Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of asteroids

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

Listcruft: only notable asteroids and minor planets should be listed. The contents of List of notable asteroids should be moved to List of asteroids and List of notable asteroids redirect to List of asteroids. This is not a merge request because I am opposing non-notable content. Other places do have the full listing available if needed: [1] Cerejota 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per previous AfD. -N 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Those arguments were for the most part listcruft. The information is available from widely disseminated primary and semi-primary sources. Minor planets and asteroids should be subject to the same notability rules everything else has to be subject to. And the existence of List of notable asteroids clearly establishes that notability can indeed be established, contrary to what some argue.--Cerejota 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically speaking, ALL content here is supposed to be "available from widely disseminated primary and semi-primary sources", per WP:V. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper and we have room for both lists. Your argument seems to essentially be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. No, my argument is that it is redundant to have a list that is maintained, with better quality and much more up-to-date in easily accessible and linked pages. Why work twice, when we could concentrate on a smaller list of notables? I like the list, I just feel it is too much work for too little benefit.--Cerejota 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I don't tell other editors what to spend their time on. --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously encyclopedic list, no reason not to have notable asteroids as separate sublist. The existence of the information at other sources in no way precludes its inclusion at Wikipedia. Espresso Addict 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per voluminous discussion in previous AfD. Nothing has changed since to change a consensus. Bearian 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No real grounds for deletion, when compared to reason for keep. Dfrg.msc 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this list has value for reference purposes, and just because the same type of content is available elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't have it here. I mean, there are other places with content substantially identical to that of List of Presidents of the United States, but I don't see anybody nominating that for deletion. If something's here, we can ensure that the info is accessible to the public, while information on external sources could always go away at the whim of the people in charge of those sources. Maybe Harvard will be wiped out by an asteroid at some point, who knows? If they are, it'd be nice to know which big icy rock-ball did the deed... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above.--Rambutan (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep' per previous AfD. 132.205.44.5 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In no way is this listcruft; it is a valuable portal page to other asteroid lists. If we're going to delete this page, we may as well delete all the others too. Wikipedia is an online information resource. There's no reason this information shouldn't be on it. Serendipodous 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are some 150,000 natural bodies in the solar system, all of them notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. Managing them in just one list is foolish. siafu 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per above. Vsst 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This list is not just a collection of names but also a collection of data on the objects. In this sense, it is more than just a list, but an encyclopedic collection of data. Moreover, the list is a useful substitute for articles on each and every object, and even if articles on every object were written, then the list would still be useful for comparing objects. Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopedic list, satisfies WP:LIST criteria for "valuable information source". Gandalf61 12:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as argued above. --Cam 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Dan Gluck 19:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard

Transformation: The Life and Legacy of Werner Erhard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable film. Appears to be a promotional film for the promotion of Est. Recognition links are bogus - the first one is a 404, the second one just goes to a film festival page - and where it's present on the Atlanta Film Festival page, it's just a blurb about the film. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Werner Erhard, where it's already receiving the level of attention that it merits. I don't see much of anything in the way of media coverage for the film. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable guff. Nick mallory 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--JayJasper 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's useful- don't delete- I couldn't find this film anywhere except here and I was interested- jb1129

