice of publishing alleged celebrity bra sizes. JamesMLane t c 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Gwernol. MER-C 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Dot

Prod tag removed by author, AFD listed to allow for full discussion. In my opinion, a non-notable artist, although am unsure if claim of notability prevents speedy deletion. Also note that text is copied almost verbatim from http://www.myspace.com/drdot. Chrisd87 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this totally unfair here. Why can't I submit an article about the massage therapist known as Dr. Dot? You can easily read about her on several search engines and I feel this article is being flagged by people who have nothing better to do with their time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaleecootey (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 January 2007

Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 12:04, 4 January 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. No reliable sources = no verifiable notability, which is the applicable policy here. Proto::► 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gone with the Blastwave

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone With The Blastwave. Back then it was on its 17th strip and the forum had fewer than 150 users. Now it's up to 29 and the forum has nearly 220 users. Taken to Comixpedia after a this deletion, I think.

It's since been deleted three times by separate admins at Gone with the blastwave, and is back yet again and was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 again. Somebody obviously thinks it's important, equally, a number of other people clearly don't. No sources other than the comic itself, as usual, so impossible to verify if this is WP:OR or not - probably is, since it has all the hallmarks of being distilled directly from personal knowledge of the source material. This version was created by WP:SPA Grimreaper0125 (talk · contribs) and appears to be largely the work of Darkcraft (talk · contribs) who also has very few edits outside of this subject and whose username is strikingly similar to a moderator of the site's forums. Asserts that it's about to be published, but a quick look at the publisher's website shows that it's pretty much a one man shop, it only publishes one other comic and nothing else at all. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Darkcraft 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete ~~and salt~~ - purest OR spamvanitisementcruft. No assertion of notability in the slightest. Die, die, die. That bad, really. No reliable sources, no verification. Yuck. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - still no reliable sources added to the article, little assertion of notability, WP:RS is important and WP:V is non-negotiable. Being about to be published - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - is not an indicator of notability - plenty of books that sold 1 copy have been published. Well, a bit more than 1, but you get the point. I have struck "and salt" as it seems as though there is an argument that this should be deleted without prejudice against further recreation, if and when this becomes notable and gets multiple non-trivial references to it from multiple reputable sources. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete ~~and salt~~ per above.--Drat (Talk) 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I have struck out my salt request. I still vote delete at this time.--Drat (Talk) 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as I wrote below (how am I supposed to express that much writing...somebody help me deuglify this page please)I would also appreciate it if people here bother to read both sides of the arguement before casting their vote. To quote the Wikipedia guide to deletion "Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable."(it makes things a bit fairer) Darkcraft 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't do much outside of reading articals so I am not sure of this procedure but I am assuming I am supposed to reply here. No, I am not a forum moderator, I am not even signed up to the forums. I also do not believe that this artical was largly my work, if you compare my edits to the previous version, you will see that I mainly made the already existing artical clearer. The fact that this comic is going into print is what matters, not that it's publisher is a small company.

Here is my proof that this webcomic is notable:

1) It had around 16,000 unique site views and around 46,000 page views on New Years Day alone (which is a traditionally low traffic day) and records don't go far enough back for me to see what kind of traffic it was getting before the festive season. http://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=856&type=3

2) It was featured on the main page of VGcats.com for several weeks recently (VG cats is one of the most notable webcomics)

3) It is coming 22nd in the buzzComix list (one of the most notable comic ranking sites). http://www.buzzcomix.net/index.php?from=1&to=100&bannershow=10#Morr

4) It is coming 32nd in this webcomic list (not as notable but still well-known). http://topwebcomics.com/

5) It had an artical written on it in 'No Mutants Allowed' http://www.nma-fallout.com/ (which has an alexa rank of 65,634)

6) The comic itself has an alexa ranking of 66,374 (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blastwavecomic.com%2F)

7) An artical was written on it in a national newspaper. http://gotmorr.com/stuff/tages-anzeiger-2006-1123.jpg

8) It was also featured in a Polish magazine which I do not have an image of.

9) It is going into print.

NEW 10) Prints of images based on or around the comic are available right now. Website seems to be down (?!) link coming soon...

As for the proposed salting, the previous articals were created many months apart and reflect different stages in this webcomics development. Even this artical was to be deleted, who is to say this webcomic wont become far more notable in the near future, and a salting would hamper efforts to create an artical. Darkcraft 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

None of these "sources" even remotely qualify it for inclusion. To begin with, pageviews, Alexa ranking, and hits are not sufficient to form the basis for keeping an article. The article needs to be the object of several reliable, verifiable articles. You have provided no evidence of this, other than one article on a single website - (which I cannot find, but I will take your word for it). You picture of the national newspaper is not verifiable, as we have no idea why they are printing a single frame of your comic, or for what purpose. The same could be said of the purported Polish magazine. Suffice to say there is no evidence of notability, and (as noted) the article remains basically unchanged from the previous form. A future promise to get it into print means nothing either. I vote to Delete, but not salt, since the strip may become notable in the near future. --Haemo 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper source can be verified. Though it requires an account to VIEW the article, going to http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ and searching the web database for "Gone with the Blastwave" with the date set to 23. November 2006 brings up an article. IndecisionV 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Darkcraft's sources look promising. And what's with the salting requests? The webcomic may be a bit borderline on the notability department right now, but it's still being updated and publication seems likely in the near future so the situation could easily change. Salting should only be for something that will definitely never warrant an article. Bryan 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

When an article is repeatedly re-created and then dleeted and then re-created, without anything actually changing overmuch other than perhaps being published by a guy who publishes one other cartoon, his own, then WP:SALT is appropriate. This has already been transwiki'd top Comixpedia. Plus the artist says he's off to join the army anyway. The above info is not significantly different from what was seen at last AfD, the ranking of 22 puts it well below other comics which have been deleted previously. Nothing here speaks of actual encyclopaedic notability. And then there's the WP:OR problem... Guy (Help!) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, your ability to misrepresent facts to further press your own viewpoints on others is amazing. The artist is going on compulsory 6 month army service, after that he is coming back to continue his comic. A lot has changed since last time a similar artical was created, and in my opinion, and apparently the opinion of most people, it has become notable enough to have it included in Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with Original Research in this artical, and that does not seem to be the issue here anyway.Darkcraft 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please refrain from making accusations to other users. It is unproductive, and does not help meet consensus. None of this has anything to do with the standards required to make an article notable. Again, I must ask that you focus on the standards under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Haemo 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to focus on those standards because they are the reason this AFD page exists, but what annoys me is that throughout this page, Guy has misrepresented facts, wrongly inferred things, misused the SPA tag, and appears to be ignoring most of the evidence. From a newbie who isn't aware of protocol around here that kind of stuff is acceptable, but from an experienced admin, it is absolutely terrible.Darkcraft 09:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep per 7 and perhaps 8. The Swiss newspaper is available online for paying subscribers, so it's verifiable, but not yet verified. The Polish magazine isn't verifiable without the name of the magazine, that really needs to be known. Secateur 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — Secateur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Again, a single reference, which may or may not be verifiable - we do not know, since no one has access to the newspaper archives online - does not qualify the article for inclusion under Wikipedia:notability. --Haemo 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article can be found on page 24 on the Nov 23, 2006 issue of Tages Anzeiger, available online on pressdisplay.com . It's in German, though, so I can't read what it says, but other editors should be able to verify what it says. However, you certainly have a point regarding the Polish magazine, which isn't verifiable. I thought the name would surface eventually, but maybe not? Secateur 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will search for the name and possibly a copy of the polish magazine.Darkcraft 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you need an account to view this article, even with pressdisplay.com. That's very unfortunate - do you have a clean screenshot, or transcript of the article. I know several people who read German who could translate for us. --Haemo 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While Darkcraft might have a clean screenshot, I don't. Because pressdisplay.com charge for their services, it might very well be against their rules to take a screenshot, I don't know. Secateur 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I don't see why this is such a big issue with everyone. This comic is notable and quite popular as outlined in previous comments. Why is it such a big deal to wish for it do be deleted? It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space...Dooster 16:45, 4 January 2007 -5 GMT — Dooster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep You begin to wonder what makes a comic notable. Whether or not the author goes on a hiatus should not be taken into consideration regarding the notability of the comic. This has been confirmed to have been in one newspaper. You'd be better off trying to find other webcomic articles that have no notability at all. According to the notability guidelines, it has to have been the subject of multiple published sources. We currently have one newspaper and one magazine. If I'm not mistaken that's multiple. IndecisionV 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — IndecisionV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

JZG (or Guy) I noticed you added three SPA tags after the above messages. In my opinion, one was done rightly so, but the other two accounts were created before this page existed and have had a fair number of edits.It clearly states in the SPA guildines that inappropriate use of this tag can lead to action being taken against you. Darkcraft 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been here for two months, and have been helping with several articles. I'm not trying to promote anything, I'm just trying to help out. I have a feeling you're abusing that tag... IndecisionV 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been here for less than a month. I'm stumped, though. What kind of single purpose do you mean that my account is for? Secateur 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, voting on this discussion. Single purpose account. I would highly advise you, JzG, to remove some of those tags, as it seems you are simply trying to support your side by making the opposition seem shady. IndecisionV 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, furthermore I feel as though Guy (or JzG) is discarding and manipulating the facts to further his own opinion.Darkcraft 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tend agree with the placement of the SPA tag after Dooster's article, but would probably not agree with the others. Fans are allowed to vote in WP:AFD discussions. However, I strongly urge anyone here with a previous interest in this article - you know whether or not this applied to you better than I - to set aside their personal opinions of the quality, or popularity, of the comic in question and instead focus on whether or not it meets guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Currently, I do not think it does, and believe the evidence so gathered has not been sufficient to meet these guidelines. Remember - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and foremost - and standards need to be met in all instances. --Haemo 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, standards have to be met, but what this string of comments is discussing is Guy and how he, in my opinion, is doing something he shouldn't by placing SPA tags on the comments of 3 people, whilst two of those people have accounts with a fair amount of edits and have existed since before this artical. It says in the SPA guildines that by placing an SPA tag outside of the guildines, action can be taken against you, so clearly he was doing something wrong. I would like to see him remove those tags asap or give a good reason why they should stay. Darkcraft 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Darkcraft has answered any reservations I would have. Brendan Alcorn 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per above

whether or not it meets guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Notability: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance.'
'a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.' - This part has been answered by Darkcraft, I think, with his(?) list of appearances.
Verifiability: The site is there, the things documented in the article are accessible to the reader.
I think that is enough. 203.169.17.194 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is fundamentally, and totally incorrect. I strongly urge you to re-read WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY before discussing this deletion. Again, this is not a vote, and it serves absolutely no constructive purpose to have editors weighing in on an article with little to no understanding of the standards required. Again, I repeat - the only reason to keep an article under the guidelines given are multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable. So far what we have been given is:

A single unverifiable newspaper article, which no one has examined, and of which we have no idea of the context being used. All that is discernibly even from the comic in question is a single cell from one strip - we have no idea what the context is. This does not meet the standards under WP:NOTE.
A purported magazine article, of which there is absolutely no evidence given that it even exists. This definitely does not meet standards under WP:NOTE.
A variety of e-polling data, including Alexa ranking (which even the sites own forums admit are "not that high"). None of this meets standards under WP:NOTE.

I reiterate, again that the only meaningful criteria for keeping the article in question is whether or not it conforms to WP:NOTE. Frankly, the current evidence does not even remotely meet the standards required, and I must express dismay that editors are accepting it without question. --Haemo 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is up to all editors to find out how notable this is and weigh in all evidence. I am giving you evidence, but you are saying "Not good enough I need more" without actually searching for more yourself. Furthermore, the newspaper IS verifiable as other peoples comments have stated. I am hoping to get more information on the magazine artical soon. The editors are not accepting this without question, the ones who agree appear to have weighed the facts and decided this is notable and worth inclusion. Alexa is not E-polling, it is a measure of how many visit the site, and is an excellent resource to determine a sites popularity. Many arguments of notability and popularity include Alexa rankings and amounts of site visitors as they are hard facts and are not subjective. Darkcraft 06:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The onus is not on me to find evidence which may, or may not, exist. I have done my research, and determined that this article does not quality for inclusion under WP:NOTE. I have no other evidence to present. I will, however, take issue with other evidence presented. Especially when it simply does not conform too WP:NOTE, or even Wikipedia:Notability (web). In material that I accept would conform to WP:NOTE standards, you have a single article which apparently no one can read, in order to back up your claims of it conforming to WP:NOTE (I would question how you know it is applicable to WP:NOTE, when you cannot even read it, but that is besides the point) and a magazine article which may or may not exist in any form useful to us. Again, under WP:VERIFY the onus is on you to show that these are reliable sources relevant to the object being discussed. This has not been done, and as such they do not qualify under WP:NOTE, and the article should not be included. Claims are evidence are not evidence, evidence we cannot examine is not evidence, evidence no one has a (even untranslated) text of is not evidence.
Per the Alexa rankings - the fact that others have used them as some kind of metric for notability does not matter. All kinds of erroneous arguments are routinely put forward in deletion debates relating to WP:NOTE (as our anonymous friend has illustrated) but they have no bearing on the argument. Again, read Wikipedia:Notability (web) - nowhere in that section are Alexa rankings listed. They have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and should be totally dropped from consideration - again, the features we must consider are laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (web). None of the purported references meet this standard. You have repeatedly claimed they, yet there has been no evidence that they do. Again, under WP:VERIFY, the onus is on you to show they do - not on me, or any other editor, unless they so wish it. I have tried my good faith best to ascertain the status of both articles but have been stymied by the fact that one simply has not been presented, and the other no one can apparently either read, or even provide a transcript of it for translation. I cannot in good conscience consider retaining an article on the strength of such completely nebulous sources, and I strongly urge other editors to consider this argument in reaching consensus on this matter. --Haemo 07:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So the Alexa rankings are not evidence because you say they are not evidence? They are not evidence because they are not part of the guildines? Alexa rankings are an unbiased, objective source for data. This unbiased, objective source is giving us information but you want to discard it because it is not part of the guildines? It is a similar story with the amount of hits it gets. Take for example Chugworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chugworth_Academy) (http://chugworth.com/). When you discard it's Alexa rank, amount of visitors, and links from other comics, you have virtually no evidence of notability. Do you know why that artical has not been deleted? Because the guildines are guidlines, not cold, definate rule. Very few webcomics that currently have wikipedia articals would actually fit the guildines for notability because a webcomic being: A) Put to print, B) Featured in an offline publication, or C) Being featured on a major website, is a major and very rare accomplishment. You seem to be completely ignoring that this webcomic is about to be put to print. Clearly we have an artical about this webcomic in a national newspaper, but due to problems that we seem unable to avoid, we cannot actually read it I have unsubstantionated claims that it was featured in a Polish magazine. At this point, I can't back up those claims, but in my opinion you should at least give me the benefit of the doubt. I believe that this webcomic is notable enough to make it into wikipedia, however some people's strictness when it comes to the guidlines means we have to debate whether it should be considered notable. We even had a deletionist agree with me, and I believe that really does mean something.Darkcraft 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - No, they mean nothing because they do not meet standards under WP:NOTE - not because "I say they don't". Again, in order for an article to be included, it must meet standards under Wikipedia:Notability (web). The fact that they are "objective" or "unbiased" does not matter. The fact that other authors have erroneously used them to establish notability does not matter. Again, you are openly admitting that your sources do not meet standards under WP:NOTE, yet are still arguing for inclusion. I am not willing to include an article based solely on the benefit of a doubt - it is directly contradictory to WP:NOTE, since it requires that the article be referenced using those sources. You cannot reference material you cannot find, so the article cannot currently be brought up to meet standards. Chugworth Academy does meet standards under WP:NOTE, since it has been verifiably published by a non-trivial publisher, and so falls under Wikipedia:Notability (web). It specifically meets guidelines under WP:NOTE, and that is why it has not been deleted - not because we bend the guidelines, as you are asking us to do here. I'm sorry, your article still does not meet standards, and should not be included in the encyclopedia. Note, however, that I am not calling for action under WP:SALT, since I believe that this article could become notable in the near future. --Haemo 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where in WP:NOTE does it say that Alexa rankings and pageviews are irrelevent? And no artical must meet those standards, the page itself says the guildines are not set in stone, and that common sense should be used. Give me a reason why we should not use page views and it's Alexa ranking as evidence. It is objective, unbiased data from a very reliable source. I never admitted that this artical does not meet the WP:NOTE guidlines, I was using an alternative arguement to show that more leeway should be given to webcomics when it comes to those guidlines because it is almost impossible for all but the most famous and popular webcomics such as Ctrl-Alt-Del and VG Cats. Darkcraft 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NOTE is inclusive, not exclusive. It specifically outlines what is required to meet the standards - it does not list things which do not qualify it, because there are an endless number of those. Alexa ranking are not mentioned, therefore they do not qualify to make an article notable - it does not matter if the material is objective or unbiased; that really has nothing to do with WP:NOTE. Again, your use of an alternative argument is flawed - it does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and it does not meet standards under Wikipedia:Notability (web). In fact, Wikipedia:Notability (web) specifically mentions webcomics in describing the standards laid out. Webcomics are not permitted more "leeway" in the guidelines, and that is made explicitly clear. --Haemo 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete for failing the notability guidelines for web-based material. The article does not cite multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources indicating notability. In addition the lack of accessible third-party sources makes the article unverifiable. In response to Darkcraft on the point of other articles being in the 'pedia, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, nor is the Pokemon defense a strong argument. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with your decision and it seems as though most of the community agrees with me. In my opinion, I was not using the 'Pokemon Defence' as I was drawing no parallels between this artical and 'Chugworth', but I was trying to make people look at the decision process behind deciding whether an artical on a webcomic exists or not, and why it differs from Chugworth to Gone With The Blastwave. As for the inclusion not equaling notability, I could find many other webcomics on Wikipedia from which I could use a similar process to invalidate the WP:NOTE arguement. In general, I believe that Wikipedia is too hard on webcomics because it is so difficult for them to fulfill those criteria. I would have liked another day of debate because I would have liked to have seen a rebuttal to my post just above yours, and I believe 'Guy' was not acting as he should have.

I accept your decision and wont take this to Deletion Review mainly because I don't think it would pass, and I can't bother continuing this debate. Several admins have voted keep on this page, several have voted delete, so I think that it was a bit of blind luck whether the volunteer who made the final decision was for or against the deletion of this artical. Thankyou for not salting this artical, you can probably expect to see this artical back at AFD within 12 months >:) Darkcraft 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realised you are not an Administrator, and only editors in good standing can close discussions that either end in a 'delete' or have an unambiguous resolve between other users (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions) sorry nothing personal, but we need an admin here.Darkcraft 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it was very late at night when I wrote that, I assumed he was closing this debate. I am silly.Darkcraft 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we cite them, per say? Since none of us read the language the newspaper is in, there's no possible information we can get from it. Multiple non-trivial published works. One newspaper and one magazine. If you're going to say two is not multiple I'm afraid I will have to throw a dictionary at you. If your problem is that the magazine has not been verified yet, I would have to suggest you wait on the Deletes until it is proven that the claim is false. Also, no one has used the Pokemon Defense, the only thing I can see that you could have mistaken for it is Chugworth Acadamy. He is simply stating that by the very guidelines you are condemning this article that Chugworth Acadamy has no right to exist.

The entire reason for deletion posted by Guy has nothing to do with the notability guidelines.IndecisionV 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Again, if you can provide a clean scan, or transcript, I know people who can read German, and would be happy to help out. Until then, we cannot determine the nature of the publication, and so the evidence cannot qualify under WP:NOTE. With respect to the magazine, we have no verifiable evidence that the story exists, let alone whether or not it is relevant. Claiming this article as a source is contradictory to every WP:NOTE stands for. I have addressed the Chugworth issue, but would state in any case that it is irrelevant to the issue at hand - even if Chugworth failed under WP:NOTE, which it does not, that would not mean we allow other articles to remain if they fail as well. --Haemo 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is not set in stone, as it says itself. I believe I have enough evidence of notability to prevent this artical from being deleted at this time. Where in WP:NOTE, does it say, even though we have evidence of an existance in a national publication and website, that our inability to read it at this time means that it can't be used as evidence, and is "contradictory to every(thing) WP:NOTE stands for." Ok let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that this entire newspaper artical is saying how terrible this webcomic is and that it is really bad. So what? It was still in a national independant publication, which works under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Again, please read the standards under WP:NOTE. In order for an article to qualify it must have multiple, non-trivial, publications in which it is the main subject of discussion. Because we cannot read the article, we have no evidence that this is the case - all we know is that a newspaper used a single cell of the comic in a publication. We have no idea what the context is, or if it qualifies under the requirements in WP:NOTE - therefore, we cannot admit it as evidence of notability. Again, although WP:NOTE is not set in stone, it has reached one of the highest levels of consensus possible, next to official policy, and unless there is a compelling reason to consider an exception, it should not be ignored. In fact, the section you are opting to be overlooked is the very core of WP:NOTE, which is derived from WP:NOT, which is official policy on the site. Either you are arguing one of two things - that your site does not qualify under WP:NOTE, but that doesn't matter, because WP:NOT should be disregarded, or that your sources do qualify under WP:NOTE. I would object to the first argument in the strongest possible to terms, and believe that I have shown that the second argument is incorrect by the policies outlined in WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you wish to take issue with the standards under WP:NOTE or Wikipedia:Notability (web) then I suggest you bring it up on their discussion pages, and argue that webcomics should be prevented more leeway than is currently perscribed. Once you get that changed agreed to, then you can re-create the page, if it is deleted. A deletion argument is the wrong place to begin arguing that the WP:NOTE standards are misapplied or incorrect. --Haemo 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc."

Whatever the context, his artwork has been featured in a national newspaper. There we go, source number 1.

It has been featured several times on this site: http://www.nma-fallout.com/archive.php?year=2006&month=06 (Which classifies as a non-trivial and independant, in my opinion) Source number 2.

It is/ has been linked to from many other webcomics that are notable enough to be in Wikipedia (most notably the VG Cats home page, which is, surprise surprise, an independant, notable website.) Source number 3

It was featured in a Polish magazine, but I have no evidence of this. I would not lie or make something up just so that an artical can get into Wikipedia, so I do hope that you do not entirely disregard that evidence, and that the closing admin keeps that in mind.

It's Alexa ranking and amount of visitors reflects the ammount of traffic it gets. Both are monitored by an independant 3rd party, and so I believe should be taken into account by the closing admin, despite their not being included in the guidlines.

The webcomic is going into print. It is not in print yet, but the author has expressed that he will, and the publishers website mentions the webcomic. This should be taken into account.

Prints of images based on the comic are available, and are printed by a 3rd party.

It is coming 22nd on the Buzzcomix list, which is one of the most notable webcomic lists.

Clearly this webcomic is notable.Darkcraft 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - No, again. Let's go through your assertions point by point:

The newspaper article does not meet standards and thus does not qualify under WP:NOTE. We have no way of ascertaining the nature of the article in question - simply being mentioned, or included, in an article does not meet standards. It must be the object of the article in question. We have no idea whether or not that is the case here. This does not qualify.
The given mention in NMA does not qualify - a two-sentence news post does not meet standards under WP:NOTE. None of the other mentions I can find on that site are any longer. This does not meet standards, and does not qualify.
Alexa rankings, Buzzcomix, cross-links by VGCats, etc. None of these qualify under WP:NOTE, as I have repeatedly explained to you, and am not exactly keen to explain once again. They do not qualify.
The Polish magazine does not qualify, since we have no idea about it, as we have not been given a name, date, or any other documentation of existence. This does not quality.
A promise to be going into print in the near future does not qualify under WP:NOTE. Future notability does not translate into current notability. If the publishing deal goes through, then it meets standards. Not before. This does not qualify.
Let me say this again, to be very clear - none of your sources qualify the article for notability under WP:NOTE. At this point, I sound like a broken record, but I strongly urge you to read the standards expressed therein, and to understand why this article does not meet notability standards. --Haemo 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read all the guidlines, and I have determined that this artical is notable according to those guidlines. The guidlines themselves say to use common sense, and common sense tells me to include Alexa/siteviews as evidence. I don't understand how being mentioned by several webcomics, at least one notable one, does not qualify under WP:NOTE. I have expressed my views multiple times and I stand by them. This debate is going in circles. Unless you or someone else has any new evidence or whatever to bring up in this debate, I think it is time we had an admin close this. We have both explained how we have drawn our respective conclusions, and we both disagree with eachother, so I see no point in continuing this. As I said before, I will now sit and wait for an admin to close this, unless someone has more to add.Darkcraft 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh one thing I didn't point out is my reasoning behind the webcomics being sources. Here is an extract from WP:NOTE:

"What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms"

VG Cats is an independant, published, notable work, so therefore it should be acceptable under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there's really no reason to request a close on this - it expires in a couple of days, at which time an admin will make a descision. You are misreading the guidelines under WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Alexa/siteviews do not fall under the purview of those sections, in the same way that Ghits do not. Look at the criteria for inclusion. Nowhere are this mentioned in it - thus, it does not qualify for inclusion. It really cannot be anymore singlular. There have been no Verifiable sources which meet standards under WP:NOTE presented, and thus this article does not meet standard. Again, a link from VGCats does not count. Two sentences of "check out this comic" do not count. The webcomic community routinely engages in this kind of tit-for-tat recognition, and it does not qualify as a non-trivial published works. You seem to believe that because a source is notable, everything they write is qualifiable for inclusion under WP:NOTE. This is not the case - if the New York Times wrote an article about webcomics, and included Gone with the Blastwave in a list in that article it would notqualify - it doesn't matter that the New York Times is one of the most reputable and notable newspapers in the world. It still does not meet standards. In order to qualify under WP:NOTE a source must meet every word of has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself - not some of them, and certainly not just the parts that apply to the particular purported source under consideration. Again, you seem to harbour grave misunderstandings about WP:NOTE, and I strongly urge you to re-read the guidelines therein. You are attempting to retain an article based on notability, without having any sources or references which conform to standards. I find this unacceptable - it is nothing against the comic (I very much enjoyed reading it) - but rather a belief in the guidelines which help improve Wikipedia. --Haemo 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not request that an admin closes this, I said that I am content to wait for an admin to close this, because neither of us are bringing anything new to this debate. Gone With The Blastwave is mentioned 4 times on that page, but due to that sites lack of a search feature, I can't find anymore references to it from that site. These mentions are small, but together they must count for something. Sorry I will continue my rebutal later, I have to go now.Darkcraft 00:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(Continuing from above) Yes, I know that Alexa and siteviews do not fall under WP:NOTE. WP:NOTE says editors should use common sense, and my common sense is telling me that it's Alexa rank is high enough for it to have some weight as to the deletion of this artical, and so do it's site views (having an Alexa rank of below 100,000 is a proposed addition to the WP:WEB guidlines anyway). I don't understand why you choose to follow these guidlines to the letter, when really they are just guidlines, and they themselves ask editors to use common sense. You didn't explain why being featured on VG Cats doesn't count under WP:NOTE. My interpretation of WP:NOTE is that it does. Gone With The Blastwave has been linked to by several webcomics, and even if somehow none of them fit under WP:NOTE, it should still hold some weight.

WP:V is irrelevent unless we are sourcing material from the newspaper into the artical. Surely you will agree with me about that. The newspaper artical/image fit in under WP:NOTE because, and I will repeat this as many times as I have to, whatever the context, artwork from the webcomic was featured in a national, independant newspaper. Your analogy about it being featured as a list in The New York Times makes little sense, if this image and artical were featured in The New York Times, I would still believe that it fit in under WP:NOTE.Darkcraft 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Haemo's thorough rebuttal above. — TKD::Talk 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Haemo. This is original research on a topic with no claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is violating WP:OR. Most of this information can be found on the website, and the deductions about the greens were confirmed by the author. Considering this is a very new artical with few contributers so far, I think it is doing fairly well.Darkcraft 11:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, although the article needs to freshen up. The easiest thing to do would be to reimport the olsd article from Comixpedia and bring it up to date, rather than fixing the current one (which seems a little bit amateurish - no offense). Send an email to that swiss paper about a screen on behalf of wikipedia - it might get fixed, and we can have the screen on Commons. Basically, the newspaper article is a short review of the webcomic, describing what it is about, mentioning the creator and so on. Together with the fact that the comic is going into print, and that it has throned the webcomic rankings, I believe that it is notable enough to have it's own article here. But as I mentioned earlier - the article has to be freshened up. Brainman 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I found the blogpost that led to the printing in the Swiss newspaper: [47]. In the comments there is also a rough translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow you found a translation? You are my hero! I agree, this artical is substandard, but I don't believe the Comixpedia artical is suitable in it's entirity for use on Wikipedia, but if other people think otherwise, then I don't mind replacing this artical with the Comixpedia one(I didn't write most of the Wiki one anyway).Darkcraft 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Excellent work, Brainman! With this translation, we can see that this source probably does qualify under WP:NOTE. As a result, I would change my !vote to Weak delete - we really only have one source, and WP:NOTE requires several, but the addition of only one, or two, other non-trivial sources could bring this article up to standards. However, I agree with the sentiment that the article needs a clean-up, regardless of the outcome. Again, though, I would point out that Alexa ranking, etc, and promises of future publication do not meet standards under WP:NOTE. I would suggest, though, that even if this article is deleted, that someone retains a copy of it, and continues improving it locally, so that if and when it is published, it can be restored. --Haemo 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason at all under WP:NOTE for it to matter whether it were in print or not, yet clearly we all agree that if it were in print, it would affect it's notability. This is an example of using common sense when it comes to use of those guidlines. The artist was approached by the publisher who asked him whether he wanted it to be printed, so clearly both the publisher and artist want this webcomic to be printed. If there is a promise that this webcomic will be put in print in the near future, then why should we disregard this? especially seeing as being in print doesn't meet the WP:NOTE standards anyway.Darkcraft 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Again, you are misreading the standards under WP:NOTE. Not only is publication a sure-fire way for there to be multiple non-trivial articles written about it, and thus is a good "rule of thumb" for such content - it also does, however, also meet standards. Quoting from the web section, The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators. This would qualify as such. --Haemo 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators." I interpret that to mean distributed by an independant source, such as it being published as a weekly comic in a newspaper. Being put to print as a book of comics is not independant of the author, however if it were publised weekly in a well-known newspaper, then it would be published through a "well known and independant source". I understand that being put to print would be a rule of thumb, but being put to print itself, unless I am mistaken, does not meet the WP:NOTE guidlines.Darkcraft 07:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid that interpretation makes no coherent sense. The creator of a work, like a webcomic, will invariably be involved with the publication of his works to the degree you have outlined - it is illegal, in most jurisdictions, not to be, since he retains copyright on it. What the guidelines are actually stating is that the medium of distribution is independent of the creator of the content - for instance, a previously established publisher, or magazine. It is designed to exclude self-publication - that is, when a creator also publishes or distributes his work - being printed by a publisher who is independent of the author, and not a self-publication house, counts. --Haemo 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most likely right, but still I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct. I could draw up some artwork, run off to a publisher, offer them money, and have my work published. It is not independant because they are just taking money from the artist, and turning it into printed images. However a newspaper will have certain standards. A newspaper is independant of the artist, but a publisher is not. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect, but that section from WP:WEB you have quoted is fairly vague. What does it mean by medium? A medium as in print, radio, or television, or a medium as in a specific newspaper, specific radio station, or specific tv channel. (I don't think I am explaining my self very well.) How would you define one medium 'well known'? "Print is a well-known medium, but radio is not." Or is it more like "NBC is a well known medium through which it could be published, however Fox is not." My interpretation is that by 'medium', it means, in this case, a specific form of print. A well known, specific kind of print would be the New York Times, however spending your own money to put your own material to print would not be because the medium is not well known. Sorry if this is a bit confusing.

Anyway this artical is going into print fairly soon. If the closing admin did decide to delete this, someone would probably remake it as soon as it went to print, and then it would go through this whole AFD process again, and then still could be deleted. Ask yourself "If it were in print right now, would I still be voting delete?" If you answered no, then I think you should rethink your stance on whether or not this artical should be deleted. This webcomic is going to print. The chances of one of the two suddenly backing out of the deal is very unlikely, so I treat this webcomic as though it is already in print.Darkcraft 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the thing is, a publisher has to approve you for publication; I mentioned that pay-for-print houses are not considered independent of the creator - as the medium is produced at the behest of the creator. However, agreements wherein the publisher and the creator split the payment do qualify, since the medium is independent of the creator. The section is intentionally vague - it is meant to be broadly applicable to all kinds of media, without restriction. However, there are generally specific sections for certain media - radio can be notable, but being aired, say, once a week in small-town Texas radio is probably not. The same is true for other media. Nonetheless, we are still discussing a future event, and notability does not inherit from the future. When it's published, it will probably be notable, as per the guidelines - when, not a "promise" or "very sure thing". --Haemo 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I accept that. Though I stand by my argument for the inclusion of this artical in Wikipedia. We have short articals at www.nma-fallout.com that have been verified, and images from the comic are in print right now: http://www.deviantart.com/print/378534/

I have mentioned other reasons for it's inclusion above. Even if these other arguments do not meet WP:NOTE, seeing as there are so many references to the webcomic, these references should be collectively taken into account in the final decision making process.Darkcraft 11:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Again, the articles on NMA are too short to constitute non-trivial publications. The fact that there are lots of them does not make them notable as a group - a bunch of things which individually do not meet standards under WP:NOTE does not meet standards under WP:NOTE as a group. This, really, seems to be the heart of your argument - that, though you admit that each source does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, you argue that a group of them does. This is contradictory to what is outlined under WP:NOTE, and I cannot support inclusion of an article on this basis. Furthermore, Deviant is specifically designed not be independant of the creator - it is like saying that because I got my art printed by CafePress, it has been "published". That is contradictory to standards. I too stand by my argument that this article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE and thus should not be included in the encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Here is an image from the magazine: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=1658 and here is a rough translation of it: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=296261&sid=9665fc1f980a56827ce63d012f284660 (Thanks a lot Altnabla)
I continue to stand by my previous arguements as well. All the small things should be taken into account in the final decision making process.Darkcraft 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And if you scroll down this page (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/news.php?i=1133) you will see an image painted by the artist of this webcomic which was sent to CAD. Maybe not completely relevent, but it shows that two of the largest webcomics in existance have recognised Kimmo Lemetti as a great artist. Darkcraft 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry one more thing. I don't know what this is, but I think it may be a transcript of the magazine text. Altnabla tells me it is relevent, so I might as well post a link: http://www.wzl.be/fun/index.asp?par=f_post&ID=2163&y=2006&m=7&d=26 Thanks again Altnabla!Darkcraft 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7 and G11. Fang Aili ^talk 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terapad

This Web site's notability is not asserted or proven. Edit history suggests vanity and/or spamming. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Site is perfectly legit. Company in question provides a free service similar to other pages such as say, Typepad Keep. Stephantual 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — Stephantual (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy Delete - it's spam. CiaranG 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Spammy and doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prolog 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from the OP

Since is this going to be deleted anyway, let me tell you something: You people really do a good job at appearing on the payroll of big corporates. This is my real name, the company is real, we're not spamming, we're hardworking people just placing a NPOV page on wikipedia the same way you have 15 or 20 links to similar services. It's doing wikipedia a favor by adding content. Spam is the crap you get in your inbox title 'Viagra Free Free Free'. That's not us, capice? I take real offense being called a spammer. Talking about spam, what did those other services do to deserve being on Wikipedia? I'll probably never know - but I wasn't born yesterday, so next time, just give me the PO box to send the bribe to. Stephantual 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't overreact. You can read Wikipedia's definition of spamming as well as our policy on conflicts of interest. You should also take a look at our guidelines on notability particularly the notabilities of companies. This last link gives you the specific criteria we use to determine which companies are notable enough to warrant an article and which are not. If your company meets one or more of those criteria, please update the article to show that and it will likely be kept. Gwernol 13:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Ronbo76 13:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - not notable and no assertion of notability. Jayden54 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Proto::► 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Tesco Extra Stores

Incomplete list of a certain type of store - not encyclopaedic MrBeast 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup per WP:CORP and WP:LIST - #companies & organisations point 1; 1, 2 and 3 - multiple, non-trivial media sources clearly demonstrate the concept of Tesco Extra stores are notable and at the very least constitute a List of Locations. However, I acknowledge that the fact that the list is incomplete and therefore I propose that after the article has been kept, it be listed for cleanup at WP:CU. I believe this to be a more fitting solution that will benefit the encyclopedia more than being one article down. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Tesco Extra format is of note, but this is not what the article is. The article is a plain list. If people want to know where various stores are located the information is readily available at the relevant retailer's website e.g. [48] Mark83 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. The subject of "Tesco Extra" stores is notable, but it's already covered in the Tesco article. (No prejudice to a possible Tesco Extra article that actually describes the "Tesco Extra" format substantively rather than just being a bare list of locations.) Demiurge 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because not only is this the job of Tesco's webmasters (whose list will be authoritative, unlike ours), it is also inane. Tesco Extra may well be notable, but that does not make a directory of Tesco Extra stores notable. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Tesco Extra and allow a full article to be written here, otherwise delete. --Doc^g 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a directory, and the above comments. Jayden54 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Slippery slope and above comments. Mark83 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete List serves no purpose. If someone really wants to find a Tesco Extra they can use the store locator [49] like the rest of us. QuagmireDog 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danish second division soccer match results

A very dangerous precedent to allow run of the mill soccer match results. -- RHaworth 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete agreed that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for entire articles on individual soccer matches. At best the scores from these matches could be included in an article about the entire season. These matches are not notable enough to require an individual article. Gwernol 13:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Certain football matches deserve their own articles, such as FA Cup Finals, World Cup Finals, etc. Run-of-the-mill league games involving minor lower-league teams are a milion miles away from that category. The articles also completely lack context.... ChrisTheDude 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not ESPN. – Elisson • T • C • 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gwernol. Not notable. Akihabara 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unless there was something notable about these matches, we don't need articles on them. Jayden54 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - this is not a sports journalism service, if we start allowing reports of normal week in week out matches, then every match of every week in every division of every national league will merit an article. I don't even want to think about that happening. Robotforaday 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per policy and prior discussion. Creator also made Template:In and Template:Out, which will be orphaned when these articles go. Punkmorten 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a vidiprinter doktorb _words^deeds 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Haggerty & The Wanted

I translated this as per a request on the 'articles for translation' page. It doesn't seem to meet any Notability criteria to me. SuperFraggle 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Barely notable at this time. Referenced links come my.space and their own website. Ronbo76 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per above: who??? - CobaltBlueTony 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 02:20, 9 January 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIDIbox

Lacks notability WP:CORP Calltech 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Open source software has emerged as a legitimate alternate to other OS. Recommend expert look at article with a wikify type expansion of article. Ronbo76 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nothing that shows that this project is notable in any real way. Google provided nothing interesting. Jayden54 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Find proper Wikiproject name or Name portal and tag with {{expert-subject|name}}TonyTheTiger 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This might well be integrated into the MIDI controller article, which already links to it. As an editor with substantial MIDI experience: MIDI is seeing a resurgence because of software synths; DIY MIDI controller/gestural interfacing is growing important on the laptop scene -- and the PIC scene has long been substantial. To add to Ronbo's comment: this concisely serves the encyclopedia by illustrating a significant development in a rapidly growing scene, and links multiple tech disciplines. Twang 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Twang. I went and adde an expert tag so it should be expanded.--Wizardman 00:58, 13 January 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. Proto::► 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fully sick

An article on an advertising slogan, a deliberate coiining of a neologism, sourced from Encyclopaedia Dramatica (yes you read that right), a Google search and Urban Dictionary. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- Delete - Non-notable.
~~Delete~~ cobber. The article clearly states its a neologism Gwernol 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep changing my opinion in the light of Canley's additional references. The Australian National Dictionary project one is a little thin, as it simply uses it as an example, but it does confer some notability. The reference from The Age is also a little sketchy as the article is about the show not the term, but it does note the term specifically and point to its popularity and importance. Add these to the use in the Thorpe's TV ads and there's enough of a case for me. More would be better though. Gwernol 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable neologism. Jayden54 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ Merge as per below It is a major thing in Australia, few people would not have heard it used, and the advert is often parodied. I can understand that it looks like a simple neologism to non-Australians, but it goes much deeper then that.Darkcraft 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism, WP:NOT a dictionary/slang guide, and anything which claims "references" from Encyclopedia Dramatca and Urban Dictionary should be deleted on sight. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Haemo 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete neologism by the retardation that is ED. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - for the record, this phrase is not a neologism, and it is very well known in Australia. It's been used in reputable news sources like ABC, news.com.au, and SMH. Also, it existed long before Thorpe's ad - that ED article is a pile of crap. The only reason I'm voting delete is because I don't think you'll find enough academic sources out there to write a full article this phrase. Still, a one-line definition should be added wherever we define Australianisms around here. If we do ever find some sources which outline the phrase in more depth, I'd have no objection to recreating an article. Quack 688 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fully keep Amazingly, I did find an academic source: [50], The Australian National Dictionary project at the Australian National University which defines "fully" as an intensifier, and uses "fully sick" from the SBS website as an example of usage (the phrase is frequently used in the comedy series Pizza). There's a paragraph or two about the phrase in The Age which may be a more reliable source than the current ones. --Canley 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as annoying as it is, this is slang in frequent use in Australia. Also see comment from Canley above. Lankiveil 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per the notability guideline for neologisms, which requires that the term itself be the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage, not just that the term be used in numerous places. Using "fully sick" as an example to illustrate the use of "fully" does not qualify as non-trivial coverage. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment But "fully sick" isn't just an example. It has its own meaning, just like "top notch" means more than "top" plus "notch". That's why it needs to be properly defined somewhere on Wikipedia. There's a bit of history behind the phrase as well - as I said above, if we find some more sources about that aspect, I'd be perfectly happy to see this article kept as an independent. Quack 688 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete move to one of the Australian English lists of slang. WP:NEO has not been met (listings in a dictionary - especially ones that accept user contributions - aren't sufficient)Ga rr ie 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The phrase is more important and less new than the article currently suggests, but still doesn't deserve it's own article. JPD (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The phrase may be real enough, but shouldn't it be in wiktionary or something? The article is little more than a dictionary definition. Andjam 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - per some above comments as neologism. Or maybe put in Wiktionary. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I had speedied it but then the author said he'd improve it. Well I restored it and...it's not better. :) Neologism. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia N97

Rumored product whose specs & picture are not real. See [51] and [52]. Nokia has not acknowledged plans for this product. -- JLaTondre 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article is unverifiable Gwernol 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and lack of any reliable sources. Let's wait until Nokia has officially announced this phone. Jayden54 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The links provided by the nominator confirm what I found when I checked Google, the whole thing appears to be an internet hoax, and not a very amusing or notable one at that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. This article is on my watchlist because there was no reliable info for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Zeppelin

Originally marked as a speedy per CSD G1 (which it clearly isn't). Wikipedia is not for things made up one day; no assertion of notability; no references or sources. -- Merope 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unreferenced original research. Demiurge 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete clear original research lacking all verifiable sources. In other words, exactly per the above. Gwernol 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per above, and nothing at all in any search engine (Google, Google News, Yahoo, Live Search, Ask) Jayden54 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a comprimise should be made. maybe this should be put in a sub catagory about fan works, or Music syncronisticy theories?

Delete, and probably should have been speedied in the first place. There is no evidence that leads me to think that this phenomenon, illustrated by original research, is any more notable than its creator(s), who would almost certainly not fulfill the criteria to exempt them from a speedy deletion under the "bio" clause of CSD. --Dr Excessus 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
does the page become credible if one of the wiki editors test it out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MNiederle343 (talk • contribs).

I assume by "test it out" you mean a Wiki editor joins this church? No, even if someone did it would be just their word, which is not considered a reliable source for this purpose. You need independent published sources that discuss the Church Gwernol 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Church"??? are we talking about the same things? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.244.92.26 (talk • contribs).

Yes, sorry, got my AfDs muddled up. Replace "Church" with "experience", the point still stands. Having an editor try out the whole thing still leaves us with an editor's personal experience. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable which means that a reader can go look up what is claimed in a reputable, independent source to confirm it. So for example, if the New York Times writes an article about Lord of the Zeppelin you can include it. Gwernol 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There are endless ways to recombine music and movies and they can't all have articles -- just the notable ones. MNiederle343, credibility is established by reliable, independent sources, not by Wikipedia editors personally checking things out. If we allowed editors to vouch for things... well, Wikipedia would have serious problems. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's not Synchronicity when you're picking the Led Zep song that mentions Gollum to play when Gollum is on screen, it's a fan made soundtrack. Static Universe 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 06:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under CSD A3 by Allen3 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Mart inp23 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruben davis

Previously speedied and recreated, now speedy contested. AfD per proceedure. Originally a self-created vanity article about a non-notable subject, now entirely made up of a defense of the article itself with no content. Chrisd87 22:02, 3 January 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 Speedied per A7/G11. Fang Aili ^talk 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barcodepedia

nn website--Alilic 14:11, 4 January 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 Speedied per A7/G11. Fang Aili ^talk 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WhatsOnMyBookshelf

nn website Alilic 14:15, 4 January 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 Speedied per A7. Fang Aili ^talk 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wirepop

nn website Alilic 14:15, 4 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Albert

non-notable person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 January 2007.

Delete. Asserts notability but I can find no evidence. Google searches for '"Jim Albert" ski' [53], '"James Albert" ski' [54], '"Jim Albert" slalom' [55], etc [56], do not turn up anything. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Big top 23:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Baleete, no thought process required. ~ Flame vip e r 22:05, 10 January 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, reasons to delete - lack of verifiability, original research, lack of notability. Reasons to keep - I like it. Proto::► 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta Tau Chapter of Beta Theta Pi

Non-notable local chapter of a national fraternity. This would be roughly the equivalent of an article on a lodge of Elks or a Chamber of commerce. It is well sourced, but every source is from the local chapter, national organization, and one minor one from the college. There are no independent, reliable sources offered to establish notability of this organization. A redirect to the national organization's article was tried several weeks ago but quickly reverted. Metros232 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - other chapters for this fraternity and other fraternities exist. This would factor my nomination to keep this article. Another good reason is that fraternities sometimes fold. As an encyclopedia we might the final source. I am not a member of this fraternity. Decision changed with =Ronbo76 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If these other chapters fail to assert notability, I contend that they should be deleted as well. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the other two chapters from this fraternity (as far as I can tell) are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Theta Chapter of Beta Theta Pi. Metros232 02:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ORG (proposed guideline). As for "other chapters exist", inclusion does not demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Beta Theta Pi. Not notable as far as I can tell. delldot | talk 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Certainly notable and well-researched. And why have images been prematurely deleted from the site when this vote has not concluded? Pat 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment well what is the notability of it? It won a bunch of awards on the campus and within the frat, that's about it, right? Also, do you have independent sources (i.e. ones not from the frat itself) to confer this notability? Metros232 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- And according to the deletion log, it was deleted as lacking a copyright status [57]. Several weeks ago the copyright tag for almost all coat of arms images was deleted, rendering the images as being without copyright status and, therefore, subject to deletion after a week. Metros232 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I find the timing of this quite offensive, not only because the image was properly uploaded, but this particular attempt to delete this article comes on the heels of an attempted deletion of this article without feedback, fended off not two weeks ago. If this article does get deleted, it will have been the end of one of the most undemocratic series of dealings that I have seen since I've been here. Also, "notability" is a guideline subject to Wikipedia's larger objectives which has always been used broadly for the sake of making this (more or less) a site to memorialize dead kings and record fictional characters. This organization is notable, but it does not have to be. Pat 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I could write a tremendous, feature article quality article on myself using sources and making it totally verifiable. Would that article stay? No, because I'm not notable. Where are the independent, verifiable sources on this? Do you have any sources that address the subject that aren't from the frat or the school? 6 of the sources are from the national fraternity, 1 from the school, 1 from the chapter, 1 from another chapter, and 1 that's not a reference, just a note. Metros232 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete and delete all local chapters of fraternities etc unless there is somethingthat is or was particularly notable or newsworthy. I see no justification whatsoever. The argument that we need to keep it as an instorical record is invalid, because everything that has ever been in wikipedia is part of the historical record as long as web-based civilization survives (smile)DGG 04:18, 9 January 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. -Doc^g 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crood (rapper)

No actual notability asserted. Only 144 Google hits for "Crood rapper" (no quote marks, most of them unrelated to this person). Albums don't yield hits on Google or Amazon. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Concur with nom. All of edits come from one user. Fails to meet notability requirements.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs).

Response From Sizzerb Management:

I'm afraid that is false. Look up "Crood Sizzerb" on Google:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Crood+Sizzerb&meta=

If you look up Crood, the first 3 sites that come up are directly related to the artist:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Crood&meta=

If you look up Sizzerb he comes up and is also included on the Sizzerb/Sizzerb International websites:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Sizzerb&meta=

Crood is also a respected artist in the Serbian hip-hop community and the Sizzerb mixtape series has sold over 30 thousand units worldwide. Look up Sizzerb Vol. 1 for example and multiple sites including ebay will show up, which carry the product. Crood is featured on all the tapes, this is obsurd. He is also referenced in Sin's Wikipedia biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.167.195 (talk • contribs). (see also Sizzerbiatch (talk · contribs))

And the 3 sites are: MySpace, record label, and "coming soon". As soon as management feel the need to plead a case my spam radar kicks in. Delete per nom unless convincing evidence of notability is produced. --kingboyk 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is rediculous... Anybody in the music industry knows anyone can get their music on Amazon with about $50 and you use that as guideline to see if pages are authentic? It seems like you have more knowledge of spamming then you do of the music information your trying to delete off here!

How about these sites, they all sell Sizzerb mixtapes, and Crood is featured on everyone of them (see track listing):

http://www.hiphopcanada.com/_site/community/store/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_23&products_id=46&osCsid=d11b743da14607718a9e841344bf777e

http://www.allhiphopmixtapes.com/product_info.php?products_id=1492

http://cdbaby.com/cd/djvlad

http://www.yu4you.com/items/en/cd/item_3121.html

http://www.mixunit.com/sincitysizzerb.html

http://shopmixtape.com/mixtapes.php?mi=182

http://www.rapsearch.com/store/product.php?productid=2455&cat=155&page=1

http://www.soulbrotherrecordings.co.uk/milkmaticvol2.htm

http://www.mumbleshiphop.com/store2/product_info.php?products_id=517&osCsid=224d2fb70598b25a9a2753eec1e6505e

That's just some, there's way more...

Sizzerb Vol. 1 featured on MTV Mixtape Mondays:

http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/mixtape_monday/080105/

You really need to check into the information your providing, how could Sizzerb tapes be sold on all these different sites and featured on MTV if they weren't factual? Crood (rapper) is on every one, just read the track listing.

Here are some other reviews i found with Crood mentioned in them.

http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2003_11_gypsyradio.html

"The production by Crood, where he samples choirs and Indian classical music, only adds depth to the search for inner peace, a slight spiritual touch dropped in one's personal plea to get out of hell. "

http://www.mvremix.com/urban/reviews/2003/fuseone.shtml

"The melodic and haunting vibes of “Burn” ends up as the albums finest cut, thanks to a spectacular production effort by Crood."

http://www.soulbrotherrecordings.co.uk/flatlinemain.htm

Milk Crate consists of DJ Flatline/KendeR/Red Eye Jedi/Crood/Keith Burst and are an up and coming crew from Toronto. They specialise in creating some of the freshest underground hip-hop music and their music features a collection of remixes created to illustrate the skill, talent and dedication to true hip hop in all of its forms.

I can keep going, but the fact is you need to provide proof, not speculation that this is not factual. What your basically saying is, this may be spam so lets delete it. Where as, i am giving you concrete examples to prove this is NOT spam, it is impossible to make this stuff up or duplicate a talent such as Crood's.

Delete A legend of his own making - most of the ghits I could find were either one of his sites, or posts by him. Active, but seems obscure. --Brianyoumans 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No [www.gracenote.com] hits for sizzerb or Crood. Most ghits are self promotion such as myspace or [www.sizzerb.com] --Nick Y. 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when does an artists visibility on the internet reflect their legitimate contributions to MUSIC??? I could name you 10 artists from Yugoslavia (where Crood is from) who are superstars there, but barely visibly online. What your saying doesn't make sense. I've listed respectible publications covering Sizzerb AND Crood with direct quotes about Crood, his music and tracklistings with CROOD songs on them on websites which sell CD's ie. Mixunit (top mixtape site in the world) or rapreviews.com - top hip-hop review site online www.hiphopcanada.com www.allhiphop.com and other respectable urban websites. Just because your nerd search engine isn't picking it up is irrelevant when i am showing you DIRECT LINKS of pages which feature Crood, on known websites/publications!

If Crood had enough power to forge himself into all those websites i listed, his online presence would be as big as his music which is not the case yet. This is discrimination against a new/foreign artist the way i see it... You can't base someone accomplishments off 1 search engine when i am giving you DIRECT LINKS of respectable publications/sellers.

Not to mention that every mixtape Sizzerb has done (all of which Crood is on) are hosted by a-list level hip-hop DJ's. Look up any of them from DJ Vlad to Big Mike to Nu Jerzy Devil to Team Invasion. This is undesputable success especially from a artist based in Canada/from a foreign country. I have faith Wikipedia will review the information i gave them accordingly.

For direct reference to Crood on here, also see Sin (rapper)

Delete. In cases where notability is established, a neutrally-written article is sufficient, but in cases where it's dodgy and there is a clear conflict of interest, I vote 'em down. Labels should not edit the articles of artists. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that but all the info was used with the artists permission and we can provide any documentation necessary to prove that. The biography was taken with permission from the artists website. There is no conflict of interest we are just making sure the artist is being represented properly becuase a third party could do the same thing and change the story/manipulate details, especially our enemies/competitors. We are not speculating but stating facts, and documenting a growing artist/movement early on. If there is anything you feel needs to be changed please state it specifically, i believe all the links i've provided is more then specific proof of Crood's role in hip-hop and Sizzerb, he is also documented in Sin's biography on here. I can also provide links to stores that sell all the mixtapes in the discography with the acception of Sizzerb INternational Vol. 1 which was a free download. Any other information you need including medical/police reports which prove what was said in the biography is true are available to you upon request. We'd be happy to accomondate anything to fit your standards, and understand the information on this page is definitelly something which will be used as a long-term reference to the artist. There is no denying everything stated is factual and relevant to Crood's role in hip-hop and who he is as an artist.

Delete, borderline speedy A7. The article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for music artists, nor does it provide reliable non-trivial, third-party coverage to verify any of the claims being made. In addition (not a delete criterion), as the article stands it reads very much like a promotional piece to increase traffic and perhaps sales. If the person is as famous as claimed, it should be no hardship to dig up reliable sources (news and/or magazine coverage for example), even if these are foreign language. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem providing reviews or interviews, in fact i already noted some. I wasn't claiming the person was famous, just outlining achievement. If you need direct links to works/reviews/interviews be specific and i can provide what you ask for. But is that supposed to be included in the article? I stayed away from putting too many links in the actual article because i figure u don't want linking done unless manditory. I'm willing to do whats neccessary to fix the issue. I tried to make it more like it would look if you read about an artist in a physical book encyclopedia, they usually don't provide such links (to websites/articles etc.) if you prefer a different better referenced format i can do that but this way its focusing on the individual more then the coverage which i think is key for an encyclopedia.

I added many more references in the article. I hope that helps. Let me know.

Here is a article i scanned from Huper Magazine (Serbia). It reviews a compilation Crood executive produced and is featured on. If you look under "preporuka" where they list reccomended songs after the review, you will see a song featuring Crood as well.

http://sizzerb.com/images/ranerevieslusaj.jpg

I'm going out of my way here guys. I already listed 3 reviews and 10 stores/coverage sites in and above source. This is scanned directly out of the magazine.

Delete, advert, lack of notability -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:31, 7 January 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. Nonsense/hoax/vandalism/vanity, etc. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earthshatter

I strongly suspect this is a hoax, made up in school one day by two best friends. A Google search for "Earthshatter" brings up only references to World of Warcraft, not any Marvel Comics character. The individual named as the article subject "Tyler Froberg" is the same name as the creator of this supposed character. Neither name shows up in a search related to Marvel Comics. The article then suddenly changes its subject to Bootleg (comics), a real comic character... and "Earthshatter" is not mentioned in the article at all. Canley 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Made up one day. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Marvel.com has no information, and they have info on even the most obscure marvel characters. I believe this is a fraudulent entry. JN322 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up Gwernol 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete googled it too, found nothing related at all. definate hoax. Blueaster 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete garbage nonsense article. WP not for articles about people who imagine themselves as Marvel superheroes. Tubezone 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted - attack, NN, etc. Fang Aili ^talk 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carson merk

Poorly written article with typos, capitization errors, and the statement "He is handsome(.)sic" Recommend speedy delete. Ronbo76 14:47, 4 January 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. (note: this was my first ever closing of an afd discussion. I am NOT an admin but am closing this afd (which has lasted for longer than 5 days) as a keep consensus without any dissenting opinion except for the nominator as permitted by this policy section. Please let me know if I have made any missteps. Thanks!) Bwithh 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of chapters and colonies of Tau Kappa Epsilon

This entire list is a collection of external links to local chapters of this organization. Such a list violates what Wikipedia is not and external links guidelines. If such a list were cleaned up (i.e. the links removed) it would be unencyclopedic as none of these chapters have articles on Wikipedia (and probably never will since almost every local chapter of an organization such as this is non-notable). Metros232 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating: List of Sigma Chi chapters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metros232 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Weak Keep Other fraternities/sororities have lists of local chapters and this is certainly proper content for an encyclopedia. Ideally, this could be merged with the TKE page, but the list is far too long and unweildy to do that. Of course, the fact that the list is far too long might be an indication that it's not really proper to list this group's chapters.--Velvet elvis81 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But doesn't it just accomplish everything that's on their organization's website at the chapter locator? Metros232 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have removed the external links to individual chapters from BOTH pages to address that specific issue. —Scouter Sig 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep the List of Sigma Chi chapters: this list includes historical information not found on the General Fraternity webpage or through a google search. The TKE list could also be edited to include similar information; there is a continued discussion on its talk page. —Scouter Sig 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC

Keep I think that the list of chapters is encyclopedic, and for larger fraternaties/sororities like these, it should be on a separate page. If you are not going to allow stuff like this, then what about stuff like List of United Parcel Service hubs? --rogerd 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't rely on the Pokemon test for proving an article's worth. —Scouter Sig 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I personally don't want chapter lists on Wikipedia considering anyone can easily go to the national website wherein the reader will find a more comprehensive and updated chapter list. I've argued for this in the past. Having long chapter lists are redundant, however I vote keep on the basis that this issue has been dealt with on several individual fraternity articles and the consensus was to make a seperate chapter list. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I pretty much have to say "Ditto" to Dysepsion's comment above. I personally think that the chapter rolls are out of place on Wikipedia entirely- especially so for larger organizations such as this one. However the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities seems to be to have such chapter rolls... so be it if that's what everyone wants. However, once you allow these lists you can't really object to the external links that go along with the individual constituents of the lists because they directly relate and illuminate that content- in fact they can almost be considered citations in a way in that they attest to the existence of that chapter. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep from the creator I was hesitant to make the list when I did, but it was out of a bit of a necessity. Being the largest fraternity by chapters in the world, the list was gunking up the main article. I'd get rid of it entirely, but since it's such a large fraternity it is invariable that EL and chapter lists were tinkered with almost daily by anon editors. Keep out the external links, and keep the list for brevity's sake. Teke ^(talk) 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. Nationalparks 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of MIT fraternities and sororities

~~List, see (WP:NOT#DIR —Scouter Sig 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Withdrawn per remarks of Nationalparks and Firedancer414. I see now. —Scouter Sig 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number Six Club and Talk:List of MIT dormitories. Nationalparks 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. (From WP:NOT#DIR) "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." Nationalparks 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. MIT's fraternities and sororities account for 40% of the undergraduate population, and form a significant portion of student life there. At MIT, they're not just fraternities and sororities in the traditional sense. For example, the Sigma Chi chapter was founded in 1886 (25 years after the university was founded, before it was even called "MIT" or located on its current campus), and many of the other houses have traditions lasting 100+ years. The first dorm on the campus, Senior House, was founded around 1930, forty years later! Many of the houses are also significant historical pieces in Boston, between Chi Phi's John F. Andrew mansion (house of the son of the Governor of Massachusetts during the Civil War), and Phi Delts, who live in the old Massachusetts Lt. Governor's house. I think the volume of notable alumni from the FSILG system alone justifies this article. The article needs work, agreed, but deleting it would not benefit the Wikipedia community. Firedancer414 17:37, 5 January 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. Users who suggested to not delete the articles are (reletively) new users. Also, 4 of the 5 other album articles have been deleted. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 27 Various and associated album articles

Was nominated for deletion, for it was previously deleted but remade by the same user, as mentioned here [58] by a different user. esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that it was speedy deleted before. I removed the speedy notice because I didn't feel it was speedyiable. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see Up (The 27 Various) which is currently reading like an advert. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This band was a significant particpant in the Minneapolis music scene in the time period and should be listed. I will add information to the listing which will elaborate upon the previous information posted. This band is not currently active and I will remove the text referring to the reissuing of its albums, as I agree it reads as a commercial posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmy0987 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and delete all five of their albums The article asserts little, if any, notability, and lists no reliable sources. "The 27 Various" only gets 186 total and 92 unique Google hits; many are unrelated to the band, and none are articles from well-known sources (or articles at all- every page is a trivial mention). None of the album articles contain any additional information aside from track listings and the knowledge that all of the albums are out of print- but you can buy some of them on burned CDs! -- Kicking222 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless articles on local bands who end up nowhere are somehow notable. Last I checked, they weren't. Second Talon 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

""Do Not Delete"" It is my understanding that Wikipedia is a centralized location for information rather than some sort of popularity contest. There naturally will be a relatively small number of web references to a band whose lifespan predated the widespread availability of the Internet and whose material has been unavailable for some time. Independent music in the time period was covered by independent print media (fanzines, etc.) that has largely not been archived on the Internet. To base the significance of a band solely on its contemporary web presence is a form of information Darwinism that will skew future discourse toward only the most commercially successful artists.

Contrary to assertions in previous posts, there are multiple non-trivial articles, reviews and other references about the band readily found on the Internet (Googling "27+various+ackerson" will yield more focused hits, since "27" and "various" alone are extremely common words):

http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=27_various http://www.littlehits.com/2005/04/song-of-day-april-10-2005.html http://www.scaruffi.com/vol5/polara.html http://www.hyped2death.com/allTeenline%20R2Z.htm

I believe this is a legitimate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia and I hope this post will help support this assertion. jmy0987

Delete; I speedied it initially, because it was only comprised of the list of five or six albums with no other explanation or exposition. In this case, I would still consider it for deletion as it does not meet the standards set by WP:MUSIC --Mhking 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

""Do Not Delete""It is unfortunate that the lack of information online would cause deletion of an entry on a band who released 5 records on notable labels. Twin/Tone, for one, released records by Soul Asylum, The Replacements, Robyn Hitchcock and many others that are far above the mentioned "local" label. Additionally, band founder Ed Ackerson has gone on to release records on Interscope (last I checked not a local label) and is a notable producer who has worked on records by The Jayhawks among many others. The Trouser Press entry mentioned above should alone validate this entry. --Jackpine1000

""Do Not Delete"" (Disclaimer: I ran sound for this group and, as mentioned in the article, played bass for them briefly.) The *tone* of the article reads more like a promotional bio/history than a Wiki article; it could be edited to remove sentences such as "The band's Midwest audience had solidified, and the years of touring seemed to be finally paying off." This group meets item #s 4 and 5 in the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in WP:MUSIC and so I contend that the band article should stand. --Omnidrew 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, and above posts reek of sockpuppetry. ~ Flame vip e r 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Can you please show which album is produced by a notable record label? John Vandenberg 07:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Morning Sun

Non-notable--Daveswagon 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Possible conflict of interest, along with not being verifiable. P TO 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN, posible COI -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be non-notable. --Nehrams2020 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:NOTE for me. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak Guy (Help!) 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Vitamins

Original article was essentially a spam recreation from the band's website. After that was removed, little to no real content was left, and none has been added. Adam Weeden 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete There is no assertion of notability, so I tagged it for speedy deletion under A7. TSO1D 15:52, 4 January 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 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne William Scott

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO, 22 G-hits including WP and mirrors for "Wayne William Scott", 37 for "Wayne W. Scott". This has been speedily deleted three times (once under the two variations noted above plus once as "Wayne Scott"). Appears to be autobiographical, this version was created by User44130 (talk · contribs), their only edit. While it appears speediable to me, the multiple re-creations and the longer history of this version seem to warrant an AfD discussion. Delete. Accurizer 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, because speedied articles aren't eligible for G4. Fails WP:BIO miserably, fails the Google test, and isn't verifiable. P TO 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and add notice to not re-create--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as all of above. roundhouse 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable. Postdlf 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as recreated content and watch for potential sockpuppet activity. Dr. Submillimeter 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio, and as recreated content from Wayne Scott and Wayne W. Scott. Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry looks likely here: does anyone know how to check whether User44130 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of this bio's subject, User:Pastorwayne? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Proto (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Patstuart^talk|edits 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Theta Chapter of Beta Theta Pi

Non-notable local chapter of a national fraternity. Redirects to the national organization were tried and reverted. These do not hold notability outside of the campus on which they exist, much like a local Student Government Association or Film Society. Can't see how these meet the notability standards. Also nominating Alpha Iota Chapter of Beta Theta Pi. Metros232 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete, or weak merge with the University of Alabama. We can't have a article for every chapter of every sorority/fraterity/social order.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I wouldn't support a merge of this, as I'm sure universities don't want their articles turning into frat-housing guides, and besides there's nothing really worth a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Beta Theta Pi. Deletion's not necessary, redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 04:14, 8 January 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. -Doc^g 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of smallest stars

Reasons for deletion: (1) Smallest red dwarfs are very similar in size (about the size of Jupiter), (2) very few red dwarfs have their diameters measured, (3) the list contains only one item and it is unlikely that the list will be expanded much further. JyriL ^talk 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, because (1) There are trillions of stars, which always leads us to (2) What are the notability guidelines for inclusion? (3) Seems hopelessly unmanageable and POV.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV inherent. --Dweller 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Small stars" is limited by observational technology and accidents of selection, not the stars themselves. The list should have been named "stars with smallest measured diameter" in the first place, and even then it's not notable enough to be worth a list. BSVulturis 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Aside from the "stars' diameters are not frequently measured" argument, I see another problem. The transition from "small star" to "large gaseous planet" may be gradual. Determining what is a "star" or a "planet" or whether brown dwarfs are "stars" could lead into a semantics argument that is not worth having, and this list may force the issue. Therefore, I vote to delete it. Dr. Submillimeter 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - apart from being unsourced ... wait, that's enough. Seriously, smallest physical size, mass, what? Star = burns Hydrogen? burns Deuterium? ... problematic, but may be recoverable. WilyD 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above args. I've added OGLE-TR-122b to the Lists of stars page, so it is covered. — RJH (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per above. Spot87 08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, as requested by the article's creator, who was the only significant contributor. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bjornar Simonsen

I'm completing this AfD nomination on behalf of User:Ronbo76 as part of a helpme request. No comment from me (presumably a nom will be along shortly). --ais523 16:37, 4 January 2007 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. Even the "jam tomorrow" claim would not make them actually notable. Article author and sole keep proponent appears to be a member of the band (User:Travklassen / Travis Klassen). WP:CSD#A7 + WP:COI = delete. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encounter (christian band)

The band do not meet WP:MUSIC guidlines whatsoever, the article has been speeedied already but recreated so therefore I nominated it for Afd RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why the article should not be deleted:

Encounter will be featured on an upcoming episode of .wavFile, an international broadcast of the Miracle Channel. The band made front page news in the Abbotsford Bugel in January 2006 with news of their upcoming CD Release. Encounter has been nominated for 2 Shai Awards, the canadian christian music peoples choice awards. In addition, their song Speak to Me was featured on a national compilation album by CMC.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Encounter_%28christian_band%29"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After an impressively lengthy discussion given the relatively few participants in this afd, I am closing this discussion as a clear keep consensus and without any dissenting opinion except for the nominator. I am NOT an admin, but my closing action is permitted by this policy section. If you think I have made any missteps please let me know. Bwithh 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farahnaz Pahlavi

She is not notable enough to warrant her own article, considering the current Farahnaz Pahlavi article. True, she is the eldest daughter of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but this is already present in his article, see Mohammad Reza Pahlavi#Wives_and_children. The rest of her article lacks references and does not describe anything notable about her, just that she has attended college and has a job. Since there is nothing special about her listed, having a separate article for her is unnecessary. The Behnam 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I have no problem with this article remaining on the site. Farahnaz Pahlavi was a member of a royal family recently deposed in the span of history, I vote that it should stay. She may be an incredibly minor personage but she was part of a tumultuous moment in history, thanks to her parents.Mowens35 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source for some of the items about her, but the fact that they are from her own homepage doesn't help. Non-notable people can have homepages; I believe the non-notability still applies. She is important only in that she is the eldest daughter of the Shah, but this already covered in the Shah's article. She hasn't had much involvement in major events. Many people were somehow involved in the Iranian revolution(I assume that is the "tumultuous moment"), but they do not all have pages. If she had some significant role in the actual events of the revolution, mention and source this into her article. The Behnam 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per the proposed guidline WP:ROYAL:

Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.... This includes former monarchies

Iran has a larger population than the UK, so their equivalent of Princess Anne is entitled to the same judgement of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a proposed guideline. Why should it be accepted here? Let us go by official notability policy regarding people. I will soon elaborate, point by point, why she does not fit the criteria adequately(too tired now). I am not familiar with Princess Anne, but if she has a similar situation to Farahnaz, perhaps her article should also be considered for deletion. The Behnam 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wiki's proposed guidelines seem to be the norm, ie following them (see most, if not all monarchs and former monarchs, and you will see that their children, however minor their lives, are given their own pages, per Wiki's proposed guidelines, which would seem to establish a certain precedent in these matters). Any deviations from the proposed guidelines seem to be decided by consensus. Curiously, your focus is solely on deleting Farahnaz rather than proposing to delete articles about all of the Shah's children and those of other royals; is there a reason for that particular focus on that particular individual? At the moment the score seems to be 1 for deletion, 2 for inclusion.Mowens35 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Farahnaz Pahlavi and Ali Reza Pahlavi II articles should be deleted simply because those two haven't done anything notable. Their two siblings ought to have articles because they have gained significant media coverage. Their position in the royal family is already noted in the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article, and the rest of the information regards unimportant personal facts. In the case of Farahnaz, the article is acting as an extension of her homepage. I find her to be trivial based upon WP:BIO. Consider the central criteria from the WP:BIO page...

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

   * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following:
         o Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.3
         o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

Consider Farahnaz's article. The source for the information is not even a media reprint; it is her own homepage. She is not the primary subject of multiple non-trivial works simply because she hasn't done very much to gain real media attention.

Now, note the other criteria:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

Farahnaz does not appear to have made an enduring to her field, which is social work and child psychology.

Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.6 (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)

She approaches qualification for this one, due to the political aspect, but it specifically refers to actual offices, not simply titles. She also is not a former legislator.

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

She has not received significant press coverage, as mentioned earlier, though the "local official" qualification does not fit her anyway.

Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame).

Not a widely recognized entertainment personality or opinion maker. Unlike her older brother, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, she hasn't been a significant voice regarding Iranian affairs.

Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

Obviously, she has no sports recognition.

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. ...

She is clearly not an actress or television personality.

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

While some of her relatives have made significant works, bringing them to notability, Farahnaz hasn't done the same.

Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

Again, not a major player in her field. Not to say that she doesn't have any accomplishments in child psychology, but she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly enduring.

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.

Again, no newsworthy event involvement.

Considering the her complete non-notability under the general, well-accepted notability guidelines, I hardly see why a proposed subcategory for Royalty should take precedence over the accepted guideline. Thanks for any response you have to offer. The Behnam 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it's not her own homepage; it's her mother's (please note the primary web address: farahpahlavi.org, with the sub page being about her daughter, ie it's her mother's official website). In any case, per Wiki precedent, children of rulers can be given their own pages. Are you also lobbying for all children of all royals, especially those who have done "nothing" in your estimation, to have their articles deleted? If so, that is something to be taken up on a wider level in Wiki. In any case, the tally thus far for Farahnaz is three votes for KEEP and one vote (yours) for DELETE.Mowens35 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was wrong about it being her own homepage, though I do not see what difference that makes to her notability. A mother writing about her daughter on her homepage doesn't make the daughter any more significant. You correcting me is nice, but has no real bearing on my argument that Farahnaz is not significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Was that all you could think of in response to my post? Right now, I am only addressing the Farahnaz Pahlavi article, based upon the application of the criteria above. How about you respond to the points I made with the above criteria instead of presenting pointless questions about my "wider" aims? Please, look at my post regarding every part of the notability criteria, and try to refute my points there, if you can. The Behnam 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion is up to the voting, yes? You placed the article into contention for deletion, which requires voting on. At the moment, it's still 3-1. The polls remain open.Mowens35 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask the question, there is voting involved, though I do not know what you mean by "At this point". A vote has always been active on this page; I have simply continued to give numerous reasons why I think it should be deleted, based upon official Wikipedia policy. I thought it would be nice if you were able to provide extensive reasoning behind your position, but judging based upon your responses, you are not able to. This is unfortunate, because I would really like to know how exactly you have judged her by the criteria of the official Wikipedia policy and still deemed her notable. It seems you have used a proposed guideline, but I then wonder how you can place the proposed guideline above official Wikipedia policy in your reasoning. If your responses were more persuasive and less evasive, I might even vote against myself. The Behnam 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Behnam, the proposed guideline comes from Wiki and is extensively used as the basis for the Farahnaz's article inclusion, as well as other royal family members of various royal families. It is, therefore, precedent, what the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US has called stare decisis, ie "the doctrine of precedent". If you wish to try to upend this precedent, please feel free to entice supporters, et cetera, and let's see where this goes. Wiki is a community and therefore many precedents/guidelines/rules were developed through consensus and clear voting. At the present time, the votes are 3-1 against your desire to delete. That's called the democracy, I think, and if you continue to be outnumbered, you will have to claim defeat and shake hands and move on to other, more important matters. I've already placed my vote, and my reasons for doing so are precedent per Wiki's own stated guidelines. I do not believe that I need any stronger reason than that and therefore, with all due respect, rest my case.Mowens35 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that is a proposed guideline and specifically not meant to be treated as official policy, because it is not entirely agreed upon by "consensus and clear voting" is why I do not think you should use it as a precedent here, when there is the more general and actually official policy regarding notability. I have raised objections based upon this actual official policy, rather than a mere proposal. Of course, you can respond to what I have stated if you like, but you seem committed to giving up on arguing your case. If you ever feel like presenting more of a case, I welcome you to do so. But please, don't treat the WP:ROYAL as official policy, because it is not. The Behnam 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I now realize that I was wrong in agreeing that this is just a vote. Please see WP:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette, the first bullet point. This point is, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." So Mowens35, I think it is best that you continue to make your case, as this is debate is to be sustained by arguments, so you should respond to new arguments I present. Glad to help out. The Behnam 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of the word "vote" was incorrect; however, we discussing whether to keep or delete an entry, so the word works, at least loosely. My vote is already for KEEP (Mowens35 here, having difficulty signing in). I have already discussed, thoroughly, why I feel the article should remain, as per Wiki proposals for members of royal houses. I went back to WP: Royal to see what the proposed guidelines state, per previous discussions, and discovered this passage, which is that on which I base my KEEP response: "This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria)." I am adhering to this proposed guideline, which has been developed through previous discussions of other other editors, and feel that I cannot emphasis my reasons for keeping Farahnaz, et al, any more clearly. It is now time for others to weigh in. It is pointless for me to continually respond to Behnam, when my answer(s) remain the same: my KEEP opinion is based on Wiki precedence, as per the quoted passage.67.142.130.20 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you still fail understand the distinction between a proposed guideline and official policy or even an official guideline. An official policy is an accepted set of rules for editing Wikipedia. An official guideline is like official policy except that situational exceptions should be considered in application of the dictates of the guideline. A proposed guideline is a guideline that some have simply proposed; it has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community as an official guideline, and should not be treated as an official guideline.

Considering this, it remains baffling how you can throw about WP:BIO, which is official policy, and place a proposed guideline above it. This is not in adherence to Wikipedia policy. There is no "precedence" policy here, that allows people to ignore official policy. A proposed guideline is not official policy. Please, explain yourself. The Behnam 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled at Behnam's misinterpretation of WP:BIO. It states in the second paragraph, "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." It says it is not Wikipedia policy. Interestingly enough, Behnam states that WP:BIO "is official policy". Unless Behnam feels he can speak for the entire Wikipedian community, WP:BIO should not be referred as official policy. I would also like to submit to Behnam's consideration the fourth paragraph of WP:BIO, it states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I appreciate Behnams bullet point explanation as to how Farahnaz Pahlavi does to meet the list in central criterion for inclusion in WP:BIO, but he must know that in WP:BIO it states a person does not have to meet any of those categories to be included in Wikipedia. I certainly agree with Behnam that this page is for debate and is not a page for just votes. Thus, I will use my energies in convincing Behnam as to why this article should be included. Agha Nader 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Good catch! You are right about my misinterpretation, regarding it being policy. However, the distinction between "guideline" and "proposed guideline" still stands, and people have judged the Farahnaz article based upon the a proposed guideline instead of the more accepted guideline WP:BIO. The fact that she did not fall into the categories is why she was not automatically deleted. Hence, this discussion. I am wondering whether or not you want to convince me that she meets the criteria on WP:BIO, or you plan to convince me through some alternative argument. In any case, I look forward to your response, and again commend your good catch of my error. Thanks! The Behnam 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy comment. I appreciate your devotion to improving Wikipedia. Furthermore, by insisting upon deleting this article you have motivated others to improve it. This is a very commendable act. I hope you too will try on improving this article. I must say most of your argument for deleting this article is based on WP:BIO. Although, you have made a new point in your last comment about using WP:BIO above a proposed guideline. I am afraid this is irrelevant to my last comment since I did not cite WP:ROYAL. Since the notion of notability is not definite (WP:BIO stated "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)"), alternative test can be used to explain a certain person's notability. WP:BIO has a section called "Alternative tests" and in this section it explains the Speed Engine Test, "Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3]) or other well-known Internet search engine?". Although this test may seem trivial, it is part of a Wikipedia guideline. I ask you to run this test and see for yourself that in fact there are "a large number" of hits on search engines. I received 1,400 hits on Google for the query "Farahnaz Pahlavi". To end your wondering " I am wondering whether or not you want to convince me that she meets the criteria on WP:BIO, or you plan to convince me through some alternative argument.", I used the alternative test called "Search Engine Test" on WP:BIO. This is another testament, which uses a guideline and not a proposed guideline, to Farahnaz Pahlavi's notability. Agha Nader 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader

The search test is considered a proposal on the WP:BIO page, not an actual criterion of the guideline. See the first sentence at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. You are mistaken in considering the search test as not a proposal, as you did in concluding your last comment.

Anyway, I have searched Google for "Farahnaz Pahlavi" earlier, not as a simple hit test but in a quest to find significant sources for her article. Many of the results were from Wikipedia mirrors, or simple reproductions of her basic biography from her mom's homepage (royalty databases). Last night I selected a few that had more unique mention of her, but she wasn't the primary subject. I cannot find online, independent media stories about Farahnaz Pahlavi. Some references have been added to her article, which is good, though I fear she is not the primary subject of all references, or that the other references may be trivial, but I plan to go through them upon gaining access to print materials. The main problem, therefore, is that she isn't receiving significant media coverage, at least not on the internet.

Since by citing the search test, a proposal, instead of addressing my points made using the criteria of the accepted guideline WP:BIO, I fear that same problem exists as does for WP:ROYAL versus WP:BIO. How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline? I really think the best approach, for you, would be to try showing her significance according to the criteria of WP:BIO, since it is accepted guideline. I do not know those arguing to KEEP the article have not tried to show her notability by going through the criteria of WP:BIO as I did to explain why she is not notable. I think that to do so would lead to a much more constructive discussion. Thanks Agha Nader, for carrying on with the case, rather than giving it up like Mowens35 did, as I think we both understand that discussion is important on this matter. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am again grateful for your speedy comment. You are truly an exemplary Wikipedian; you do not seem to have any motives rather than improving Wikipedia. You state, "Thanks Agha Nader, for carrying on with the case, rather than giving it up like Mowens35 did, as I think we both understand that discussion is important on this matter". I am grateful for your accolade. I wonder if your accolade is addressed to me or Mowens35. I consider it addressed to me since you posted your comment as a reply to mine. I cannot and will not speak for Mowens35, since I do not know him or his motives. But, Mowens35 seems to have only improved Farahnaz Pahlavi's article. I must disagree with you when you say he has given up. Although he has not replied to your arguments for a while, he has added more information to the article. These added informations have references also. Mowens35 also stated, "I've already placed my vote, and my reasons for doing so are precedent per Wiki's own stated guidelines. I do not believe that I need any stronger reason than that and therefore, with all due respect, rest my case." As you can see, he has provided a reason as too why he is no longer replying to your comments: he has already stated his reason for why the article should remain. You argue that many of the returns for the proposed Alternative Search Test from WP:BIO should be disregarded, "Many of the results were from Wikipedia mirrors, or simple reproductions of her basic biography from her mom's homepage (royalty databases)." Although the website of the last Queen of Iran my seem bias to you, it is a verifiable source. There is no provision against sources that are published by a family member. As you already know, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." WP:V#SELF. Except this is not a self-published source (Farahnaz Pahlavi did not publish it, Farah Pahlavi did). They are not the same person. Furthermore, Farah Pahlavi is a third-party. i.e. she is not Farahnaz Pahlavi. Please refer to the guideline on notability, it states "What constitutes a 'published work' is deliberately broad" WP:BIO. You may believe Farah Pahlavi's website is not a published source, but you cannot prove this. If you can prove that this source should not count, please provide an argument. As it follows, you say many of the returns are mirrors of her site. There will always be mirrors in a search, so this is not exclusive to Farahnaz's Pahlavi. And thus you should not disregard the Search Test. You still seem to misinterpret WP:BIO. It is only a guideline: it is not official policy. You ask, "How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline?". There is a crucial flaw in this question: WP:BIO is not accepted by all. It even states in WP:BIO, almost as a disclaimer, "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." So you can see WP:BIO is just the opinion of many Wikipedian, but not all. It does not even state that it is the opinion of most Wikipedian's. This is the case for the Alternative Search Test. It is the opinion of many Wikipedian's that it should be used as an alternative test. It is not the opinion of all Wikipedians, and it may not be the opinion of most. I do not think we can weigh the importance of WP:BIO or the Alternative Search Test. We must look at each article on a case by case basis. I believe the Alternative Search Test is a testament to Farahnaz Pahlavi's notability. There is another point to be made. Ask yourself, will there be students who wish to do research on the Pahlavi Dynasty? Will they want to know about Farahnaz Pahlavi? Will they want to know about the fate of the Pahlavis? This article is very helpful to such students. And it can be more helpful if we improve it. Agha Nader 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader.

Thanks for the praise. I also appreciate your speedy response. I will now try to go through everything you brought up:

The response was to you, and the accolade was for you, Nader.
I said Mowens35 gave up on arguing the case, not on the article.
I objected to his reason for giving up because he treats WP:ROYAL as one of "Wiki's own stated guidelines", which I consider incorrect because it is only a proposed guideline, while his description assigns much more authority to the proposal than is true for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ROYAL, as it provides a sort of 'disclaimer' against treating it as a full guideline.
I simply noted that numerous results were either Wikipedia mirrors or reproductions of information from a personal webpage. The search test itself seems hit-based.

I think we both should carefully read WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc..
The page states that guidelines are "authorized by consensus"".
The page also states that a proposal are "any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing".
You are wrong in believing that we cannot "weigh the importance" of WP:BIO versus Search Test, as the differences page shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification, as WP:BIO is a guideline while Search Test is a proposed method.
Also, read the page about the Search Test, and you will see that it is hardly a well-defined qualification. It admits that the test is very open to interpretation. So, you think that he results are notable, but I do not think so. Is your opinion better than mine?

I have already noted that it is Farah's site, not Farahnaz's.
Even putting aside the bias possibility you brought up, it still fails WP:V and WP:RS, since it is a personal website.
Quote, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.". This is from the WP:RS guideline.
But it is good that you have brought up bias; does Farah Pahlavi's official website have a bias under WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias? If I had to suggest one, I would suggest a possible political bias. After reading the site a bit, I would describe it as a promotion of the former Empress of Iran, and perhaps as promotion of monarchy in that country. Do you think there is a bias? I wonder, since you brought it up.

Aside from whether or not the homepage is even a good source, the issue of notability remains, and considering the page about the differences between proposals, guidelines, etc., WP:BIO should not be ignored.
With this in mind, I ask that you please assess Farahnaz Pahlavi based upon the criteria of the WP:BIO guideline.

As far as students go, I do think some will be interested in the Pahlavi dynasty. I don't know about these particular students' institutions, but I know that my university, Wikipedia shouldn't be referenced in research about a topic not related to Wikipedia.
I definitely support improvement, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, any more than it should be an extension of Farah Pahlavi's homepage.
If I decide that there is good reason for Farahnaz to be considered notable, I definitely will drop my case here. The additional references seem to mostly mention her in passing, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page.

I hope I managed to address everything you brought forward. This discussion will close soon anyway, but please, keep up the good work, and I look forward to your response. The Behnam 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your neat bullet point argument. I have considered replying to you in the bullet format, but I believe in the convention and style of English in the essay format. Unfortunately, you did not respond to all of my arguments. Will a bullet point format help you respond to all of my arguments? Do you use a bullet point format because I don't respond to all of your arguments? I certainly hope not. Let me first begin by addressing the points you make. Thank you for the link WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc.. It was very informative. Although I believe this case is unique in that there is a certain disclaimer at the beginning of WP:BIO. This disclaimer, as I have been known to call it, is "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." It is clear, from this quote of WP:BIO, that, in fact, there is not a consensus on the guideline on notability. I hope you take special note in this argument. You say, "You are wrong in believing that we cannot 'weigh the importance' of WP:BIO versus Search Test, as the differences page shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification". In this comment you say that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc., when you say "the differences page", shows that guidelines are more important than proposals. I found nothing on WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. to indicate this. Furthermore I do not believe WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. states "that guidelines are more important than proposals in assessing qualification". Please give me the quote from WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. that states this. As of now I consider it your opinion, and nothing more, that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. "shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification". In regards to the Alternative Search Test you say "that it is hardly a well-defined qualification. It admits that the test is very open to interpretation. So, you think that he results are notable, but I do not think so. Is your opinion better than mine?" I must remind you that the Alternative Search Test tests notability and not qualifications. Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better. You say that the Alternative Search Test "admits that the test is very open to interpretation". I did not find anything on WP:BIO that says the Alternative Search Test in open to interpretation. If you have a quote from WP:BIO that admits the Alternative Search Test "admits that the test is very open to interpretation" then please provide it in your next comment. I have tested people who have articles about them on Wikipedia, and whose notability is not in question, and many had equal to or less than the amount of results as the query "Farahnaz Pahlavi". Fortunately, there is no room for opinion when it comes to arithmetic. With regards to Farah Pahlavi's website as a source you state it "still fails WP:V and WP:RS, since it is a personal website." If you think a "personal website" is a website about a person, you are wrong. But, in the context of WP:V and WP:RS, a personal website is a website published by the person the Wikipedia article is about. Consider the title of the section from which it stats personal websites are not allowed: "Self-published sources (online and paper)". The reason I brought up the point of bias is that you regarded Farah Pahlavi's website with doubt previously. Also, suggest a political bias for the source of Farah Pahlavi's website, "I would suggest a possible political bias." Why would there be political bias? Farahnaz Pahlavi is not in politics. Neither is her mother. Take this note into consideration, who knows Farahnaz Pahlavi better than her mother? You make a very interesting point with regards to Wikipedia's acceptance in academia. You say the university you attend does not accept Wikipedia as reference, this is ashame. I hope that our efforts as Wikipedians can improve the acceptance of Wikipedia. Furthermore Wikipedia can be helpful to a student who attends your university and is studying the Pahlavi Dynasty. i.e. the student can use references used in the Farahnaz Pahlavi article to find out more about her from sources that are accepted by your university. Also, a students studying of the Pahlavi Dyanasty is not exclusive to university students who wish to use Wikipedia for school work, or even university students in general. You are a very reseanable person, and because of this we can agree on many things. An example of this is when you state, "I definitely support improvement, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, any more than it should be an extension of Farah Pahlavi's homepage." I agree with you on this, and I hope we can agree on the fate of the article on Farahnaz Pahlavi. Agha Nader 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader

Thanks again for the response. I have no problem with you using either essay format or bullet format, though I suggest you utilize paragraphs, as paragraphs are commonly used in essays to improve organization and clarity. I am willing to address you regardless of which you use. I will now address your response:

I do not know why you say that I did not address all of your points, as you do not say which points I actually did not address.
I understand that you did respond to my points by further elaborating your position, but you do not specify which points I failed to address. I think we both did a good job addressing each other's points.
If there is something that I have missed, please bring it up and I will try to address it.

I assert that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. values guidelines above proposals because it states that guidelines are "authorized by consensus", whereas the status of consensus for a proposal is "not yet clear". I suppose that if you do not consider consensus important for policies, guidelines, etc., then we do not have common ground here, but I thought it reasonable to assume you valued consensus.
Considering WP:CON, my judgment's reliance upon contrasting the level of consensus of a guideline versus a proposal is not out of line, as Wikipedia also seems to value consensus.

I understand that there is a 'disclaimer', as you are known to call it, on the WP:BIO page.
However, the 'disclaimer' you quote simply states that "not all" Wikipedians agree to the guideline. This does not mean it lacks consensus.
According to the differences page WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc., a guideline has been "authorized by consensus". As WP:BIO is indeed a guideline, it apparently met this consensus, and is so authorized. It cannot be a guideline otherwise.

You say that you "did not find anything on WP:BIO that says the Alternative Search Test in open to interpretation".
I recommend you try reading actual page for the Search Test, namely WP:SET.
Read it carefully, and note WP:SET#Validity_of_the_Google_test, which opens, "Given that the results of a Google test are interpreted subjectively, its implementation is not always consistent."
As it is given that the results are "interpreted subjectively", I am correct in saying that the Search Test is open to interpretation.

You then said, "Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better."
I apologize, but I do not understand your statement. Can you please clarify?

As far as your notability test of other people, I can only suggest, again, that your read WP:SET, which elaborates on these kind of inconsistencies in the test.
I quote you, "Fortunately, there is no room for opinion when it comes to arithmetic". I say that while Arithmetic may not have much room for opinion, the value assigned to the hit number of the Google test is subjective, based upon the quote from WP:SET, "Given that the results of a Google test are interpreted subjectively, its implementation is not always consistent."

I describe Farah Pahlavi's site as a personal website because it is her official website. I quote from the main page, "Welcome to the 2006-07 Official Site of Empress Farah Pahlavi"
I do not think that a personal website is simply a website about a person. This website is her official site, not just a site about her.
I suggest you look at WP:RS#Self-published_sources. The opening, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses".
Since it is Farah Pahlavi's personal website, but the information under discussion regards Farahnaz Pahlavi, the website is acting as a secondary source. It would be a primary source if we were discussing Farah Pahlavi.
Under the subsection titled, "Self-published sources as secondary sources", the opening line is, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.".
Therefore, it is not an accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to use the source.

I suggested a political bias, since the site seems to focus largely upon women's rights in Iran and the country's condition under the former monarchy; both are subjects related to politics.
Based upon the opening to her site, she still titles herself "Empress", rather than "former Empress". This smells political, but maybe it's just me.
Farah may know stuff about her daughter, but I hardly see why her posting information about her daughter on her personal website makes her daughter notable by Wikipedia standards. See WP:BIO.

I really don't have much more to add to the hypothetical "student" research conversation, but I appreciate your opinions on the topic.
I am glad you agree that Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

I hope I addressed everything. I would still like you to address the WP:BIO criteria. Thanks again for contributing further good points to the discussion, and I look forward to your response. The Behnam 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice on using paragraphs in my essay format. I believe I have been using paragraphs in my comments, I distinguish each paragraph from the previous with the return key. I will make them easier to distinguish this time.

I will start off by addressing any ambiguity or statements you believe may foster chaos. I wrote "you did not respond to all of my arguments." The argument you failed to address, in your comment previous to that in which I made that statement, was "It is only a guideline: it is not official policy. You ask, "How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline?". There is a crucial flaw in this question: WP:BIO is not accepted by all. It even states in WP:BIO, almost as a disclaimer, "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." So you can see WP:BIO is just the opinion of many Wikipedian, but not all. It does not even state that it is the opinion of most Wikipedian's." You did not address the "disclaimer", as I have been known to call it, in that comment. This is all IRT, if you know what I mean, (Irrelevant). This is because you addressed this argument in your last comment. I only bring this up because you asked me to, "I do not know why you say that I did not address all of your points, as you do not say which points I actually did not address. I understand that you did respond to my points by further elaborating your position, but you do not specify which points I failed to address. I think we both did a good job addressing each other's points. If there is something that I have missed, please bring it up and I will try to address it."

You state, "I suggested a political bias, since the site seems to focus largely upon women's rights in Iran and the country's condition under the former monarchy; both are subjects related to politics." Do you have any evidence that her website has political bias? Or are these suggestions based on "smells": you state, "This smells political, but maybe it's just me." Please provide EVD (evidence)of the political bias of this source.

You asked me to clarify this statement "Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better." Previously you asked me "Is your opinion better than mine?" And the answer I gave was my opinion (or yours) maybe more informed, but neither of your opinions matter with regards to Wikipedia. What matters is reason and EVD that it IRT.

You state, "I really don't have much more to add to the hypothetical "student" research conversation, but I appreciate your opinions on the topic." I believe this is because we have exhausted this argument and many others. It would be best to move on to different arguments since you have not convinced me and I have not convinced you with the argument presented so far.

So far you haven't provided any argument as to why Farahnaz Pahlavi is not notable, except for the fact that she does not meet the criteria listed it in WP:BIO. All you have done is read too literally into guidelines and proposed guidelines in order to find an excerpt that is beneficial to the deletion of Farahnaz Pahlavi. Since notability is contetious this is not enough, you must look at the big picture. WP:BIO is not an exclusionary list, it is a guideline, to guide people to decide whether someone is notable or not. This does not necessarily mean notablitiy is subjective, rather, it is hard to define. And in some cases is elusive. In fact, the only reason for deleting the article on Farahnaz Pahlavi you present is that she does not fall into the criteria presented in WP:BIO

You have asked me to say which criteria Farahnaz Pahlavi meets in WP:BIO. I will start of with a word of warning, if you wish read too literally into the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, we will not reach an agreement. As you know, Farahnaz Pahlavi was a Princess in Iran. At that time the political system in Iran was a monarchy, so the Shah of Iran, was a politician. This is because politicians are policy makers. This goes for the Queen of Iran. This is evident if you know her previous title, and I believe you do. It was Shahbanu, which means Empress. Surely an Empress is involved in policy making decisions in a monarchy. This can be extended to a princess as well. Thus Farahnaz Pahlavi meets this criteria of WP:BIO, "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Please provide non-IRT EVD in your next comment. Agha Nader 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

My bulleted replies are grouped in correspondence to the paragraphs of your response:

Thank you for making your paragraphs clearer.

Well, I don't think that there has been any real Chaos here, since we have both been fairly straightforward, but the precaution doesn't hurt.
You rightly call the elaboration irrelevant since you admit that "[I] addressed this argument in [my] last point".

I suggested, rather than asserted, simply because it was the impression I got from the website, but did not feel it important enough to have a lengthy argument about it.
While it's possible that I could ground my suggestion with evidence, the possibility of the site being biased isn't highly relevant to my argument for deletion, so unless you feel it does matter, I do not think it useful to discuss at this time.

Um, still doesn't make sense. Is it possible that you mean "our" instead of "yours"?
I provide reasoning and evidence based upon guidelines. Considering the relevancy of the WP:BIO guideline to Biographies, and that other guidelines are also applicable, the "IRT" description hardly applies to guideline-based arguments.

Good. As we agreed, Wikipedia is not a directory.

You say I failed to provide any arguments, "except for the fact that she does not meet the criteria listed it in WP:BIO". Considering this is a biography, an argument based upon "the fact" that shes doesn't qualify under WP:BIO definitely counts.
Your attempt to discredit my analysis based upon WP:BIO criteria relies upon the presumptive and disrespectful assumption that I "read too literally" into guidelines and proposals.
Your following insinuation that I do this "too-literal" reading in order to find an excerpt that is beneficial to the deletion of Farahnaz Pahlavi is a grave and baseless violation of WP:AGF. Apparently, you assume I do this just to delete her article, not because I found her genuinely non-notable.
I nominated her article for deletion because she is not notable based upon the guideline for biographies, and I presented a thorough criterion-by-criterion argument in support of this.

Thanks for finally responding to a criterion.
As Empress, Farah Pahlavi was politically involved. However, Princess is a title, and it does not follow that by virtue of being a princess, Farahnaz was also policy-maker. We need evidence of involvement.
If you can present evidence that she was an active politician, involved in policy-making, I would find your argument to be stronger. It seems that the closest she had to "involvement", based upon the current article, was wearing a diamond tiara at her father's coronation.

Do not forget my part about "personal websites", which you failed to respond to. Also, try not to post inappropriately to my user talk page again. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - A member of a royal family seems very notable to me. Ronbo76 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The WP:ROYAL standard for keeping or deleting articles does not discriminate between Western and non-Western royalty. Farahnaz Pahlavi appears to qualify and her article should remain. Cimm^[talk] 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This article should definitely remain. Contrary to what Behnam has stated, she has received much media coverage. Even though this media coverage was in Iran, it still qualifies since Wikipedia is not restricted to the West. Iranians abroad and in Iran know and recognize her, and she is famous. Also since she is mentioned on other articles, readers will want to know more about her. Not to mention, she is royalty, and is thus notable. Plus she is in line to the Head of the House of Pahlavi. To purge wikipedia of articles about people who are royalty but haven't done anything note worthy is irrational and unpractical. If Behnam has a problem with this article, maybe he should expand it! Agha Nader 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can expand it, with this supposed "much media coverage" in Iran. I hope that your contributions will meet the reliable source requirements, but we can discuss that once you add these sources and relevant information. The Behnam 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - She appears borderline notable by herself, and I agree with the proposed WP:ROYAL standard, whether it's official or not. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Before there were official guidelines, there were principles and common sense that guided decisions about what is notable enough for inclusion in a "non-paper" encyclopedia. It isn't the official status, but the rationale that underlies it which lends it ongoing authority. Some of those rationales are undergoing development and articulation at WP:ROYAL, but we need not await that process's completion to act upon sound reasoning. The discussion with The Behnam illustrates the value of completing and promoting WP:ROYAL, because IMHO he's right that the extant guidelines fail to encompass the relevant point, which is that royalty's notability does not derive primarily from what they do, but from what they are, any more than a nation's flag is significant because of what it does or is made of or how unique its design is. It's a symbol, and its importance isn't intrinsic, but a function of the significance attributed to it by others who value some or all of what it stands for. Ditto the notability of royalty. Royalty is a living embodiment of national identity, history and tradition, very much in the same way that a flag or anthem is, except that flags and anthems are plentiful and royalty is extremely rare. Nations do change or discard flags, or change their consensus about what such symbols mean -- as they do about royalty. But that change usually results from extended debate or struggle, and is often re-considered or reversed long afterwards, which is why deposed royalty remains notable (look at how often in the last 100 years Greece established and overthrew its monarchy, and ask yourself why Brazil voted on restoration of the monarchy over 100 years after it had been abolished, and why Uganda, South Africa and other African, Pacific and Asian nations are institutionalizing so-called traditional leadership, which is to say re-constituting local monarchies decades after abolition). Nor is royalty just about the monarch: No nation, whether monarchy or republic, has laws governing marriages of prime ministers, yet nearly every nation that has a monarchy -- constitutional figurehead or absolutism -- has laws governing who its royalty may and may not marry, because royalty -- unlike celebrity -- is about family, i.e. the kinfolk of the monarch. Nor need people approve of, believe in or care about the symbolism of a monarchy for them to find its royalty, well, interesting. You might persuade me that a given royal is not notable by arguing that their dynasty has lost all remnant of public interest (e.g., if the media were to show no more interest in them than in me), but not by arguing that their individual deeds in life lack significance, since that is not relevant to what makes royalty notable in the first place -- whereas public interest is. Finally, given the number of "Keep" votes mounting up on this page, the nominator might want to consider switching to a more relevant line of argument as suggested above -- unless (Wikilawyering) is the real point of this exercise -- even though it seems to me that there is a guideline -- nay, a policy! -- to the effect that Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Lethiere 08:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal views on the importance of royalty, and why you think that WP:ROYAL should be made into an actual guideline. However, as of now, it remains a proposal, and should be treated as such until it is made into a guideline. I suggest you relegate your exhortation seeking guideline status for WP:ROYAL to its discussion page, not here.

The point wasn't my personal views on royalty, but why your arguments aren't proving persuasive here. Since you seemed to sincerely want to understand, I undertook the effort to outline the criteria that I believe are prompting all those KEEP votes. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your views greatly, as they help me understand why you believe all royalty matter. As far as persuasion, I could tell pretty early on it wasn't go my way, as most people treated WP:ROYAL as a guideline, or simply acknowledged its proposal status but still placed it above actual guideline. The criteria you have outlined are more appropriate for the talk page about the WP:ROYAL proposal; if this proposal were made into guideline, I would have no problem with this article; however, until then, I cannot see how proposal can be placed above actual guideline. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My nomination has nothing to do with WP:Wikilawyering, which I did not even know existed until you posted here. I argue for deletion because I feel that Farahnaz Pahlavi does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Your insinuation is not appreciated.

People who engage in wikilawyering don't do it because they've read about it and bought into it, but because it's their natural style in discussion. Despite the fact that several editors have commented here that they consider the principles embodied at WP:ROYAL to be appropriate and therefore valid to apply, you continue to insist that until it becomes a formal guideline, it is irrelevant to this discussion and should be irrelevant to people's votes. As you can see, however, that isn't working for you. The Wikilawyering article describes the phenomenon as, "Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express...Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution." That clause is why I cited it in this discussion. A fundamental criterion for articles in WP is notability. Extant guidelines help us determine if that is present in specific cases, but don't exhaust what people consider "notable". Focusing on getting people to "stick to the rules" as you interpret them (despite the fact that "the rules" themselves say they are neither exhaustive nor binding), while ignoring what people tell you is the substantive basis of their decision in a specific case, is considered wikilawyering. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about your use of Wikilawyering against me. While I now understand where you are coming from, as my argumentation here is rather rule-based, I don't think that my approach is a "too-literal interpretation", or that it breaks the spirit of a guideline. My case is rooted in guideline; yours is rooted in proposal. There is nothing wikilawyering about drawing a distinction between the two; in fact, there is a section devoted entirely to their differences. See WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc.. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving thoughtful consideration to my argument that focusing upon whether this article complies with WP:BIO fails to address the underlying criteria your interlocutors consider relevant and decisive, and is therefore unlikely to achieve the deletion of this article that you seek. I am now convinced that you fully understand and prefer that outcome to the prospect of building consensus in support of your proposal to delete, if that would require you to address concerns you consider improperly raised. While I disagree with your interpretation, it strikes me as a coherent and well-articulated one. I have enjoyed exchanging points of view with you, have learned, and look forward to future opportunities to work together to improve WP. Lethiere 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Nothing about my support for deletion is a form of advertising, propoganda, advocacy, or self-promotion, and I find your insinuation offensive. Again, I argue for deletion because she does not meet the notability criteria of theWP:BIO guideline. The Behnam 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating that people base their decision exclusively on the guideline you prefer to apply, despite evidence that people, having heard your arguments, continue to base their decision on other factors they deem relevant. I thought perhaps those "other factors" hadn't been articulated clearly and fully enough for you to "hear" them, since you keep soapboxing the same point -- "Prove to me that this princess is notable according to WP:BIO" -- so I tried to fill that gap. Sorry if that doesn't help. And I truly apologize if you feel offended, since I respect your sincerity and meant to help you see why your arguments might not be proving successful -- but impatience did creep into my response, and I beg your pardon for that. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My main issue has been that using WP:ROYAL as a "stated guideline" is not appropriate, since it is a proposal, which is not supposed to be treated as an accepted guideline, a.k.a. it is not authorized by consensus. Not only is this justified by the categorization of proposal relative to guidelines and policies; a quick look at the WP:ROYAL talk page confirms the uncertain status of consensus that keeps it as a proposal(though it appears you are already familiar with the talk page). I have, since the beginning, relied upon the guideline WP:BIO because it is designed to be a guideline regarding biographical articles, such as the Farahnaz Pahlavi article. I don't consider arguing based upon accepted guidelines as soap-box advocacy, and I do not intend that WP:BIO be exclusively applied. If you have an argument for Keep that is based on actual guidelines, not proposals, I am very open to consideration, but proposals lack authorization by consensus. The soapbox accusation hardly seems acceptable. By the way, your big speech above about why royalty matters seems to be more "soapboxing" than anything I've done, since you do not argue by policy but instead by your personal values regarding royalty. I don't have anything against you having those views, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a soap box. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO is not the only WP guideline which might apply. As BIO notes, other criteria may apply. One of the ways that new guidelines become approved is that people support them and start using them. Georgewilliamherbert 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very open to the application of other guidelines, but these should be actual guidelines, not proposed guidelines. Many of the Keep votes have been based upon treating a proposal as an accepted guideline, but the differences are significant. See WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. and my related arguments above(with Agha Nader). The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As is noted in a bunch of places, one way that a guideline which is proposed becomes accepted is if people say "I agree, we'll use that". This is part of the WP consensus process. Georgewilliamherbert 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you realize that proposals are not "accepted" until they are authorized by consensus. This page is not the discussion page for WP:ROYAL, and so it is odd to presume that the consesnsus on this page establish WP:ROYAL as an accepted guideline. After all, the talk page for the proposal is and has been the appropriate venue for attempts at establishing consensus on WP:ROYAL, none of which have succeeded. How quaint it is that you continue to cling to the notion that WP:ROYAL has legitimacy as determined by consensus. The Behnam 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

KeepShe is notable to many people across the world. She has been in many articles in magazines, etc. Azalea_pomp

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kill phil

These films are not notable as they have no sources indicating notability. The only results on Google were unrelated to this subject. I am also nominating the following related article because it is a similarly non-notable article about a sequel:

Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete only source in the article is a snippet of a quote from the "Elizabeth College newsletter". That's about as non-notable as it gets, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete In terms of youtube.com's weaks number of views and the lack of internet meme phenomenon normally associated to youtube videos and other media. It is non-notable.--Janarius 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I kind of feel sorry for all these kids who put so much in-depth detail into their articles about their Youtube movies, only to have them be deleted time and again. I wish there was some way we could go back and warn them not to waste their time. Alas, here we go again. Wavy G 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - possibly an hoax. The film budgets are impressive, especially without leaving traces on the net! Phil should be uppercase! --Cate | _Talk 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 12:37, 5 January 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. -Doc^g 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chronicles of Spellborn

Advert for a non-notable unreleased game. CiaranG 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are ~~suspected~~ confirmed sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - as per nom. Reads like an advert. Ronbo76 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete at least until it's released or near to being. At the moment the publisher is listed as "unknown". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD, specifically G11 (blatant advertising). The article was created by a user named Freeze tcos (TCOS = The Chronicles of Spellborn) with exactly five contributions within an hour and a half: Two updates to the article itself, uploading an image for the logo, and adding information about the game to List of MMORPGs and Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter. Lankybugger 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete until the game is released or a publisher is announced. Alan Shatte 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am not convinced that it is an advertisement. The game has many articles at IGN PC, the latest being dated in October. [59] Gamerankings lists 6 previews [60] from notable websites like GameSpot, 1UP, and IGN. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. I would change to Keep if rewritten by a neutral editor. (I might do it if I have extra free time, but don't hold your breath.) Although game is probably notable enough, the current version of the article has WP:COI issues. --Alan Au 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- ~~As I wrote in your talk page, if you need help with this let me know. Jessica Anne Stevens 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~
Keep the article doesn't claim anything extraordinary that would make the COI issues larger than its notability. Paul D. Meehan 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Paul and others. Gisele Hsieh 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Everything besides the author seems okay. Other Wikipedians have shown interest in helping with the article, so it has some merit besides being a vanity/promotional piece. Brad Guzman 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Brad's reasoning. It seems pointless to remove an article just to rewrite a substantially similar version. Not to mention that doing so will probably just result in a AfD nomination Alan Shatte 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic article, about notable software. Joel Jimenez 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a notable MMORPG that's received attention from various sources. Tarinth 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator.

[edit] Vehicular homicide

This article has existed for more than eight months without becoming anything more than a dicdef. It is also a troll magnet, with its 'Famous People Convicted' section, which may violate WP:BLP, and the attempt to add a 'Famous People who were not Convicted' section, which definitely would violate WP:BLP. Donald Albury 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it's currently a stub. As a topic, I expect that there is roome for sourced expansion such as the severity with which this is treated within the legal systems of various countries etc. -- Whpq 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of possibility for expansion, and a notable topic since it's legally handled quite differently from, say, a stabbing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
'Keep. The topic is obviously notable. The Craig MacTavish and Ted Kennedy fascination of one individual shouldn't warrant its deletion. That fascination is systematic and prolonged (different IPs making identical edits over months apart): if anything that should be looked in to. ccwaters 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep — one of the most popular kinds of human killing. Sidik iz PTU 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources cited (the only "source" provided is a commercial website in the business of selling legal forms). Seems to be somewhat original research cobbling together different concepts. I can't speak for any jurisdiction that might have such a term in their criminal statutes, but I am certain that while the elements of the crime may vary from a stabbing, the legal principles and procedure will essentially be the same. As for a "popular" (?!?!?) kind of killing, what statistics or reliable source back up that claim? Agent 86 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Original research is not the same thing as {{unreferenced}}. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - As for Sidik iz PTU's comment, surely it refers to:

The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).[61] (Adjust your black humor filter.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete This topic is as trivial as my driving record. Ted Kennedy 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.19.59.110 (talk • contribs)

Keep per Whpq and Starblind. hateless 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above _SUBWAYguy 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - While the topic could use some sourced expansion, being a "troll magnet" and "a stub for eight months" are not good reasons for deletion, in my books. Andy Saund e rs 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep mostly per Andy Saund. We don't delete articles because they need cleanup or improvement. I have added a paragraph for starters, and hope to improve it some more... this topic can certainly have a good article written about it. --W.marsh 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uncle G and I have expanded the article considerably, still room for improvement, but people arguing for deletion should probably reconsider. --W.marsh 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I haven't looked at the old version, but the current version looks great. --- RockMFR 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, fantastic expansion by Uncle G and W.marsh. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As nominater I am withdrawing this nomination. -- Donald Albury 09:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Allen Graham

Contested prod per discussion on my talk page. Autobio that fails WP:BIO. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It dosn't fail for this reason in my opinion: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

Artist's should have the same criteria as photographers. The three refences I listed fulfill this criteria. Wer2chosen 12:30 January 4, 2007

Comment This talk page discussion between the two of us is continuing in an attempt to improve the article with proper citation. Outside contributors would go a long way to easing WP:COI concerns. This has an uphill fight, but we could save an article here. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Wer2chosen that this criterion for notability applies. However the references given do not appear to meet the criteria. One of them is for a book that hasn't been published yet, so we have no way of verifying it. One is for a book that is about the Allen Family, and while I don't have a copy, I am skeptical that this could count as an "independent review" of Graham. The last reference is for a book apparently published thirty-some years before the artist was born. If proper references could be found I'd be willing to change my mind on this, but for now the article does not meet the criterion specified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwernol (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete. Clear case of COI. As I always say, Wer (if I may call you that) wait - when you become notable, someone else will write an article about you. And please feel free to bring here any other suspected vanity articles that you find. -- RHaworth 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No sleight to the artist or their work, but there is not sufficient notability. Wikipedia says about living biographies, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". I had been taking unappropriate enteries off the list of artists, but have been slacking as of late. I will start once more. --Thamiel 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

check out the debate on Guity Novin to see how arduous and difficult this process can be.--Thamiel 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Church Of Mars

Non-notable parody religion. Only yields 181 Google hits. ::mikm t 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Everyone wants to be His Noodlyness, but so very few succeed. -- Fan-1967 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not only is it not notable but it is unsourced so completely unverifiable. Indeed I suspect most or all of it is a hoax Gwernol 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per policy and arguments above.--Janarius 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete verifiability problems to say the least! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:CONG as non-notable and unsourced, possible hoax. Note: I would expect a genuine Lucifer-centric church to have a wealth of nowestories about it, so such an organization would not be necessarily unencyclopedic. Edison 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SPAM. Edison is probably wrong; Luciferian religions are usually very small and so numerous that any particular one is very unlikely to get media coverage at all. This is just yet another non-notable one. — coelacan talk — 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-strike 1.5 on WON2

A how-to guide. Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. Prod removed without comment. Fan-1967 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete a how-to about how to play a computer game using a certain network. Not something for wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NOT a howto guide. — brighterorange (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not for instruction manuals. Koweja 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT --⁪froth^{T C} 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or redirecting to Counter-Strike couldn't hurt to discourage recreation. VegaDark 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per brighterorange. Alan Shatte 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; WP:NOT a how-to guide. Isn't there a gaming wiki somewhere for this information? --Alan Au 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obviously a violation of WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NOT Joel Jimenez 04:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely against WP:NOT in every way. Whichever admin closes and deletes this, please make sure you also delete the redirects to this page. -- Kicking222 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everlasting wind

no such organization has been found under google, however it is mentioned in foreign languages. so far, it is found blogs. Please verify Janarius 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete nothing like the phrase "or some other stuffs like stopping terrorists attacks" as part of the description to inspire confidence in an article. Apart from that, absolutely no sources means this is entirely unverifiable. Clearly doesn't meet our notability guidelines as it stands. Given the weak description, there's every possibility that this is a hoax. If it isn't it needs sources ot show both that this group exists and that its notable. Gwernol 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete What? Sounds like patent nonsense. Little context, no sources. Should be speedied. --Folantin 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - virtually empty, no context provided. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:51, 4 January 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 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Cater

Original author chose to remove tags asking for sources rather than improve the article [62]. Non-notable journalist, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - edited a book, The Howard Factor (ISBN 0-522-85284-X), coeditor of the main national broadsheet over here, The Australian. Not sure whether this is enough to pass WP:BIO. MER-C 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Quick google search indicates him to be a well-known and published journalist/editor at least in Austrailia. Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. Ccscott 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Can you explain which aspect of WP:BIO he meets? One Night In Hackney 07:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: 'm thinking "widely recognized... opinion maker", and "published ... editors... who received multiple independent reviews" for at least The Howard Factor which seems widely reviewed (google search) and perhaps his own columns although I have not searched. Google also reveals he is an editor for the some of the publications from the International Red Cross. Plus, sifting through the numerous google hits reveals some potential mentions in other media so he might even meet WP:N directly. Ccscott 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Widespread media coverage? I got 3,000+ LexisNexis hits on him. Stories he's written, profiles, reviews of his book... I honestly don't even know where I'd begin to expand it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Weak Keep. You guys are showing me that this article can certainly be expanded. Barely seems notable now, if hes that notable in Australia add some substance and sources to the article.--Wizardman 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is an English-speaking ~~dictionary~~encyclopedia. Little known fact... People in Australia mostly speak English! I think he's good enough to stay but the article needs some expansion. Tarinth 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is a dictionary. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Uh, yeah. Tarinth 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Peripitus (Talk) 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, "The Howard Factor" is notable, mainly because The Australian spruiked it so much. Add this to him being one of the editors of Australia's only national newspaper, and you've got notability. Lankiveil 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep per Mer-c. I will add to WP:ACOTF to attempt to raise profile of article.Ga rr ie 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, can be reasonably cited. ~ Flame vip e r 22:09, 10 January 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Brown Lohr

nn air crash survivor, safety advocate. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete only about 12 ghits, is already listed on United Airlines Flight 232; the claims in this article aren't substantiated in the articles found on google. SkierRMH 02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any signs that she is actually notable as a safety advocate, and just being an air crash survivor doesn't do it for me. --Brianyoumans 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Although it currently sucks, it has potential for improvement. ~ Flame vip e r 22:11, 10 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Trombello

nn air crash survivor. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Just writing a book is not enough to make someone notable. janejellyroll 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom, already listed on United Airlines Flight 232, normally other authors with one book aren't notable enough for inclusion. SkierRMH 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete In twenty years... heck, even now, it is hard to see why anyone thinks this is notable. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, can be cited and is sooooooo, like, totally notable. ~ Flame vip e r 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, despite flameviper's stunning defence. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Burk

nn air crash survivor, author, speaker. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete not listed on United Airlines Flight 232, normally authors with only one book are not notable enough for inclusion. The only codicil here is the TV appearance, but is one TV appearance notable? SkierRMH 02:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete The book is self-produced. Thus we need reviews to survive WP:BIO. Don't find show in imdb.com. Any reasonable info would change my vote. TonyTheTiger 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think what we have here is a promotion for George's speaking business. I don't see much notability. --Brianyoumans 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, those links can easily become citations. Citations make me a happy snake. ~ Flame vip e r 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless something can be found to show he satisfies WP:BIO. As a side note, don't make the mistake of clicking the signature in the preceding comment - it is composed entirely of linkspam. CiaranG 11:18, 11 January 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. No prejudice against recreation if notability per WP:BIO can be established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes Ramirez

nn air crash survivor. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is no 'notable survivor list' on American Airlines Flight 965; not an author, only has a character in a book based on her. SkierRMH 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember a series on TLC or Discovery that focused on transportation disasters. This flight was featured once and I beleive the girls miraculous survival was documented.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, is reasonably citable. And I can't stress enough that citations make me a happy snake. ~ Flame vip e r 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not satisfy WP:BIO. CiaranG 13:31, 11 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob van der Nol

Article does not establish the notability of the subject and does not provide reference information other than the subject's own webpage TheMindsEye 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable and due to the lack of necessary sources. --The Way 08:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, delete. -- Hoary 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any real claim of notability here. --Brianyoumans 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Elaboration (since I've already voted): (i) Fails any test of notability, as no solo exhibition is mentioned, no book is mentioned, and the only claim is that he's one of nine nominees for a prize. (ii) Fails WP:V, as not one source is specified. (iii) Apparently abandoned: it describes December 2006 in the future tense. -- Hoary 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. Baleeted. ~ Flame vip e r 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. "I like it" is not a reason to keep an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Schappeller

Disreputable sources, lack of verifiability, probable original research, and so on. The typical pseudoscience article on some random person's aether theory. Philosophus ^T 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete Sounds similar to vril, only more obscure. Could be notable as pseudoscience history, but I don't see any reliable sources here. Brianyoumans 00:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete in the absence of reliable sources indicating that these ideas, while provably incorrect, at least influenced other human minds. Anville 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Actually, I have a soft spot for articles about quacks like Schappeller and as far as I know, he was rather "influential" before WWII. At least he became rather wealthy by his follower's donations. However, in contrast with Vril or Nazi Ufos there seems to exist no reputable english-language source. Among the few I know of is Henry Steven's book on German Flying Saucers the most prominent one, but his writings are more than questionable, and the same is true for the rest of the english sources which I know. On the other hand, the only german-language source I know of which seems to be halfway reputable is out of print for ten years and I wasn't able to get it via libraries. Otherwise I would have done a revision of this article by myself. Maybe, it would be wise to mention him in a WP-list of quacks or pseudoscientists but in the moment, I see no practicable way to write a stand-alone article about him that would fit the WP-standards. Crypto-ffm 14:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Rescue. Me likes this. ~ Flame vip e r 22:16, 10 January 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. —Cryptic 18:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PaintChatApp

I haven't been able to confirm the notability of this software; in particular, most possible references I found seem to be in Japanese. Opinion ? Schutz 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Nqomc 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I say delete it. This information can be obtained in PaintChat, and like the Oekaki page, specific applet information should be placed there. The applet is popular enough to warrant its own page, but because no one is willing to write more than a stub, it is not necessary to have one at this time. Awsoma

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Detonate, per above. ~ Flame vip e r 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Paint chat. - Peregrine Fisher 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Mind you, this is a mercy vote - this thing has been up for deletion for an obscene amount of time. Anyhow, PCA is already covered in the PaintChat article, so there is no real need for a separate article. TomorrowTime 12:49, 12 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrisburg Turkey bowl

Appears to be totally non-notable 2-on-2 football game among friends (see previous edits) _SUBWAYguy 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A neighborhood game that's been held twice doesn't count as notable. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Not notable. Ronbo76 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - isn't notable, doesn't attempt to assert notability, is ridiculous. CiaranG 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Detonate this mo'fo, and fast. What the hell? ~ Flame vip e r 22:18, 10 January 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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swedmetal Records

Originally listed with {{prod}} with notation, "nn company per WP:CORP. No sources given and unverified". Prod tag removed without reason or improvement. Article is devoid of any notability or encyclopedic value; all but one of bands listed are redlinks. Agent 86 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable as with broken links this becomes an ad for them. Ronbo76 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Baleeted, methinks. ~ Flame vip e r 22:18, 10 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club Tattoo

Tattoo / piercing outfit with 3 locations in Arizona. Claims of "numerous awards" for staff, and anything else, unverified. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Deizio talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete-not notable. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable; reads like ad. Ronbo76 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating this company meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11. This article's original version was blatant advertising and the revisions made since then haven't really improved it. There are no assertions of notability of any kind and I've been unable to find ANY sources, let alone multiple sources from third parties. Lankybugger 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
DIE CRUFT DIE ~ Flame vip e r 22:19, 10 January 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Sierra Sport

Someone has created an article for a business which is not notable. This article was an an orphaned article. It is not referenced. Its multiple edits today and non-substantiated facts stuck out. Recommend ~~speedy delete~~ delete. Ronbo76 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment to recommend an article for speedy deletion you just have to add the appropriate tag to it. In this case it would be {{db-ad}}. This is much easier than going through the AfD process and doesn't take five days to complete (assuming an admin agrees with your assesment. See WP:CSD for more details. Good luck, Gwernol 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If High Sierra Sport is not deserving of an article on Wikipedia, then Jansport should definitely be ousted. I believe that everything should be on Wikipedia, no matter how small. I'm working on the information and am doing my best to improve it. Thank you for your patience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quinnhsu (talk • contribs).
- Contrary to your opinion, Wikipedia's notability guidelines emphatically rule out the possibility of "everything, no matter how small" being included. As regards Jansport, inclusion is not an indicator of notability and perhaps that article should be nominated for AfD as well. That said, delete per WP:CORP, the article cites no non-trivial third-party reliable sources (in fact it cites no sources AT ALL) to verify the claims being made. In addition, such claims IMHO do sufficiently assert the notability of the company, per Bwithh below. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep for reason above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.85.130.252 (talk • contribs).
Keep The fact that the company is the official supplier to the US Ski team [63] is not a small thing and in itself confers some notability. The Hoover's page on HSS [64] includes a link to a Goldman Sachs analyst's report on their latest retail sales numbers; another indication that they are notable. I'm sure with further research other significant mentions of High Sierra as a company could be found. Of course its up to the editors of the article to do this work, but I believe the company is notable and the article can be expanded. Gwernol 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment 1) Just because a company is commented on by Goldman Sachs or another bulge-bracket investment bank doesn't make it automatically notable. 2) The link you pointed out that leads to the Goldman analyst video does not mention High Sierra at all . Its a brief video chat about an overview of the US retail sector in general Bwithh 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm not seeing a claim to encyclopedic notability here for this 40 person company. Supplying bags to the US ski team is just a sponsorship deal and is not notable. Bwithh 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well kown company in it's outdoors genre. Article already includes independent profiles. Alot of Google News Archive articles [65]. (Some are press releases, many are not). --Oakshade 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is my stance that a well-written, correctly formatted, and referenced article deserves to stay, or at least have its content remain. ~ Flame vip e r 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all except Jones, Moxey and Stanley. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Benson

WP:BIO states that the players must have made an appearance in a fully professional league. Benson has not played a league game above Conference level.

For the same reason, I am nominating Rod Thornley, Darren Stride, Michael Morrison (footballer) Craig Mackail-Smith, Shaun Batt Martin Rice, Andrew Taylor (footballer born 1982), Jon Challinor, Patrick Ada, Dean Moxey, Paul Jones (footballer born 1986), George Friend, Daniel Seabourne, Darren Jones, Ryan Harrison (football), Mark Ricketts, Glenn Poole Johnathon Hedge, Brian Smikle, Gavin Hurren, Steven Drench, Adam Yates, David Perkins (footballer), James Bentley, Craig Stanley, Wayne Curtis, Danny Meadowcroft and Paul Lloyd. I've been through these players Soccerbase profiles and again can't spot any League appearances.

I know the Conference is approaching fully-professional status, but until it attains that these players fail WP:BIO. Precedents are here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Gray and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Eyre

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC) HornetMike 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Football Conference players in general fail WP:BIO. QmunkE 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per QmunkE. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as per nomination. I can find no trace of any of these players on "allfootballers.com" either. Daemonic Kangaroo 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete- these players have not played for a team in a fully professional league. If they do in the future, then, then they will merit an article. But not now. Robotforaday 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as per WP:BIO and HornetMike's diligent research. Qwghlm 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete most, except Dean Moxey, Martin Rice, Paul Jones (footballer born 1986) + posibly others - delete players that fail WP:BIO. However Moxey and Rice both played (ie. made appearences) for Exeter City F.C. before the club was relegated (ie. when they were still in a professional league); ergo these two players do not fail WP:BIO. Other listed Exeter players arrived after relegation so do fail. Jones I beleive qualifies per other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable due to his FA Cup apperences and awards for such. There is an article on The FA website which backs this up but I can't find the link right this second. Poobarb 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I hate to disagree but Moxey & Rice both made their debuts for Exeter City in 2003-04 i.e. after they had been relegated to the Conference. With regard to Jones, this should be a Keep in view of his exploits in the FA Cup against Manchester United as mentioned in his article. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Further comment I have now added the FA website link[66] to the Paul Jones article. Daemonic Kangaroo 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Damn, I was sure they'd played the season before that - sorry, my mistake. However, upon re-reading the link to the article on Jones, I was reminded that Moxey still qualifies for the same reason as Jones though! (The article makes refrence to the fact that Jones' winning of the award combined with Moxey's made Exeter the first non-league club to have two players win it.) I therefore change my oppinion to Keep Moxey, Jones; Delete others per WP:BIO. Poobarb 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment - Additionally, I now agree Keep Stanley as per below comments. Poobarb 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment - I agree now that Dean Moxey should also be a Keep and have also added a link to the FA website on his article. Craig Stanley should also be a Keep as per Campdave below. (It's difficult to assimilate the careers of 29 players at a time!) Daemonic Kangaroo 13:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all bar Jones, Moxey and Stanley as per comments above and below, WP:BIO, precedent, etc, allowing for possible future re-creation if any join a Football League team ChrisTheDude 08:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all bar David Perkins, Craig Stanley as these players have captained the England National Side. Additionally, Craig Stanley has played for Raith Rovers on loan Campdave 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's a misleading comment - they captained the England National Game XI, not the England national football team as your comment implies. The England National Game XI is a team made of semi-professionals not professionals, and there is no precedent established here to suggest that captains of the XI are considered notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwghlm (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete all bar Jones, Moxey and Standley. Deletes per WP:BIO professionalism criterion and keeps per above argument. – Elisson • T • C • 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
BALEETE them all. ~ Flame vip e r 22:21, 10 January 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. Dicdef. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bliss (spirituality)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PC78 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no prospect for expanding to more than a definition. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete, the page in question can be expanded to more than the definition. Yoga and Buddhism are two topics that discuss bliss in the spiritual sense. This page could eventually link to pages like the following:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anusara_Yoga
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi Mbubel 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, if this is indeed a valid encylopedic subject then presumably a suitable article can be written in the future. However, as it stands this is a mere dictionary definition which already exists over at Wiktionary, and as such isn't worth keeping. PC78 13:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - editors keep linking to Bliss, and this is a common meaning. A similar problem occurred with Bliss (feeling). Sure its vague, but people keep linking to it! Josh Parris#: 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge to Bliss. Othwerwise, Detonate this mo'fo. ~ Flame vip e r 22:22, 10 January 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. -Doc^g 11:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of important dates in fiction

I think it will be impossible to complete or maintain this list. I raised a concern about the list being a collection of information that belonged on individual articles. There was no response. -- Ben (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, since 'fiction' is such a vast category, and there are only 365 dates in a year, the list can't avoid being either badly incomplete, or an unmanageable mass of unsorted data. There is also a problem with 'important'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
delete I agree, unmaintainable and indiscriminate. — brighterorange (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete What Squiddy said. This list is potentially infinite (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information) and of little foreseeable use. Also, in its current state the list is unencyclopaedic. You have to click on the links to discover which works of fiction it's talking about. --Folantin 19:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note - this article likely came about because editors added these fictional dates to date articles and were told to go create their own article instead. I think we should judge this article based on the information's utility (assuming verifiability, etc). Rklawton 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Question - is this article really less legitimate than other Wikipidia lists of stuff in fiction, such as fictional countries, swords, and companies? User:Mdiamante 4 January 2007.
- Response - I don't know. I would speculate that it might be because dates are pretty hard to avoid using in fiction while the other things are usually included and named because they are important to the work. -- Ben (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'd argue that comparatively few fictional media list specific dates. We aren't told the dates of Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park or those of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds (I've checked). How many millions of Law and Order/Star Trek/Simpsons/Friends episodes are there? Only a handful of each might list actual dates. As for the charge that this list could become huge and unmanagable, why not address that if and when it became an issue? User:Mdiamante 4 January 2007.
    - Comparatively few fictional media list specific dates? This list is open to every novel, play, poem, film or TV series ever created anywhere in the world. Let's take Richardson's Clarissa, supposedly the longest novel in the English language. It is composed of 176 letters, almost all of them dated. Now not every date in the book will be important, but this list has so far failed to define its criteria for notability. The same problems would apply to any fictional work in the form of a diary. And, oh yeah, historical novels? Do we include the date January 24, 41 AD because that's the date Claudius became emperor both in reality and in Robert Graves's I, Claudius? --Folantin 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

- Holy crap!!! I am speechless. -- Ben (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete hideous piece of listcruft. Specifically, this list will never be complete, could easily run into hundreds of thousands of entries and is inherently POV. How could you ever come up with a systematic definition of what constitutes an 'important' date in fiction?--Nydas^(Talk) 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:LIST states that a list must be annotated, organized and useful. I'll admit that it achieves the first two, but I can't imagine that this is helpful. Whereas I think someone would be interested in knowing about fictional swords, I can't think of anything that dates have in common other than being dates. Too indiscriminate. Tarinth 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about the list Fictional chemical substances, A-M? There's an entry from the film The One. How is that useful? As for dates, I think fictional dates are neat because they occur once a year. People can consult the list and tell friends on March 4 that it's the anniversary of the start of Holmes and Watson's first adventure. I think that that's more likely to occur than someone spreading the word about "Anistance" from The One. User:Mdiamante 4 January 2007.
Delete - ridiculous. Horrible listcruft. Unmaintainable and just plain wrong. What's up with the Futurama worship? Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Important is subjective. What makes the day Fry got unfrozen more important than say, the day he got frozen? Only one is listed. This list is also impossible to maintain and complete, and would be very hard to source. VegaDark 10:30, 6 January 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, default to keep. Sandstein 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WorldVenture

Despite the POV issue, this article has not assessed notability or verifiability, and I doubt it could. Also, this seems a little spammy. The article is also copied almost word from word from the webpage, so copyright violations exist as well. --Адам12901 ^Talk 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, seems to be clearly notable. The reasons cited above are mostly reasons for improvement, not for deletion. Moreover the nominator is known for repeated ubnsubstantiated AfD nominations of churches - a month ago, he nominated e.g.St Mary's Cathedral Basilica, a 900 years old cathedral, or even Burnt Church First Nation, a band with "church" in its name. Although I recommended him three times that he can do better if he stays within the domain of his expertise, he seems to continue still in this way. Sigh.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I have done in the past with that is absolutely no reason for you to keep bringing this up. I have told you SEVERAL times the reasons for what I did, and I am getting quite sick of you bringing this up over and over again. If you have a problem with this, you are welcome to notify an administrator to take action, but I am not doing anything against any rules. I am doing this purely in good faith. Also, I don't see how copyright violations are "reasons for improvement" especially since it's taken very seriously on Wikipedia. --Адам12901 ^Talk 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would now concentrate on geography of Russia, for example, I will surely forget your past behavior soon. But if you continue in your AfD crusade against churches although you are clearly not expert in this field, to put it mildly, I must warn other editors. - Regarding copyvio and spam in articles about notable subjects, the solution is easy: stubify the article. I've done it and now its text does not violate any copyrights and is no more advert-like.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I must tell you...again...I am not on a crusade, and I am getting sick of you saying that. Please stop! --Адам12901 ^Talk 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam, in the last month you AfDed 111 articles. From these 111, 103 were church-related (I include the Burnt Church First Nation band here). From the 103 church-related articles, 21 articles (20%) were deleted as non-notable according to your suggestions, two are pending - and most of the rest was nothing more than annoyance for the fellow Wikipedians. Do you have a better word for such an activity?

Understand me, I am not against deletion of nn articles and I nominate many articles for deletion myself, including church-related ones. But the case must be reasonably clear and well researched - and therefore you should limit yourself to the areas of your expertise. I hope that you will be a great editor and I am trying to help you, not to "punish" you for your mistakes...--Ioannes Pragensis 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you were to count the number of articles that I speedily delete, churches would not be anywhere near that percentage. As a newpage editor, I view newly created pages. I found Worldventure, and did a redirect (after realising that speedy deletion wasn't right for it). I did not go on some sort of crusade looking for this article, I found it while doing what I usually do on Wikipedia - patrol newly created pages. I will expect you to stop bringing up past matters in future AfD articles, and to be mature about this. Again, if you have a problem with what I'm doing, notify an administrator. I am sick of your crap, and I am not going to discuss this with you any further. Thank you and have a good day. --Адам12901 ^Talk 20:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again: I will happily stop it if you stop AfD church-related articles (except in clearly non-notable cases, of course; I have no objections if you delete a brand new church with ten members). Have a good day, too.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

delete this particular article provides no real encyclopedic information, and would be a good model for the sort of church-related articles we do certainly want to delete. The churches that do not merit deletion, we will I hope not delete them. DGG 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Methinks, delete. ~ Flame vip e r 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added bibliography and references proving that this is the first Conservative Baptist organization ever founded.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Searching Google Books for WorldVenture doesn't find a lot, but there are plenty trivial and not-so-trivial mentions of its older name, CBFMS, and too many gnews archive hits to make weeding the out the trivial, obits which mention it in passing, very easy. Seems to me that this meets WP:ORG (the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source) and WP:V. If it needs cleanup, clean it up, but it doesn't seem egregiously POV or spammy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, with the same reasoning as Angus McLellan. John Vandenberg 07:40, 12 January 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. Sandstein 12:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Negro

With all due respect to my man Morgan the creator, this phenomenon is not verifiable or notable enough to create an article. Moreover, this movement basically has nothing to do with the wigga movement in the '90s to now so merging the 2 would be factually wrong. Bonafide.hustla ^Talk 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

keep. I don't understand the nomination. The article is about an essay by a Pulitzer prize-winning author. That is surely verifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The author is very notable, and this is an article about the essay, and not the movement. While it doesn't have any verification, I'm fairly certain that I could find it by searching on the internet, or a library catologue in as little as 10 minutes. Actually...here we go. According to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/nmailer.htm: ...'The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster' (1956) was originally published in Dissent and reprinted in ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF (1959). I'm going to add it to the article. --Адам12901 ^Talk 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge with a relevant article. The problem is that the article isn't about the movement; it's about an essay that talks about the movement, with no context. This is better as a footnote in some other historical article(s), because there's absolutely nowhere to go with this article that isn't simple summary or copyright infringement. MSJapan 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I disagree with MSJapan because the article can also talk about its reception and impact, which other articles about essays also do (see Federalist Papers and A Modest Proposal. A simple google search revealed plenty material that can expand this article. hateless 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Extremely notable author, plenty of material available to source, etc. --- RockMFR 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep unless you really think Norman Mailer and his works aren't notable. Tarinth 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per hateless. — coelacan talk — 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Hipster ---- Squidfryerchef 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shuck that jive. The article is about the title of an essay, not the subculture itself. — coelacan talk — 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and merge to The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster since that is the name of the essay.--Sefringle 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above keep comments. I'm also ok with moving the article to the title of the essay as proposed by Sefringle. --Richard 08:26, 10 January 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. —Cryptic 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest

Non-notable contest, its only notability perhaps coming from being based on the International Obfuscated C Code Contest. There were only 9 entries in 2005 and apparently no contest held in 2006; home page is a blog with very few comments. No sources. — brighterorange (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:RS and WP:V. A quick Google search reveals no reliable sources covering the competition. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't assert notability. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Seems to be a dead idea without having attained any notability. --Gwern (contribs) 19:32 11 January 2007 (GMT) 19:32, 11 January 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. —Cryptic 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Search For The Next Fashion Model

I found this page while stumbling upon User:Teys' contribution log. This user is the only one who has worked on this supposed show. I looked on Google and cannot find any info on this page, suggesting that this is all fake. While I am somewhat impressed by the amount of work that's gone into this page...it's all fake. I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a carbon copy of the first page:

SKS2K6 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I looked up contestant names, and they cannot be found as well. (By the way, I'm suggesting delete, in case that wasn't obvious.) SKS2K6 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to be a hoax. No evidence found on the web. If it is a TV show, why isn't the network that airs it mentioned? DCEdwards1966 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Isaacs

Non-notable subject TheMindsEye 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The attention that the photographer has received from critics, curators and magazine editors seems to be enough to establish notability. The person sounds much more notable than the average photographer. --Eastmain 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, Isaacs' work seems considerably more notable than that of the average photographer (me?). His commercial work, as presented on his website, is good: way better than the average. His nature work seems variable: some works are pleasant but picture-postcardy, others are first-rate. ¶ However, what you or I think of his photography is (perhaps unfortunately) of little importance. What's important is what's verifiable about his work, and its verifiable notability in the eyes of others. ¶ Let's look at the external links, one by one. There's (i) Isaacs' site, automatically discounted as not disinterested. And then there are: (ii) Alabama Art Monthly Noles-Ross lists this in her bio. / (iii) "Johnny Flynton," 2002 / (iv) Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day' / (v) MedPartners Photo attribute to Isaacs. The second and fourth say nothing whatever about Isaacs. The third is a claim that Isaacs was the photographer for Johnny Flynton, a short film that may for all I know be first rate but for which IMDB gives a grand total of zero external reviews. The last shows a single, rather indifferent photo by Isaacs. The notes prove to my satisfaction that Isaacs participated in two exhibitions; in one, he was one of ten (or more?) participants, in the other, one of seventeen. ¶ WP:BIO talks of Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. I see no independent reviews (just the odd mention), and no award. WP HOP says that Provisionally, a notable photographer is one who meets one or more of [eight] criteria; Isaacs doesn't appear to meet any of the eight. ¶ On 18 December, I posted the following question on the article's talk page: Any books? Any solo exhibitions? I don't see anything mentioned, and his own site is uninformative. / Isaacs seems to be touted here as a notable pinhole photographer. Google doesn't support this. The man's own site suggests that he's only now exploring the noncommercial, and it doesn't say anything about the commercial. / What am I missing here? I haven't yet received a satisfactory answer to that. ¶ We're told above that googling for the man's photography is difficult; I think it's very easy (just click this). There's little there, and certainly no sign of a book or major solo exhibition. And there's no surprise there, as Isaacs himself says that he is just now coming to terms with his “place in art”. I wish him all the best: Let him get a major solo show or a book all to himself, and then he will deserve and likely get a Wikipedia article. -- Hoary 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ I am sure WP needs people like Hoary to hold the rules in check but I think with art the rules here should be more open. Isaacs is an artist who has as many credentials as at least half the photographers on here and I think he deserves an article. So I dont understand the power welding here its not needed nor warranted. Artsojourner 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isaacs makes very modest claims for himself as an artist. Rather, it seems that he's a commercial photographer who's started as (self-conscious) artist. So let's first consider him as a photographer. WP:BIO has notability criteria for photographers. Isaacs doesn't meet them. WP:BIO is of course just a guideline, but there's no sign of verifiable alternative notability, other than being one of ten people to have contributed to one exhibition and one of seventeen to have contributed to another. As for the claim that Isaacs "has as many credentials as at least half the photographers on here", I'm willing to believe that a considerable number of photographers with articles on WP are very dodgy indeed (for all I know there could be entire hoaxes among them), but the simplest place to survey a list of photographers is (wait for it) List of photographers, and I wonder whether Artsojourner really believes that the credentials of Isaacs -- no solo exhibitions, no books, no particularly famous (or in modish language "notorious" or "iconic") photograph -- outclass those of even five percent of them, let alone fifty percent. (Would he care to choose one letter of the alphabet and compare Isaacs with listed photographers whose surname starts with that letter?) ¶ I also don't understand what's being said about "power welding" (wielding?): I for one am arguing one side, perhaps ineffectively but I think politely; Artsojourner and others are entirely free to argue the other. ¶ Again, none of what I've said belittles Isaacs, his work, or his chances of getting an article after future advances in his career. -- Hoary 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Notability not established, and the article reads like something from his agent ("Hard to tie down, Isaacs has involved himself with ..."). Wikipedia is not a wire service or promotional site. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If even some of those who want to delete for non-notability admit that the photographer is relatively notable, what more is there to say? DGG 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh what? I see only one suggestion of this by somebody making a "delete" vote; it's where I say: "Yes, Isaacs' work seems considerably more notable than that of the average photographer (me?)." I hardly thought it would be necessary to labor such an obvious point, but [sigh] there are millions of photographers, of whom millions are average. I'm one of them. I can get the lighting right. I can get the exposure and focusing right. I can produce a handful of photos that won't put you to sleep. But compared with the hundreds of notable photographers, ranging alphabetically from Berenice Abbott (or earlier) to Stanislovas Žvirgždas (or beyond), my photographs are crap. Perhaps I merely suffer from false modesty -- but worries about this are by the way, because editors can write a substantial amount of verifiable information Abbott or Žvirgždas whereas they can't do so about me, and Abbott and Žvirgždas have verifiably had major solo exhibitions and have had books of their works published by non-vanity presses. So there's a huge gulf between (a) the average joe (or the average hoary) and (b) the photographers who rightly get articles in WP. Isaacs doesn't (yet) belong to the latter: he doesn't come close to satisfying WP:BIO or any alternative that anybody has yet suggested. He's way better than I am: good for him, and I hope he goes far. If/when he does, he'll deserve an article. -- Hoary 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) slightly rephrased for clarity 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

~~KEEP~~ Isaacs work on 20 issues as a photography contributor and photography editor to an arts magazine counts for something, besides all of the other things he has done both artistically and commercially. Isaacs has work in a book. He was a still photographer on a film. Isaacs continues to develop new techniques for Pinhole and this all counts for something. I do not compare Isaacs work to the average artist as I feel he has done so many things and warrants his own article on WP. Artsojourner 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- But Artsojourner, you already voted "keep", just four days ago. (See above, "Keep Isaacs is my vote.... 04:53, 5 January 2007....") Of course you are most welcome to add additional comments and arguments, but it's odd to preface them with the word "KEEP": doing so implies a second vote. -- Hoary 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- So much on the form; now, comments on what you say. Alabama Art Monthly may have been an excellent periodical but neither the British library nor any of the great majority of (all of?) British libraries stocks it. Most recent or contemporary photographers who get articles in WP don't merely have a few pages in a single book, they instead have entire books devoted to their work. The film is commented on above: being the still photographer for a film might be of significance if stills from it were of some significance; this film has not a single external review that's linked to from IMDB, and its only mention within WP is that within the article on Isaacs. Pinhole photography: what are these new pinhole techniques of Isaacs'? The article merely says that he studied pinhole photography and that he participates in Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day (as do very many photographers, one might add). -- Hoary 07:04, 9 January 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. Sure there were SPA's but JzG voted twice so which is worse? (No I didn't really factor that in, JzG, but tsk tsk). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Schwartz (technologist)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Fails WP:BIO. Notability is limited to CEO of a non-notable company and "the first to propose via a search engine". ju66l3r 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability Want to comment directly about notability here. I would hope my notability is directly related to my work at Search Engine Roundtable, Search Engine Land, Search Engine Watch, the various conferences I speak at, the fact that Yahoo, Google, Ask, and MSN have me on their advisory councils, fly me to meetings, and request that I speak at their offices. Plus being called by NY Times, WSJ and other notable papers for quotes, does matter, no? Rustybrick 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see sources below. I will dig up more.
OK, some more sources, quoted in News.com and Publish.com and many other high end sources, Ill keep adding. Rustybrick 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Search Engine Roundtable, Search Engine Land and Search Engine Watch are the sites I write or wrote at and they are one of the very few search news sites that are included in Google and Yahoo News engines. Rustybrick 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Creating editor is also in conflict of interest as the subject of the article, which is suggested by this diff. ju66l3r 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Other than Danny Sullivan, Barry is probably the most prominent, well-known figure in SEO. He is / has been associated with all the major forums, blogs, conferences & associations in the industry. He chronicles the everchanging world of SEO like no other and has been doing so for a long time.Pryzbilla

I didn't know I wasn't able to vouch for Ben, I wasn't aware of the conflict of interest, I am sorry. Rustybrick 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. The CoI is that you started the article about yourself, not that you commented on the Ben Pfeiffer article. Hope that clears it up. WP requires neutrality in content and the fact that you started a biographical article about yourself makes it nearly impossible for other editors to seperate the two. ju66l3r 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand, not sure what to do now about it... I am sorry... Rustybrick 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since every claim in the article can be factually verified, perhaps it is possible to overlook this indescretion? Caydel 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll vouch for Barry's value to the search engine community. He provides more information to the industry as a whole, is pretty much the unofficial news source for the entire Search community. He deserves an entry in Wikipedia just as much as Danny Sullivan or Matt Cutts. He is without a doubt one of the most influential people withing the search sphere. Caydel 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This page should be kept. Mr. Schwartz is a leader in the field of SEO and should be recognized as such via this wiki. Gbatesy 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

— Gbatesy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Barry Schwartz is by far one of the most recognized names in the SEO Industry. Being an SEO, if I were asked who should one talk to about anything that is going on in the SEO industry? I would point to Danny Sullivan and then immediately to Barry Schwartz. He is widely revered as a person on the pulse of this industry and deserves to be recognized as such especially, here, on Wikipedia. --Griffingranberg 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

— Griffingranberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Please be sure to discuss this issue in terms of whether the article and/or subject of the article meets WP:BIO guidelines for notability and furhtermore WP:V for verifiability by reliable sources. All of the heartfelt back-patting aside, it is the guidelines of this site that define whether an article is warranted and not a popular vote. Thanks. ju66l3r 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11 (Blatant Advertising). It's a bit obvious that User:Rustybrick is Barry Schwartz, given that the website linked as Barry Schwartz's is called the exact same thing. Lankybugger 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (changed to Tentative Keep per new information which has been provided, assuming that Clickz and Web Pro News are considered reliable sources. First glance says yes. Lankybugger 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lankybugger: I don't think he was trying to hide it, nor promote himself. Also, Rustybrick's comment above refers to the athor as 'I' implying that he is Barry Schwartz.Caydel 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil, eh Caydel? I'm stating my own reason for the nom, and the information wasn't there when I was working on my message. And while he's not trying to hide it, he certainly IS trying to promote himself with this article, especially given the fact he's soliciting votes. Lankybugger 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment has been cleaned up Caydel 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Note that Mr Schwartz is actively soliciting "votes" on his blog. Tevildo 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true - Nowhere on his blog did Barry solicit 'votes' for this article. In fact, he doesn't even mention the conflict in the talk pages. Caydel 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do your research, if you think the page should not be there, then delete it... Rustybrick 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Barry Schwartz is a famous name in the industry, a speaker at conferences such as SES, and actively quoted in outside sources. I would like to know the other editor's background in the search industry, that they feel confident assessing the importance of Barry's work to the search industry. While Barry may have made a mistake writing the article himself, I was more surprised that there hadn't been one already.Caydel 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, let me add that all my articles, be it on Search Engine Roundtable and Search Engine Land (also in the past Search Engine Watch) are included in both Google News and Yahoo News engines. Google and Yahoo both have very strict guidelines on which sources they allow in. Please feel free to verify that. Rustybrick 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article lacks multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to show the notability of the subject. Edison 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How many sources does one need? Here are several and I'll list them again. News.com, Publish.com, Web Pro News Interview & quoted several dozen times by Web Pro News, ClickZ, Search Engine Watch about my position there, ZDNet.com, EConsultancy.com and many more. 216.254.94.2 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please see the listed awards my search news site has won over the years from credible sources such as MarketingSherpa Readers' Choice Best Blog Awards for 2006 and for 2006 and Search Engine Journal best Search Marketing Blog for 2005 and for 2006. Rustybrick 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it that you guys want the article to cite these sources? If so, I added some of them, Ill add more as I go. Please confirm... Rustybrick 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those are good. Just remember that you have to be the focus of the article for it to count as a source about you. The news.com article mentions you briefly as a quote (which wouldn't really count). You're referred to as "a commentator" in the Publish.com article (which means it DEFINATELY doesn't count). The Web Pro News articles could probably be used as a source, and the Clickz.com article might work too (I suggest you check out WP:SOURCE for more about properly sourcing an article). The Ziff Davis news wouldn't work as it's focus is on the AdWords program, and neither would the E-consultancy.com article. I hope that helps clarify things. Lankybugger 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am understanding now. Can I call it a night and fix up the article tomorrow? I want to read up more on the WP:SOURCE and then do a good job with the article... Thanks for explaining this! Rustybrick 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD doesn't close until the 9th of January. You've got a fair amount of time. Lankybugger 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it looking any better? I think I am on the right track... Rustybrick 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rustybrick (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Delete and start again with no involvement whatsoever fomr the subject. And yes we all know what SEO is about and what expertise in SEO is likely to do for the Google rating of this subject. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um did you look at the discussion above? FYI, I do not sell SEO services... I just report on the SEM/SEO industry. Rustybrick 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and ~~rewrite, completely~~ continue editing. Barry is noteworthy, but I regret that he started the article before other editors had a chance to write one. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing, but the article is still a mess. The list of references was terrible. Many didn't even mention the subject and some had just a short quotation of the subject, which isn't useful. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Can I call it a night and fix up the article tomorrow?" -- Answer: Barry, you don't own this article. Your absolute best course of action is to step back and let the community fix the article.Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I won't argue, you seem to have a nice history here, so I will step back as you said. Rustybrick 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep There's nothing wrong with him starting an article about himself, even though some consider this a bad habit. Barry is one of the more important people in the SEO world and deserve his page here. The article could use some work perhaps, but I think it should be kept. --Jdevalk 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, for those not involved in the field of Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Marketing, it might be harder to distinguish if Barry is notable. As an SEO I can tell you that he IS notable, having been one of the primary editors of Search Engine Watch, and now Search Engine Land, the leading news sites on Search Marketing. Lots and lots and lots of SEO's will confirm for you that his doings are indeed a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." --Jdevalk 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the "word" of everyone in the field isn't what is required to meet the WP:BIO guidelines for notability. Everyone in the world of widgets may know my uncle as the best widget seller this side of the Atlantic, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an article de facto. We need reliable sourcing and independent assertion of notability in order to satisfy the existence of the article. And there is something wrong with starting an article about yourself, please read WP:COI. ju66l3r 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know WP:COI full well, that doesn't force me to agree with it though, but that's another point of discussion. In earlier versions of this article Barry put some references that were good, I think, but removed in the process. However, if you look at what's there now, you will see that those are reliable sources. WP:BIO has very good guidelines, and MY opinion is that this page should be kept because of those, in reference of the following quote: This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. My $0.02. --Jdevalk 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Note worthy individual. Properly documented. Watch and make sure it remains objective if edited by the actual person. --71Demon 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep (but take points off for creating his own article). Notable. --A. B. ^(talk) 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed :) --Jdevalk 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Barry is a noteworthy individual in the field of SEO. Ifenn 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) — Ifenn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This is the domain expert issue. It's like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.". He passes this test, based on independent sources cited above. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep when even those wanting to delete say the person is notable but not quite notable enough, they are not following the spirit of the guidelines. If the person is notable enough that everyone says he is, this is surely the intent.DGG 04:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: When the major contributor is the subject of the article and then he further solicits help through his personal blog (see above) and a second blog solicits help for SEO AfDs, calling me (as the AfD submitter) a vandal...well, "everyone says" acts more as a vote and not a discussion which is not the point of AfD. Notability is not subjective and the article (as acknowledged by other editors above) was poorly written and likely did not meet the criteria when I submitted it for AfD. The intent is to have the verifiabililty necessary in the form of reliably sourced proof of notability and not to poll the audience to see enough colleagues will vouch for the subject's notability or not. This article has been improved and the closing administrator may see that WP:BIO has finally been met. For an example, it would be useless to have the criteria if I could create an article about myself and then ask fellow bioinformaticists who read my blog to come and say "Aw, come on, he's notable...let it go!" and satisfy the guidelines in doing so. ju66l3r 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no influence on the "second blog" and I never solicited votes, I just informed people I made a wiki entry for myself. I later found out that was frowned on. And based on the recommendations above, I did not make any changes to the rewritten wiki entry. Rustybrick 09:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to suggest that you had influence on the other blog. I was only intending to point out that because we can't always control what people will do outside of wikipedia, we need to follow the guidelines and policies that are put in place to establish neutrality and notability for each article on its own. Also, we must do so in discussion of whether the article fits policy and guidelines and not as votes of confidence for the subject matter for conditions such as notability. Argue to the facts of the article and whether they meet specific criteria, not to emotion or (not-so-)common sense and subjectivities. ju66l3r 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Your comments on this and other articles have been very helpful towards improving them, which is the point of all this. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Jehochman, I have learned a ton... Rustybrick 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete despite what all those brand new users say, this person does not appear to be the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If an AfD discussion brings in new users, I am all for it. Welcome, new users. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:25, 12 January 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Michael Kidder

Vanity page of highly questionably importance. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Next time use WP:PROD --⁪froth^{T C} 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per being vanity. Hello32020 21:26, 4 January 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. —Cryptic 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Pfeiffer

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion. As I'm uncomfortable with carrying out this deletion speedily, I've listed the article here. No vote. --Scimitar 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I am unable to find much to establish notability other than his presidency of a company that does not itself seem to meet the notability requirements. On a side note, article creation is suspiciously similar to other articles by fellow contributors to a non-notable Search Engine Optimization conference series. ju66l3r 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please find comments listed on talk page for Ben Pfeiffer. He has been pioneer of industry since 1998 like many listed on the search engine optimization consultants category. It is a relatively new industry, so not as widely known, making notability a matter of subjective opinion and more difficult to establish for anyone.Orioncountry 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with the notability of quite a few of the SEO consultants in that category as I probe further. The existence or age of other articles is not a meter for whether another article meets the criteria for WP though. Furthermore, someone who just joined the SEO profession, but had an immediate notable impact would warrant an article, while someone else who has been there for years does not. Notability is not subjective, please point where this article meets WP:BIO. ju66l3r 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11. This is pretty blatant advertising. Searching both Ben Pfeiffer and Ranksmart produced very little results. Heck, Google thought I was making a mistake and asked if I meant Rinksmart. Lankybugger 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not advertising in anyway. Please see comments on orginal talk page. Try your search again Benjamin Pfeiffer and Rank SmartOrioncountry 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, Orion. It's generally a pretty bad sign for the notability of a company when you start coming across unrelated pages five entries into the google search. Please see WP:NOTE which details the basic criterea for notability. Lankybugger 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A better search might be this. I still maintain that this article should go through AfD as opposed to speedy deletion; the article isn't written in a spammy manner. --Scimitar 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow guidelines as best possible. As for the searches, even as a search marketer, I nor anyone else has control as to how those pages are organized in the search results. Many people who have pages on here, also have poor searches for their name or company.Orioncountry 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which would be grounds for their exclusion instead of grounds for the inclusion of this article. "Other articles are just like this one" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Lankybugger 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't state it was a reason for inclusion, you stated it was a reason for exclusion in your comments before. If you exclude this article, then you might as well exclude all the rest that don't stand up to Wikipedia criteria because that would be in the fair unbiased nature of this site. I recommend doing additional research into the search marketing community before many decisions about this article or another one that is being contested.Orioncountry 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Speedy per nom Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that this person has ever spoken at a major conference, published a book or article, or been the subject of a news story. There simply don't seem to be any independent sources of info about the subject, so there is no way to write a proper article. This does not reflect negatively on the subject or his accomplishments. He simply isn't notable. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. You should have speedied it. There is no assertion of notability anywhere - Anyone can be President of a corporation. Ohconfucius 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete There's very little content, and we are doing no harm to a newbie. Considering the industry, it will easily be able to recreate the article when and if there is any content. Certainly not speedy, but then I think that notability should be removed as a speedy criterion, for reasons explained on the talk page there. The discussion here is further proof that notability is always clarified by a discussion. DGG 04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Need sources Jeh? Major Search Conference at WebProNews (validated source as indicated on other biographies talk pages), Search Engine Land, Co-host of regular show on WebmasterRadio.fm, Executive Board and Charter Member of SMA-NA, Senior Editor of Search Engine Roundtable (award winning blog), Recommended Among Industry Experts SEOmoz.org, SES Conference Coverage, Example Articles.70.112.103.54 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 70.112.103.54, and welcome. You may want to create an account and/or login. That would tend to give your opinion in this discussion more weight, at least in my opinion. Thanks for the sources. Any reliable sources should be added to the article. What you've mentioned above doesn't seem to rise to the necessary level of notability, but you may want to check WP:BIO for the exact criteria. If you present a strong case, I will reconsider my opinion. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

delete. BuickCenturyDriver 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this seems borderline advertising with the company (especially since it hasn't been sourced). The article did not assess any notability with him, and I doubt it could be other than his job position. --Адам12901 ^Talk 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Featuritis. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Functionality creep

Already exists in far greater detail at creeping featurism. Also there's no such term as "functionality creep". Would have been a prod but for the ongoing RFC on the issue. ⁪froth^{T C} 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The term does exist, see a Google Search with Wikipedia and its mirrors removed. Not many results, but the results are definitely real uses of the term, and outside of software also. Creeping featurism appears to only apply in the case of computer software, so I can see "Functionality creep" becoming a valid related article. The two could be merged, also, but one name would have to be chosen over the other. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many of those results are wikipedia mirrors. And there's very little content to merge --⁪froth^{T C} 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - that 'creeping featurism' article is bizarre. Why on earth isn't it 'feature creep', which is by far the more accepted term but currnetly exists only as a redirect? I have never heard the term used 'creeping featurism' used before except in this article.

Creeping featurism and featuritis, and their spoonerizations feeping creaturism and feeping creaturitis are extremely well established in the hacker/programmer communities. Cf. the Jargon File. I knew that even as a common geek who can't even write real code. I had never, however, heard of the feature/function creep form. 86.56.48.12 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ anything useful to 'creeping featurism', then rename to 'feature creep'. Artw 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- And have feature creep redirect to creeping featurism? sounds good --⁪froth^{T C} 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - We'd need to move creeping feaurism to feature creep obviously. Since that would mean getting rid if the existing redirect it's move than I can be bothered with right now. I considered suggesting scope creep be merged as well, since it often amounts to the same thing, but they're sufficiently different aspects of the same phenomena that seperate articles are probably deserved. Artw 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually just Delete. The essay on SSNs is not worth saving Artw 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to creeping featurism, which has a redirect for feature creep already. Tarinth 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect (and merge if needed), honestly don't mind too much though which ones gets redirected to where though. Just obviously we have at least one too many pages at the moment. Mathmo ^Talk 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Having just looked at the pages more carefully, I'm having second thoughts. "Functionality creep" can have much wider application than merely in software, maybe it should be kept instead. Ah well, whatever. I'm halfway in between a redirect or a keep. Mathmo ^Talk 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Functionality Creep" is not the accepted terminology, but rather, "Function Creep". The issue came to a head a month ago after a user vandalized both pages and the "function creep" entry became a protected re-direct. The person behind the controversy (he who is causing the problems: the curator of the "functionality creep" page, user: Kreepy Krawly) is engaing in personal attacks, accusing users like Mathmo of uploading viruses, and posting personal information against another user's wishes - in this case, mine. Not only should the "functionality creep" page be deleted and/or turned into a protected re-direct back to the original "function creep" page, but the user Kreepy krawly should be banned from this site permanently. Also, he is posting under a variety of pseudonyms, so those users should also be deleted. Additionally, there should be a ban placed on anything coming from the IP address 71.210.62.238. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.139.121 (talk • contribs)
Delete Checking the usual resources, it is clear that the term is not generally used to mean "creeping featurism" as the article claims. In fact, the term does not appear used by anybody in such a fashion. Appears to me that the author of the article was engaging in original research. --ScienceApologist 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- does appear to be OR for a neologism (I don't doubt that the phrase "functionality creep" has been used, but not that is has become a meaningful phrase when taken out of context.) Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 10:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect - As best I can tell from a Google search, this is the pet phrase of a small group which is opposed to universal identificaction documents. Let's just say that it is not a good sign when a googling of "funtionality creep" turns up this article first followed almost exclusively by the Wikipedia mirrors. The non-Wikipedia web pages which use this phrase are all of the anti-identification genre. There is no evidence of broad or varied usage of this term. --EMS | Talk 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge Functionality creep and Creeping featurism to Feature creep; the Jargon File may use the quasi-cute "Creeping featurism", but nobody else does. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 11 January 2007 (GMT)
Keep. I've just been watching this video, wherein at 09:18 into the video I heard the presenter mention function creep, and not knowing the term, I paused the video and looked up the term in Wikipedia, where I was happy to find an article, but concerned that that article --the usefulness of which I've directly experienced-- was being considered for deletion. (I later found when I continued watching the video, that the term also was subsequently explained in the video as well, but that doesn't detract from my point.) 86.56.48.12 03:45, 12 January 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. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Cutts

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Fails WP:BIO. Working for Google is not notable in and of itself. No other notability established. ju66l3r 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Cutts is more than just another Google employee (I agree that's not enough on its own). He is one of the highest-profile public faces of the company. He's a regular speaker at industry conferences [67], [68], frequent interviewee [69], [70], [71] and sometime darling of the blogosphere [72]. He's also the maintainer of the official Google blog [73]. Gwernol 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Being what is essentially a PR agent at a corporation doesn't qualify one for a biography at Wikipedia. Before choosing to vote "keep", ask yourself if you would still vote keep if this guy worked for any company but Google. -/- Warren 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cutts isn't a PR agent. He's a software engineer who acts as the technical representative of Google for webmasters; that's very different. And yes, I'd absolutely expect to see articles about people in equivalent roles in equivalent companies like Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, etc. The reason these people are notable is they get a lot of press coverage and are widely known. Gwernol 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep He is a very notable person in the tech world and there are a huge amount of pages and posts about him. I have heard of him several times and do not work in the tech world. this is definitely a keep. thank you. Thebt 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Cutts is more than just the PR man for Google - he is the public face of Google for everyone in the search industry. As Gwernol stated, his notability is easily verified by any of the links above, as well as via searches in Google News, Yahoo News, and probably any other news outlet you decide to look Caydel 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- For example, here he is interviewed by the BBC. Gwernol 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - If that's the case, then get the information into the article. As it stands, the article cites some blogs as its primary sources of information -- and as we all know, blogs are generally not valid sources of information, unless the blog is written by the subject of the biography. I shouldn't have to read an AfD discussion to get an assertion of his notability from a reliable source. And... ehh, that BBC article doesn't really assert Cutts's notability, anyhow... he's made out to be "one of many" people working in a certain area at a company... not everyone interviewed by BBC automatically qualifies. -/- Warren 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I've already added the BBC interview to the article. As for the assertion that an interview with the BBC doesn't establish notability: I'm not sure what to say to that. What do you count as notability then? Its just fine for an AfD discussion to turn up valid new evidence for an article. That's why we don't just delete articles on sight. We're all here to build the best encyclopedia we can: if good information turns up in an AfD and allows us to improve rather than delete an article, then I call that a win. Gwernol 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Merely being interviewed, especially in the context of being a representative for the company you work for, doesn't make a person notable. Doing something noteworthy does. What has Cutts done that is noteworthy, other than do presentations at advertising industry events (yawn) and speak on behalf of Google on specific subjects? In what ways does he meet our WP:BIO notability criteria? -/- Warren 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Careful. We do keep Paris Hilton though she has "done" very little in her life. Note that BIO is more about sourcing and "notice" than about judging what people have done (especially as outsiders may not have a really good idea what that is). --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Bad example. Paris Hilton is many times more notable than this guy, according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines -- she's a book author, movie actress, recording artist, and a notable cultural figure in New York City, not to mention that there are successful products named after her. What's Cutts got... a blog? He runs a team of a few people at a company of 10,000? He speaks at conferences? Shit, if that's all it takes, then we've got over a thousand Microsoft employees that need to be added! Like I stated, there is going to be a bias to keep this guy because he works for Google, and so "fans" of the company (who are quite numerous on Wikipedia) will conflate his importance in spite of his failing to pass WP:BIO. -/- Warren 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindenting) Apart from speaking at dozens of major advertising industry conferences (and whatever your point of view about the advertising industry, its a major industry and these are notable events) and being interviewed by many independent and notable news sources he's also director of Google's webspam team and wrote Google's family friendly search. Oh and "Matt Cutts" returns over 1 million Google results. For me, that's plenty of notability. Gwernol 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep C'mon, notable based on common sense. We have better things to do. Tarinth 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Come on... This guy is the voice of Google for most webmasters out there --Jdevalk 11:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- see BBC interview.[74] If the BBC doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V, we live in a dark world. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Notability:

--Griffin Granberg 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep -- Time to discard bogus delete request. Lcnj 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Notability was not established prior to nomination and thus the AfD discussion. There was nothing bogus about it. ju66l3r 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - He's the official unofficial face to Google. -Philwiki 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is a joke, right? --Pryzbilla

Keep -- Notability - He has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field as one of the authors of one of the most widely read and known documents on the subject of web spam, which is acknowledged as the first to use historical data to identify link spam. Information retrieval based on historical data Bill Slawski 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep -- I find the fact we're even discussing this incredible. The original instigator of the deletion request should leave Wikipedia for wasting people's time. Ifenn 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) — Ifenn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please withdraw that allegation. There is no evidence of bad faith on the nominator's part. It is perfectly acceptable to open a discussion on this article since it was not properly sourced at the time of the nomination. Gwernol 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no allegation to withdraw. The nominator should stick to improving items on subjects they know and understand, rather than post multiple delete requests on items they have poor knowledge of. Note that practically all articles on wikipedia could be improved in terms of sources. However, the original item easily met the average standard. Ifenn 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that I should "leave Wikipedia for wasting people's time" is not in accordance with WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. The article at the time of nomination could have possibly been submitted for db-bio simply for lack of assertion of notability (the best it had was "he's well known" and 3 of the 5 sources were self-referential/personal blog with one of these only establishing that he had a PhD in one subject instead of another, i.e., not related to notability). This process allows for a consensus to determine whether notability is established/establishable for the article (which consensus is showing that it is). AfD discussions do not default to deletion. Furthermore, the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not connote this or any other article as untouchable if it does not meet the criteria required (nor does the deletion of an article connote that it can not be reintroduced...potentially as a much better incarnation). ju66l3r 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- previous discussion about blogs not notable / mainstream media is notable is misplaced. notability should NOT be based on the medium, rather based on readership / circulation figures. there are several notable blogs that have as much or greater readership than top 50-100 mainstream media sources, see Technorati State of the Blogosphere Oct 2006, Blogs vs Mainstream Media. also one person's reference above to 'over a thousand folks here at Microsoft' reeks of bias. while i wouldn't disagree there are lots of potential Microsoft notables, this isn't a race. for anyone who spends any time at all in the search industry, Cutts is a very notable figure (as is Danny Sullivan and several others). the fact that Sullivan weighs in on it and cites multiple references in both blog & mainstream media should end this discussion. and i agree, whomever is wasting our collective time with this question needs a reality check. dave 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemc500hats (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The sources provided by Sullivan in his blog are interesting and some would even make great additions to a number of AfD-submitted articles to help fulfill notability (it's a shame he spent the time to make personal commentary about me on his blog than to improve these poorly drafted articles, but to each his own). For example, if the BMW-Google spat were a part of this article previously, then I never would have had any reason to consider that it might need deletion. ju66l3r 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- This is the domain expert issue. It's like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.". He passes this test overwhelmingly. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and I cannot see why this would ever have been nominated. It's not like the organization he represents was an unfamiliar subject to people here. DGG 04:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see why this should NOT be a vote, btw. Matt Cutts is THE guy to read if you are going to read only one blog on search engine optimization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.59.104.31 (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was redirect to Henry Foss High School. John254 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tacoma High School Shooting

I personally think this is notable, but some people are trying to prod it quickly because a school masscre with "only one fatality is not notable." I'm posting this AfD for a proper debate. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is not too much info right now, but a press conference is scheduled for 3pm Pacific time today (about 15 minutes from the time of this post). It might be a good idea to hold off until the police make an official statement about what happened and release more details. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with comment. It's too early to delete this because we don't know what happened yet. I added a link to a CNN report to bolster the article's credibility. At the very least, wait a week and see what happens. YechielMan 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yes it's sad someone was killed, but that doesn't make this a notable event. TJ Spyke 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Where there is no notability criteria, I rely on whether there are reliable sources (per WP:V) and there is plenty in the Seattle/Tacoma local media. Coverage trumps carnage. There's also already talk of political consequences from the crime.[75] hateless 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- News coverage might make it notable for Wikinews, not necessarily for Wikipedia. This is a localised event of very little national or international importance, a "blip on the radar". As such, Delete as non-notable. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is kept, it should be renamed to Foss High School shooting, or something similar. The event did not take place at Tacoma High School. I don't even know if there is a Tacoma High School. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there is no "Tacoma High School" in Tacoma. I agree that it should be merged into the main Foss HS entry. Fjbfour 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, limited event, a murder at a school. Classic types of "school shootings" are the student revenge scenario and the adult stranger scenario, often involving hostage situations and police sieges/gunbattles. None of that happened here.--Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Henry Foss High School, which already has most of this information. Travisl 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Henry Foss High School. School shootings are deplorable but not inherently notable. Dragomiloff 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Yechiel - we should definitely wait before deleting. GabrielF 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge was: ~~Keep & rename~~ ~~Objectively notable both as a disaster and as an example of a school massacre.~~ Upon further review, this seems to be an individual shooting. Merge to Henry Foss High School. Failing that, rename to Tacoma high school shooting per the naming convention. --Ssbohio 02:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with the high school Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:03, 6 January 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 as modified Jinian 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guity Novin

Delete Thamiel 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the artists ability or intent, there is not enough notability to warrant an entry. There is no mention of this artist in peer assessed periodicals or journals, or any evidence that this artists has made a significant contribution the discipline and history of painting. The 'creation' of an anachronistic art movement that has no mention in contemporary discourses of art does not constitute a contribution. The art movement 'transpressionism' isn't mentioned or discussed in art circles, and only exists by virtue that Guity Novin has pronounced that it does. The article proper reads like a personal statement, rather than an article. The accomplishments of this artist (shows, commission) are no more than those of the thousands of working artists in her country, and not enough to warrant a wikipedia inclusion beside Anselm Kiefer, DaVinci, etc. Excuse me if I sound frustrated, but I have had to extricate Guity Novin from other articles. She somehow found her way into the History of Painting and the History of Contemporary Art, amongst other places. It seems like self promotion. Thamiel

Unfortunately, Novin's supporters seem to want to place her name and that of transpressionism in so many articles it borders on spam. Whatever Novin's merit as an artist, this only serves to cheapen her reputation. I've also been searching out ludicrous additions to other articles and it's annoying. As for Novin's notablity, I'm personally inclusionist enough to accept her article, but in radically edited version, which is mostly at this point original research with some pretty ridiculous claims. Freshacconci 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(and this doesn't even mention the attacks, deletes and so on Novin's supporters have waged against anyone who tries to edit the articles in question) Freshacconci 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an arts administrator by profession, so I am very aware of art history, current trends and the philisophical discussions of art. Her article is all vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamiel (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 January 2007

Per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [76], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

let's be civil

I wonder why this artist provokes such hostility, not only in the fanatically chauvinist-dominated countries but also in the countries that supposedly tolerate a thinking woman. The enthusiastic support of some of the artist's students cannot be used as weakness to attack the artist's notability. An artist who has been active for more than 40 years and is a quiet, thinking and creative individual. According to Wikipedia policies:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

Here are some verifiable documents in French, English, and Persian:

1. Le Carnaval de la licorne, Julie Huard, Collection " Fugues/Parles", Les Édition L'Interligne, 2001
2. "A Heritage from Ancient Persia." A review of Guity Novin's exhibition Lost Serenade at the Brock street Gallery by Don McCallum, The Whig-Standard, Vol.2, No.51 Kingston, Ontario, October 3, 1981.
3. "Artistic Underground Surfaces" on Brock Street, by Frank Berry, The Queen's Journal, Queen¡Çs University, Kingston Ontario, Friday, October 9, 1981
4. "A Piece of the Blue Sky, Guity Novin; the Quiet Artist in Vancouver" By R. Mahjouri, Paivand, Vancouver, Vol. 6, No. 228, Friday Aug. 18, 2000.

The list of Persian articles on Guity Novin is large, but may not be acceptable by certain individuals of certain biases.

Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

Guity Novin is a painter with files on the National Gallery of Canada and the Vancouver Art Gallery and this is verifiable.

I find it disturbing that after attempts to delete the transpressionism page resulted in redirect and merge with the artist's page, now the same individuals are attempting to delete the artis's page. This is not acceptable by any fair minded person in a civil soceity. 140.80.199.91 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm willing to be inclusionist about the article in question, but what I am concerned about is a) the amount of original research in the article which needs to be edited; b) the spamming in countless articles by Novin's supporters; c) the personal attacks (including I would like to add, accusations of chauvinism and hostility) for merely attempting to edit articles; d) other aggressive actions by Novin's supporters such as attempts to delete my userpage; and finally, the actions of Novin's supporters serve only to diminish her reputation. If Novin is notable, fine. I'm willing to support an article on her, but let's not overstate her importance as a whole, which only, ironically, makes her seem less notable. In other words, her supporters' undoubtably genuine enthusiasm in fact makes her article seem like a vanity page. And I have been civil all along, and have been met with hostility. Freshacconci 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Files with the National Gallery and and the Vancouver Art Gallery do not amount to peer assessed reviews or criticism, they are merely files (files amongst thousands). I found about the artist only because of vandalism to the History of Painting entry, and followed it to the artists wiki entry. There is no mention of transpressionism (a made-up movement that has not been discussed in any serious journal) in Parachute, Border Crossing, Art Forum, Canadian Art, Art in America, Modern Painters, etc.. Wiki does include "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" but the work of this artist isn't widely recognized, and because there is absolutely no discussion of 'transpressionism' amongst critics and the intelligentsia, there is no reason to think that the work of this artist will be part of the enduring historical record. Occaisonal newspaper articles don't count as enough critical discourse to think otherwise. My problem is that is appears someone is trying to re-write art history, and include this artist and the movement she has made-up. Thamiel

Dear Freshacconci, I for one, hope that never I have offended you and if I did I do apologize for it. This is out of respect for your civil attituds. AAnd I do see your points. Unfortunately not all supporters and opponents are impartial seekers of truth or even civil. I do not understand the point Thamiel makes. Wiki policy specifies (For Better or For Worse). It also specifies the list of acceptable printed materials. It does not say that every artist must be evaluated by a certain elits (the so called inteligentsia!!?). 140.80.199.91 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Things can get too personal here, or can be taken too personally. It works both ways. My rule pf thumb is to take a deep breath and back off if necessary. Freshacconci 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not judging the quality of the artists work, or making a personal attack. The artist isn't widely recognized, and the printed material isn't of a quantity or quality that makes one think that the artist and the work will be a part of the historical record. As for 'elites', if you mean the people who critically think and write about art, both past and present, and are recognized as authorities in their field, then who else writes the historical record? The artist isn't being evaluated in this instance, only their place in a historical continuum. We as individuals shouldn't decide our own importance, it is left to others, and if we aren't a major facet of art history, why should we be dissatisfied. Thamiel

keep

Thamiel, are you sure that you are not judging?!! Artists like Guity Novin like to taunt the "intelligentsia". This is what Cézanne did when he was in his late 20s. When he loved taunting the art world and its Salon exhibitions. He laughed at artists who were “widely recognized”. He once advised artists only to send their worst works to the Salon, and although other rebels occasionally managed to show there, he was always rejected. When he participated in the first impressionist exhibition it was the same - the “recognized authorities in their field” reserved their coarsest laughter for his work. The critic Roger Fry (a member of intelligentsia in the 1920s) wondered what might have become of Cézanne if his early paintings had been praised. To him the early works of Cézanne really were appalling; if they had been accepted, Cézanne would have painted more exaggerated scenes of sensuality and violence. Today, it's hard to be so trivializing of the young Cézanne - he is shocking and genius.

Similarly Novin has shown that she can only remain a successful painter, a powerful painter, so long as she refuses to historicize herself, so long as she refuses to let the others to decide for her of “her importance” as a moment in history. As soon as she becomes aware of “her own historicity”, she is unable to make the strong and unequivocal claims she must make in order to matter historically. That is why the undemocratic officialdom (the patrons of your Intelligentsia!) rejected her works and banished her to exile. She was denied her historicity, based on the kind of allegation that she shakes dull clichés of “historical continuum”. Yet she was praised by the kinds of late Ahmad Shamloo the poet laureate of Iran for “seeking the path to human renaissance” and her “optimism and conviction in the possibility of that renaissance”. (see Ahamad Shamloo article on Guity Novin reprinted in Toronto’s Sharvand, page 31-vol 10/N532/ Friday Nov. 19, 2000)Tobiasforart

The preceding comment was left by User:24.81.86.162. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Time judged Cezanne and put him in the cannon of art history, he didn't judge himself. Similarily, if time judges Guity as being as important as Cezanne, I will not debate her inclusion. Scholars in consensus have deemed Cezanne important (not to mention the incredible pictorial breakthroughs he had and the many painters in many countries that were influenced by him). You can't rewrite history. Tranpressionism is a pastiche of former styles, in an age where manifestos are no longer relevant. Nothing new there. I doubt it will stand the test of time. If a few supporters and Guity herself decide that her work is historically important, it does not make it so. If you choose to villify scholars, then throw away your art books, and your knowledge of what has past, because everything you know about any art outside your own is predicated on them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thamiel (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Again, are you judging not when you say that

"Tranpressionism is a pastiche of former styles, in an age where manifestos are no longer relevant. Nothing new there. I doubt it will stand the test of time.

"!!! And if Roger Fry was wrong about the young Cézanne, is it we, who "villify scholars", or his own closed-mindedness? You persistently claim that Guity's supporters are trying to rewrite the history. I wonder if that "writen history" is a closed book of taboos that should never be questioned? No my friend everything I know is not predicated on some old text books of art written by a growing number of talented, hungry, and frustrated young scholars, desperately seeking a tenure track. I go to exhibitions and listen to the young artists and through them I discover the energy and the creativity of the old-masters like Cezanne. Cheers!

Tobiasforart

The preceding comment was left by User:24.81.86.162. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From the sources given (personal letters to Ms. Novin) this is pretty clearly a case of self-promotion. The gallery links from the National Gallery of Canada and the Vancouver Art Gallery are just trivial directory entries. She does appear to have gotten some minimal coverage in independent sources, but there's no indication how substantial those references are. So weak delete. (In any case, the POV essay on "Transpressionism" needs to be severely pruned.) Demiurge 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep things in perspective

I think we are all getting carried away and talking in circles. This isn't a discussion page for anything but the nomination at hand. We need to vote on the merits of the proposal and be succinct, and not take things personally (and I include myself here as well!). Freshacconci 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep I feel strongly about the abuse to numerous articles by supporters of Novin--the insertion of "transpressionism" in countless pages and lists. However, doing a quick search of Novin indicates she is a painter of some note. I am not convinced of the importance of transpressionism, and I feel that the Novin article needs to be edited as per NPOV policies, and by disinterested contributors (i.e. not Novin's supporters, and probably not by the two or three of us who have been editing so far. Things are too touchy right now for that). As for her some of the cites of importance, I agree that a file at the National Gallery is next-to-meaningless. I'm on file there too, and although it's cool to see my name on file, it doesn't mean much. But some of the other sources check out and I think an edited version of the main article should stay. Freshacconci 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

keep Nothing can be farther from truth than the allegation of |self-promotion. It is ironic that in a democratic forum such as this an attempt is being made to wipe out the name of a truly authentic artist by such cheap shots. Of course, I have no doubt that some of the concerns raised by Freashacconci are genuine and valid. But I wonder on whose behalf those who incite a backlash against the artist are acting.

In fact, she has been quite reluctant to give us permission to include a number of important documents about her artistic achievements. We have insisted on this minimum, because it is important for us to lionize her courage and her convictions. Despite a concerted attempt by her native art officialdom to silent her historical role many underground art periodicals and university students¡Ç websites glorify her contributions (just Google to find out).140.80.199.91 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this is an inadvertent duplicate "keep" of the one above left by User:User:24.81.86.162 with the same editor on a different computer. Tyrenius 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Her painting are nice and well executed, but unfortunately she just isn't important or well known enough to warrant this entry, and vandalism to art history pages and personal myth-making aside, she isn't a part of the historical record. Where is a record of consistent exhibition in public galleries, artist-run-centres and well recognized commercial galleries?--Thamiel 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Such self-righteous intolerance is rampant among the art administrators of small towns. Censorship is not only a bad rap for those who are censored: the artist. It is also a bad rap for the rest of us, in the sense that genuine conflicts of views on art are never had out and thus never resolved. Anyhow, I checked the artist web-site( guitynovin.com) on the article tab, you can find in the resume section. At the end of her resume there is a record of various Solo and group exhibitions by the artist. e.g., for artist-run-centres: she participated in 2004 show "Body and Soul" in Ferry Building Gallery in West Vancouver ( Google to verify). In 2001 she had a solo exhibition at Place des Art at Coquitlam entitled “ And Indeed There Will be Time; MY BC perid”. For well recognized commercial galleries, in 1998 and 2001 she exhibited at Guthenham Gallery "Rhapsody on a windy night" and "painting shadows over imaginary lines" in the Granville Island of Vancouver. (you can verify by calling the admin of GI). In 1996 she exhibited at Cumberland Town Hall "l'importance c'est la rose". And the list goes back to 1968. Tobiasforart

The preceding comment was left by User:64.59.144.22. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Such self-righteous intolerance is rampant among the art administrators of small towns." You mean me? I think Self-righteous indignation and inflated self-opinions are rampant amongst the mediocre and unknown.--Thamiel 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Editors are requested to remain CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Violation can lead to being blocked from editing. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Please note that since the above comments I have drastically edited the article. I agree with and endorse all of Freshacconci's points above. I also recognise that Thamiel presents a coherent case. My keep vote! is based on the article not returning to its former state. Also Guity Novin and Transpressionism should not be inserted in other articles boosting her status above what is merited. She is not a major artist. I do consider, however, that she is of sufficient achievement to merit inclusion. There are plenty of bands included, for example, who are not The Beatles. Tyrenius 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tyrenius for your excellent work. I will be away from tomorrow. I hope when I return things are sorted out ;) cheers Nicomuch 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed, and I am not alone. I found the allegations such as "not being a major artist" or "mediocre and unknown" are totally false and uncalled for. Francinetornto

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.125.5 (talk • contribs).

User's only edit. Warning - such users are likely to be discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 04:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I apologize for using the phrase mediocre, it was an ad hominem arguement. I stand by the assertion that she is not a major artist.Thamiel 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete This. Theis paintings are not good. I agree with this painter must be deleted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.61.241.100 (talk • contribs).

User's 5th edit. Tyrenius 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a debate on the quality of the artist's work, or a judgement on her abilities. Thamiel 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yes she is not a major artist. This dabate is enough. Please close and delete the page. 74.101.225.110 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User's only edit. Tyrenius 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

keep I thought the criterion was notable, not major. major is a level which very few can reach. DGG 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some search (with the MSN -- Google could not give any), and I found this site (Russian?). I cannot for some reason open it but I suspect there are some other transperssionists name there-- any chance that some of them might be notable?

http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/results.aspx?q=transpressionists&geovar=70&FORM=REDIR

140.80.199.91 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note An addition only just made to the article is the review by Mansooreh Hosseini (previously awaiting verification). Tyrenius 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

~~delete~~ Please keep in mind that "Unfortunately, Novin's supporters seem to want to place her name and that of transpressionism in so many articles it borders on spam. Whatever Novin's merit as an artist, this only serves to cheapen her reputation. I've also been searching out ludicrous additions to other articles and it's annoying. Her painting are not well executed, and unfortunately she just isn't important or well known enough to warrant this entry, and vandalism to art history pages and personal myth-making aside, she isn't a part of the historical record."

TMSOttawa74.101.225.110 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strike duplicate vote!. User's 3rd edit. The other two are 5 paras previously. Tyrenius 04:36, 12 January 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. —Centrx→talk • 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Cole

Wrestler is not notable - article appears to be a vanity article CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't know about this subject so I won't vote quite yet, but the claim that he won a "PCW Championship" isn't notable? Tarinth 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Not if PCW isn't notable, which isn't completely clear from its page. It had 5 minutes of fame, and since then? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google turns up very few results for "Craig Cole"+wrestler, I get more results encouraging me to fight pit bulls, completely fails WP:BIO, can't find any reliable sources. (Side note - the fun fact is just gross) Firelement85 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - violates WP:VAIN Nick 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the most relevant section of WP:BIO:
- Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

If wrestling in Australia is notable, then I suspect this guy may be notable, by WP:BIO. It's not a very high standard, probably lower than I'd set, but I suspect he meets it (though I'd like to see some more sources to be 100% sure of WP:V. To be sure, there are a lot of other pages with less claim to exist than this does.

I guess I'm going to ask one question before I make up my mind.

Is this guy one of the top 10 most notable people in Australian Professional Wrestling? If so, how can we be reasonable confident of that? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No he's not, Ben. Far from it. 124.181.204.208 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment he's a Pro-wrestler, not a wrestler. As such he is an entertainer not a sportsman.Ga rr ie 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. In that case, you'd probably have to use one of the following criteria:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.

There's no obvious claim to any of those things in the article. The strongest claims are probably in the following sentances "He won the PCW Heavyweight Championship after defeating Wog Warrior in May 2005 at PCW's most important show, Carnage. He is currently a trainer at the PCW Wrestling School." Is the PCW heavyweight championship especially important? No idea. Or does his role as a trainer mean he is a significant player in the development of wrestling in Australia? Again, no idea. He doesn't seem to be mentioned in Professional wrestling in Australia, if that says anything. So on balance, I'm leaning towards delete without predjudice, more on the grounds of lack of evidence of notability than anything else. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to West Hempstead, New York page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Hempstead High School

Not-notable and not much of an article Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN school. The article consists of where the school is and what looks like a letter the principal probably has on the website. TJ Spyke 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. High schools are not an all too bad subject for Wikipedia (some information on a town's education system including schools is alright, even if that means being merged with a larger article). However, this page is not an encyclopedia article but a school webpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment — Can't support keeping this in the current form. It looks like an advert. — RJH (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Non-notability criteria used is incorrect on the grounds that this is a high school and is thereby inherently notable. However, there is no real article here, and uses info that is essentially copyvio. (lifted direcly from somewhere else) If this was rewritten before this debate closes, the non-notability argument should not hold up. Nlsanand 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to West Hempstead, New York until such time a real article can be written. Silensor 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect theres nothing to keep really ... and a redirect is useful. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The first hit that came up for this school, news wise, was this article. There are several other non-trivial sources available as well, I just don't have time to expand this right now, sorry. Silensor 05:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
redirect to west hempstead article for now makes most sense to me Yuckfoo 09:51, 9 January 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. Agent 86 04:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa Electronic Markets

Unregulated financial / trading concept spun off from a university project. No sign of importance other than one vague book reference. Prod removed without mention. Deizio talk 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep This project is frequently cited in political commentary. NawlinWiki 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, 258 results on Google Scholar. 243 results on Google News Archive. An {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} tag would have been appropriate and just as easy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

'Question how much is it discussed in the book used as a reference? Is it prominently featured or just a passing reference? Is the book independent? Tarinth 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply It is discussed primarily in several pages early in the book and referred back to at other points. The book is about all sorts of "collective wisdom" experiments. It is independent and was a NYT best-seller. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep 506 hits for "Iowa Electronic Markets OR Iowa Political Stock Market" in Factiva news database since 1990 including a significant number of major media source articles which focus on the subject itself (not just a passing reference). For example: 1996 and 2000 articles in Businessweek [77][78], 1992/1993 articles in Fortune (magazine); 1992 article in the New York Times [79] (also another (1100 word)NYTimes article in 2000 which appears in Factiva but not in the nytimes archives, oddly); Salon.com in 2004[80]. This plus non-trivial references in google books/a9 and google scholar (e.g.[81][82],[seem to be sufficient.Bwithh 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Major prediction market, many articles in many MSM sources (particularly NYT and Salon), and a number of scholarly papers. The article isn't too good, true, but it should've been pretty easy to see that this meets (at the very least) WP:WEB. --Gwern (contribs) 02:42 5 January 2007 (GMT) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If you use Iowa futures in Google you come up with another thousand or so including CNN, MSNBC andThe Street.com. Its been around a while and is often quoted in comparison with polls. Montco 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I've read a number of articles about this in the general press, it's definitely notable. Wasted Time R 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung's helpful comments. Tarinth 17:22, 5 January 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. Proto::► 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daphne Cowan

Asserts notability as psychic, but appears to be just in her own infomercials. I don't think she meets WP:BIO NawlinWiki 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, can not find any reliable sources on Google. hateless 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional delete Unless the starting author can show sources of notability other than the person's own, it could stay. But, it could infringe on WP:AB. Check out Nikki Cowan.--Janarius 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable by the looks of things, and article reads like an ad. Qwghlm 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD:G1 patent nonsense. Gwernol 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The irony of truth

Original research. Prod contested. SpuriousQ 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Strait 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete not only obvious original research but also completely wrong Gwernol 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Nonsense. --Brianyoumans 22:25, 4 January 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. Proto::► 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poli (Trademark)

non notable software/corporation/site/whatever; spamvertising; it is a bad sign when the article name includes a trademark. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Brianyoumans 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete as patent nonsense (appears to have been created with a random sentence generator). Tarinth 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think the guy just doesn't write English very well (the site is Italian). --Brianyoumans 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That which smells like, walks like and looks like patent nonsense is patent nonsense? Tarinth 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Is a duck ;-) Ohconfucius 05:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, if you follow the link in the article, you do get to a website with some sort of mapping app. I didn't try it out, but the article isn't a complete hoax. --Brianyoumans 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademark means something in action and protected, and "poli" is that. To smell'I'm italian by technical devices pointing me as italian is a task really useless, to be honest I'm partly austrian and partly moldavian by the side of relatives, but I was born and live in the country called Italy, and I didn't curse about it neither I want to disclaim this evidence. About the good or bad english I pretend you to let go, since it's not always properly, the way you use your language, go figure other ones. Study and try to get more isn't in your reach? Honestly my knowledge is really low, compared with the unlimited world around us, so I shoudn't criticize, but all along my life I tried to improve. I hope, this be told without any aggressive content (there's too much aggressive stage lately).

"Non notable" means what? Something not still deployed worldwide but that has the wings to do so (that's not notable) or something that spread around distress nurtured by money and so called "notability" and is that way "notable"? Yes, under the general employment side, this is absolutely due and notable. Under the world we may (and I suppose, must) build up, this is a side notable effect. Under the employment side it will be effective as soon as the wings will be open. Franco Cumpeta

Delete Does not meet the requirements spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability, or those specifically for companies at WP:CORP; also as the software is still in development fails WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The note by Brianyoumans about the trademark in the headline is correct. Should we move "poli" to a new headline written this way: - "poli" internet metropolitan system - ? Let me know. "poli" team

Speedy Delete per db-nonsense, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 05:27, 8 January 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 again. Mango juice^talk 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frugby

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, or even over several days. No evidence that this has any significance outside local area where it was made up. Note - there's enough difference between this article and the one that was AFD'd in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frugby) that it seems to deserve another go-round here. FreplySpang 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete stupid. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not seem important at all. No seriously organised leagues or tournaments. Julius Sahara 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not even claim notability. Would be a speedy A7 if it weren't for the earlier article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:11, 6 January 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. -Doc^g 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies in Gilmore Girls

The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is OR and non-notable and quite frankly cruft. Computerjoe 's talk 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support the deletion on the basis of OR in this article only - if this OR can be removed I would not support it. 'Cruft' is a weak reason for deletion. One man's cruft is anothe rman's useful info. Magic Pickle 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
DElete as completely original research no references of any type and searching around I can't find any that are not fanzines/blogs - Peripitus (Talk) 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, impossible to source, completely OR. Even if sourced, the sourcing would not be from reliable sourcs. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. OR, imdb-esque material. Although I am a huge fan of this show, we certainly don't need this crap. --- RockMFR 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge A readily available episode of a show is a primary source and acceptable as a source on wikipedia. Interpreting the information from those sources often constitutes original research but not always. Its original research of the conclusion drawn from that material favours a particular point of view, but there is nothing point of view for example about "Character A had name X in episode 1 and it was changed to name Y in every subsequent appearance". As far as cruft go, I do agree that wikipedia does delve into minutia on fictional topics more than it should, however consistency issues are something that are often discussed, especially in popular works of fiction. A merge suggestion would have been more apt here than a deletion, and could have been handled much more quickly. A mention in a parent article that there have been some issues of inconsistency in the series with a couple of notable and verifiable examples. There are only a small number of items on this list that I would actually consider to be OR (as I detailed on the talk page) with the rest being obvious which do not require interpretation on the part of the editor or reader. I don't think all examples need to be merged, just a couple. We don't need to add a long list or section to any parent article.--Crossmr 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree with a merge, it would just move the OR to another article (or sets of articles). How would this merge be accomplished, without violating GFDL, anyway? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The same way any of the thousands of other merges that take place on wikipedia are done? You've been here for years now, I'm sure you've seen information merged from one article to another more than once. That is why we have the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates. The main gilmore girls article could make mention that there are inconsistencies in the show and make note of a couple of examples. As I stated, only a handful of the actual inconsistencies are actually OR, some do not satisfy the criteria to be considered OR, those are the ones the examples should be drawn from.--Crossmr 17:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - You are talking about merging information from one article into several different articles, which would lose the edit history. I don't appreciate the snide dig, by the way. And every single one of the inconsistancies is OR, unless multiple reliable sources have documented it. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Can you show me where in WP:OR, WP:RS or WP:V it says that you have to have multiple reliable sources to show that his first appearance in season 1 Kirk was called Mick and in every subsequent episode he's called Kirk? I can tell you where it doesn't WP:OR#Sources However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. Followed up by: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. While the time based ones which draw conclusions about what day it is are likely OR (unless somewhere in the episode it specifically says the day to contradict things) a descriptive claim like the one above is not original research. There was no snide dig intended, I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. In my time editing here of about a year I've seen countless articles merged and until now I have never seen a single person try and raise the GFDL or edit histories as a concern (a redirect is always included in a merge which preserves the edit history of the material if that is ever a concern).--Crossmr 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Have you read our policy at WP:V which says The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Yes, and a television episode is a reliable primary source for information contained within it which is the basis of these inconsistencies. Any inconsistency which does not require interpretation is not original research. And nowhere in that section does it say that it requires multiple sources. The sources are given in the article itself for each inconsistency as it labels the episode from where the inconsistency originates. Episodes are available for independent checking for rent, purchase or in syndication. Nowhere in here have I said that we should have an article on this topic, only that a mention should be made in the parent main article for the series. WP:OR clearly allows for descriptive comments to be made about a subject based on primary sources so long as no interpretation of those facts is made. There are inconsistencies on the page which are within the guidelines laid out by RS, OR and V.--Crossmr 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        It is your opinion that a television episode is satisfactory source material, but WP:RS cals this a primary source and deprecates it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I've never claimed it is anything BUT a primary source. I've also shown you where in WP:OR that it allows for material to be drawn from primary sources and the conditions under which it can be used and how it can be written about. While they don't need an article of their own, some of the material is written within the confines of all the polices and guidelines. In fact WP:RS clearly states Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. There are inconsistencies which are not making interpretive claims and therefore don't require secondary sources. The current network that the show airs on and the publishing company responsible for distributing the seasons on DVD are more than reliable sources.--Crossmr 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Agree to disagree. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Acceptable.--Crossmr 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also talking about merging information from one article to another single article. I.e. a short paragraph in Gilmore Girls noting that these do occur with one or two notable and non-OR examples. This would then be blanked and redirected to that article.--Crossmr 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it won't save you any money on car insurance. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
delete, textbook OR. Reminds me of the list of coincidences between the star wars movies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Cite reliable sources and cleanup the OR. If the article is empty after this, then delete, otherwise merge. --ElectricEye (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sure you can use a show as a reference (e.g. "in this show, character A said B"), but any analysis or criticism about the reference is still OR. That includes finding inconsistencies. If you want to have a list of inconsistencies, you need sources that themselves point out the inconsistencies, and it's still pretty sketchy in terms of neutrality, since you'd be kind of endorsing those sources. delldot | talk 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

an analysis is taking facts and drawing a conclusion. Making the statement: Sean Gunn's character was called Mick in his first appearance but Kirk in all subsequent appearances isn't an analysis and permitted by WP:OR. Whether or not calling them inconsistencies is point of view, or anything else is an entirely different debate. WP:OR allows for descriptive claims to be made about facts and inconsistency is the least pov word I could think of that would be usable to describe whats occurring. Its a factual description of the section. As long as there is no interpretation WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources does not stop one from collecting and organizing information from a primary source and writing about it in a descriptive way. Last 2 paragraphs.--Crossmr 03:29, 9 January 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 semi-speedy delete. Seems pretty clear cut to me. -- Steel 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law of no laws

Prod removed without comment. Looks like Original Research, uncited, attributed to two unknown people. (One specified originator is a redlink, the other a common name that links to a DAB page, none of which look relevant.) Author has apparently been inserting OR into other articles all over the place. Fan-1967 23:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment John Wheeler is probably John Archibald Wheeler, who is fond of, shall we say, out-of-the-box thinking, but of a less trivial sort than we see in the article under discussion. --Trovatore

Delete unless citations are provided. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not particularly well versed in physics or whatever this is, but it's worth mentioning that the creator of this article has been inserting blatant OR into a couple of other articles and has been blocked for it. -- Steel 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be philosophy. Check out author's user page for his definition of Reliable Sources. Glad it's been a long time since I was an undergrad. Fan-1967 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looking over the edits of the author and his previous anon incarnation, I wonder why this obvious troll hasn't been indefblocked. Danny Lilithborne 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Add this IP's contribs also, which look like him when he wasn't logged in today. Fan-1967 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - And this one, which includes an unblock request, though the log shows no block. Odd. Whois shows that IP, and the one Danny listed, as a range belonging to New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, not exactly a hotbed of breaking philosophical treatises. Fan-1967 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A1, possibly also G1. There's probably something real to what he's describing, and there's probably already an article which describes it. But I'm not enough of a math buff to track it down. Argyriou (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy A1 per Argyriou. No context, obvious hoax/OR by obvious vandal. Tevildo 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy. I agree this fits A1. For non-speedy, this is a non-notable concept as well. CMummert 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete complete bollocks. (A bollock is Either of two blocks attached to the topsail-yard in a ship, for the topsail-ties to reeve through, see Funk & Wagnalls New "Standard" Dictionary (Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.) of the English Language 1947) --Trovatore 23:20, 4 January 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, admungous. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Poet making waves in artistic circles

Delete. Focus of the subject is unclear, and the title reads like a newspaper headling making it even less clear. No refs. Possible original research. Rename if source can be verified and topic properly renamed. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no context Tarinth 23:49, 4 January 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. -Doc^g 11:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Athlete arrests

Originally created with one event only, now has a whopping three. Athlete arrests = list of arbitrary events which happened to an arbitrarily chosen class of person. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This page was created as Athelete arrests and then moved to the correct spelling, so that redirect will need to be dealt with as well. Postdlf 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete any important information is already in relevant articles. Tarret 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because "athelete" is not an English word. Tarinth 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Spelling Corrected Dgreenfi
It is true that the info is in articles already but this brings up an interesting issue about information organization. Sometimes one would like to gather certain pieces into one place. The ability of Wiki to be more than just an electronic version of a paper encyclopedia should be used. Not sure though how that could be implemented in this case. This is a case of a user trying to use Wiki to bring together existing wiki info in a different organizational format to better suit their needs and possibly the needs of a larger group. I think this might be a bigger issue that needs to be discussed before we go on just deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.145.243 (talk • contribs)
Delete, WP:NOT violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, trivia. People of all stripes get arrested all the time, and athletes are no different; we just hear about it because they're famous. Regarding the previous anonymous comment, no one's arguing against ever maintaining complementary organizational schemes for the same information. You need to justify why this one should be kept. Postdlf 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, This documents a cultural phenomenon that is specific to Atheletes. Using your logic, you could argue that all entries should be listed under People, Places or Things. My timeline is no less arbitraty than this Timeline of the big bang. Dgreenfi

Um... huh? Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

- User:Dgreenfi is the creator of the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow your comparison. Please elaborate on how the big bang timeline is "arbitrary," and how that relates to this. Postdlf 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - My point is that simlarly to the big bang site, my site is a list of events related to a central topic.
Please note the added link to the journal article regarding the cultural phenomenon of crime amongst atheletes. Dgreenfi

That's one opinion article from a trade magazine with a readership of 54,400, and the article is saying that there's a (mostly racially-based) stereotype (people in the US supposedly typically associate pro athletics with African-Americans, and associate African-Americans with crime), and arguing that these stereotypes are deeply misleading . Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per all above Bwithh 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep How is the Big Bang related? Well, there is a page that lays out the timeline. How is it arbitary? Well, it is subject to individual judgement. For example, I don't believe it. I do however believe that the rise in violent crimes committed by professional athletes is something that people are interested in and a timeline of such events would make a good page.Ajlynch131 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ajlynch131 (talk · contribs) only has three edits, one to this article, and two to this AFD. I suggest Ajlynch131 "and" Dgreenfi read WP:SOCK. You forgot to mention that both this and the big bang article are in English. Postdlf 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I detect a hint of sarcasm in your response but all I was doing was answering your question. Someone above provides a link to the "What Wikipedia is NOT" page. I just read the page and I do not see anything related to this timeline suggestion. Can someone please explain the "violation"? Thanks Ajlynch131 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not the same person as Ajlynch and you seem to be mising the point of "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion" in the Etiquitte guide. Please apologize for your accusational post. I am removing your comments Postdlf as I consider that a personal attack in an attempt to undermine my credibility and the credibility of another new user.Dgreenfi
- I'm going to say this once: DO NOT remove other users' comments from public discussions.[83] This is considered vandalism and will be sanctioned. As for my suggestion that Ajlynch is a sockpuppet based on his and your contributions, the similarity of comments, and the timing of the postings, res ipsa loquitur. Postdlf 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Congratulations, you are both obnoxious and wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreenfi (talk • contribs)
Delete - and please tell me this is just your idea of a crazy strawman. If so, please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Stay on topic Can we please focus on the topic of why an article about the history or athletes being arrested is not viable for wiki.

Delete This has to be a joke right? This cannot be serious. Even if it were 20 or 30 years of events, I still would be somewhat doubtful about it. If this were a well-known phenomenon that was well established, of a crime trend or jump in a certain segment of the population, then maybe. But this... I see no trend. This poor article is pitiful. And I do not really understand the point, unless it was meant as a joke.--Filll

Its not meant as a joke, its meant as a starting point. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, that one person can't collect the whole set of knowledge on a topic but the community can? Why should and article be 100% complete when posted. Dgreenfi

The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not to be a dumping ground for random "knowledge". Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete In addition to the WP:NOT concerns raised above, this list has serious neutrality issues in that it documents a group of negative events without placing any of the events into context. Information on an individuals legal problems are best kept in their respective articles were complete information on the reasons and consequences (both positive and negative) of the arrest can be properly explained and sourced. --Allen3 ^talk 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And of course simply being arrested does not mean that the individual necessarily committed a crime, or that they were eventually convicted of anything. Postdlf 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and read WP:ILIKEIT. Yuser31415 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is a potentially meaningful and encyclopedic topic. Unfortunately, this is NOT a potentially and meaningful encyclopedia article. BigDT 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an article, but might it not make a worthwhile Category, as per above comment about exploiting the digital medium that WP is? ThuranX 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BigDT. Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this is basically a indiscriminate list of information. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, arbitrary list, no more worthy of an article than "List of arrested accountants". Tabloid celebrity coverage does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Demiurge 13:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Wikipedia is full of arbitrary lists, See List Of Black Jews black isn't even an appropriate categorization. dgreenfi
- It's nice to see that even the proponent of keeping this acknowledges this is completely arbitrary. Please read WP:INN. Then, either attempt to clean, discuss, or AfD the List of Black Jews article, since you obviously think it needs work. GassyGuy 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Arbitrary as maybe this article that seems to be accepted so freely on the Wiki - [| List of Black Jews]. I haven't seen a single good reason to delete this article other than everyone finds it personally objectionable. Although people have been trying to cite Wikipedia rules, not a single person has spelled out the specific rules or even the spirit of the rules this is violating. I read over what Wiki is NOT and this article violates none of the spirit of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.145.243 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Keep - this can be very beneficial. It is hard many times to find statistics or information on athlete arrests.CarmenBryan 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- That, to me, would indicate that this would also be violating WP:NOR, if you are correct. GassyGuy 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:25, 8 January 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. Nishkid 64 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Davison (2nd Nomination)

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Davison, at least after a couple fo speedies I kow know why the user wnats the article (Ronaldo's girlfriend), but that does not establish notability. Still a student, first film not out yet. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. This one sure appears determined, but not notable, as far as I can tell.Philippe Beaudette 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable for any reason. Mr Stephen 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo I suppose. --W.marsh 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, again, still fails Google test (150-ish hits). Accurizer 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no sources, thus fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP.-- danntm ^T _C 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to verify anything in the article. One Night In Hackney 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above; unverifiable and not notable. --Muchness 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Her alleged claim to fame is being a footballer's girlfriend, but I can't find any Google hits that mention them together other than Wikipedia itself. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 6 January 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. Verifiable != notable. As a side note, I went through the University of Bristol halls a while back, and the ones that failed to have any assertions of notability outside being a building with rooms where students live all got deleted and redirected to the university. Proto::► 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gannochy House

Also nominated is John Burnet Hall. Per precedents, University halls of residence are not usually considered notable (as a default), and these do not seem to be any exception. In fact, these are poor stubs with feeble, if any, assertion of notability. So I beg to move: Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unremarkable student dorms. MER-C 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't the someone just merge all these St Andrews' University halls articles and save us the trouble of deleting perfectly verifiable information.--Doc^g 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - could create one good article from all the information in the several scattered articles we have on halls at the University of St Andrews. Suggest Halls of Residence of the University of St Andrews M0RHI | Talk to me 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Halls of residence have been organised into the category University of St Andrews halls of residence. This seems to be the normal approach for posting halls of residences for British Universities on Wikipedia (for example: University of Bristol Halls of Residence, University of Manchester halls of residence, University of Reading halls of residence, etc.) --John345er 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While a category would indeed be useful for large universities such as Manchester, with a student body six times larger than St Andrews, one well sectioned article would be preferable, and cumulative notability could be gleaned, at least to me, than six to ten stubs with limited notability. Of course things could still be linked with anchors to each heading. M0RHI | Talk to me 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't confuse notability of the subject with organisational structure within Wikipedia. This hall is a pretty bog standard hall which few outside the University will have heard of or would ever want to find out about. Unless anyone can find reliable sources attesting to its importance, it should be deleted. Putting several non-notable subjects together into one merged article does not make the article encyclopaedically, nor the multiple subjects any more notable. Ohconfucius 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per above. —ShadowHalo 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no indication, or even hint, of notability. Merging will create one large article instead of many smaller, but that is still going to be non notable. Nuttah68 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable residence halls. No sources, so nothing verified to merge. Eluchil404 07:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Graphical timeline of human evolution

[edit] Netocracy

[edit] Law enforcement in Westchester County

[edit] I Wayne

[edit] JasperReports

[edit] Washington Square Village

[edit] Baggage Airline Guest Services

[edit] Mister Cartoon

[edit] Chris Garver (musician)

[edit] Not Quite Oyster Meat (short film)

[edit] Phil Trautwein

[edit] The Forever Game

[edit] Ozero

[edit] Charles Baldwell

[edit] Andrew Galambos

[edit] Zugara

[edit] Parchester Village, Richmond, California

[edit] Myspacephobia

[edit] Jewdar

[edit] New material added

[edit] Rafed.net (2nd nomination)

[edit] Community College of Southern Nevada Police Department

[edit] List of elected or appointed female heads of state

[edit] Bum Fuck, Egypt

[edit] Abbad

[edit] Mortal Kombat: 8

[edit] Conservative Legacy Foundation

[edit] Recycling Debate

[edit] Technocash

[edit] Coco Rocha

[edit] List of people considered greatest fighter ever

[edit] Sax by Popular Demand

[edit] N. Venkatachala

[edit] Wong Shun Leung's Profound Knowledge of Fighting

[edit] Shoup & Kozlowski

[edit] Alan Belk

[edit] Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd.

[edit] Crissy Moran

[edit] Karen Rockwell

[edit] Mike Monaghan

[edit] Shlaka

[edit] Brilliant Earth

[edit] List of aircraft carrier deployments

[edit] Secondary Objectives in Black (video game)

[edit] Complementification

[edit] Mario mayhem

[edit] Bio-art

[edit] Beth Gerstein

[edit] Eric Grossberg

[edit] Richie Scarlett

[edit] Gannochy House

[edit] Hare Krishna Senga

[edit] Rellon Senga

[edit] Renunciation of citizenship

[edit] St Salvator's Hall

[edit] Andrew Melville Hall

[edit] Deception in the Unification Church

[edit] Chris Currie

[edit] Ardeshir falaki

[edit] Blackhole society

[edit] Support for evolution

[edit] Changed Drastically

[edit] British Bulldogge

[edit] Bethlehem Tadesse

[edit] Vizier of Damascus

[edit] Be a Bear

[edit] Importance of Emotional Tone in Mediation

[edit] Paragon Disk Wiper

[edit] Hari Ananth

[edit] Shemale art Transgender art

[edit] Horizon blog

[edit] Micro Multinational corporation, List of micro multinational corporations

[edit] Olde English Bulldogge

[edit] Colby's Clubhouse

[edit] Nothing to Lose (Heroes)

[edit] Tara Hunt

[edit] December 16, 2005