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Jordanian apartheid

Allegations of Jordanian apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Virtually none of the article's ten sources mention anything about allegations of Jordanian apartheid. In only one does the word "apartheid" even appear, and it's a blogpost by Alan Dershowitz. Most of the articles in the metastasizing pseudo-series "Allegations of apartheid" are shabby, but this one is almost insolent in its frivolousness. All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, a copiously sourced article which covers a very prominent, very public, very contentious, and wide-ranging international debate among scholars, journalists, public figures, Nobel laureates, and so on. The tactic in creating these "sister" articles is to google around for random quotes using the word "apartheid" in primary sources in a variety of contexts, and cobble them together into desultory pieces of investigative journalism/original research, sorted by country. Allegations of Jordanian apartheid, intriguingly, takes the opposite approach. Its creator has merely gathered a dozen or so sources – seemingly at random – on Jordanian human-rights issues, none of which ever mentions apartheid, or South Africa, or anything of the sort, at all. These things are presumably reminiscent of apartheid to the Wikipedian who gathered them, so he's stapled them together with the aforementioned blog-post to make this ridiculous article. Delete with extreme prejudice. G-Dett 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Like many other "Allegations of ..." works, this article has been created for transparently partisan ends relating to the ongoing saga of Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. I can only imagine that the ultimate purpose of this farcial display is to eventually nominate all of the "allegations of apartheid" articles -- including the encyclopedic and properly-sourced Allegations of Israeli Apartheid -- for deletion in one fell swoop, in the hope that Wikipedians will be so tired of this nonsense as to delete everything without differentiation. CJCurrie 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge the two relevant quotes into Allegations of apartheid#Jordan. The sources provided do not establish notability of any allegations, nor demonstrate any ongoing, notable debate around the allegations of apartheid in Jordan. However, please refrain from failing to assume good faith of fellow editors. This should be about content, not people.--Cerejota 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Not saying Jordan has a stellar human rights record, but I think a critical distinction here is that Palestinian and Iraqi refugees in Jordan are non-citizens, whereas Palestinians in Israel are semi-citizens. I think, therefore, this falls outside of the definition of apartheid. ~ Infrangible 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Technically palestinians are not technically citizens of Israel. Anyway, by either definition, both fall out of the definition of apartheid (see Crime of apartheid), apartheid is "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." By that definition, Jordan could fall under the definition of apartheid, but so could just about every other country in the world. That is all allegations.--Sefringle^Talk 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Blacks in South Africa were citizens of Gazankulu, KaNgwane and QwaQwa.--Victor falk 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, CJCurrie, and Cerejota. Also, violates WP:SOAP. Bearian 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is well sourced, and seems to establish some notabilty. Nomination, rather than creation, seems to be WP:POINT; point being to accuse User:Urthogie of bad faith. Reguardless of what you think of the sourcing of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, it is a POV fork, like all allegations of apartheid articles are. It is even more POV to allow the allegation on some articles but not others. This seems like an attempt to delete all allegations of apartheid articles except the Israel one, as nomination focuses on a WP:POINT accusation, rather than the merits of the article. Besides, if you look at the article history, it wasn't even created by User:Urthogie.--Sefringle^Talk 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I disagree, there are two relevant quotes by partisan sources. The rest is orginal research. There is no notable debate or allegation of apartheid with regards to Jordan that warrants a page of its own. The sources belong in Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 12:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this nomination, there are now four notable reliable sources which prove the allegation is notable, all of which use the term, proof that there is probably more to come. Articles are not built in a day, and this article is all of two days old. It is pretty well sourced, includes alternative opinions, and it apparently is growing, proving it is notable.--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not proof of notability. Notability requires, in this case, that there be a debate. There is no response from any notable pro-Jordanian commentator or from the Jordanian State regarding these allegations. The few sources available perfectly fit Allegations of apartheid, and should remain there until the allegations against jordan truly become enough to justify one page. I also note that you have stated elsewhere your support to delete this page if Allegations of Israeli apartheid is deleted. I think your contribution is disingenuous.--Cerejota 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply Sefringle, you noticed about half-way through writing your post that Urthogie didn't create the article (he hasn't even edited it if I remember correctly), so why did you leave in your hypothesis that I filed this nomination as a POINT-attack against him? Also, please bear in mind that our job is not to decide where to "allow the allegation" of apartheid; our job is to decide if there's a vigorous, notable debate or discussion about alleged similarities between Jordan and South Africa. Judging by the sources for this article, there is not.--G-Dett 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

why did you leave in your hypothesis that I filed this nomination as a POINT-attack against him? Because of your nomination comments. "All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" Basicly implies that every zionist supporter who creates an allegations of X apartheid" article is doing so out of WP:POINT. Maybe you aren't talking about Urthogie by himself per se, but you are using general terms to imply that all allegations of apartheid articles created by any supporter of Zionism was done to make a point and is done in bad faith. Clearly that is a bad nomination.

our job is to decide if there's a vigorous, notable debate or discussion about alleged similarities between Jordan and South Africa. exactly. And only one percent of your nomination focused on this issue. The vast majority of your nomination was an accusation of WP:POINT.--Sefringle^Talk 03:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Allegations are notable if they are well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. Treatment of Palestinians throughout many Arab countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and even Kuwait can be considered as apartheid because they have been systematically kept out of the general society for over 50 years in ghettos without any basic human rights is a classic case of apartheid. A 4th generation Palestinian in Lebanon still has no access to proper schools, work, the tax system and is kept out like a Pariah . Even non citizens have basic human rights. Not even an illegal alien in the US is treated this way , they have access to due process. Taprobanus 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Treatment of Palestinians in Jordan is deplorable, and it's even worse in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world. Articles that really zero in on the subject would be a terrific addition to Wikipedia, and if you'd like to write them I will help you. That subject, however, has not been looked at through the historical lens of South African apartheid by any reliable sources, nor is there any discernible public debate or discourse about alleged similarities thereof. This article begins with that utterly spurious framework because its goal is not to address the situation of Palestinians in Jordan, but rather to create a WP:POINT bargaining chip with which to secure the deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which some editors object to on ideological grounds. This is an edit war by proxy, in other words, and this breezily incompetent and bad-faith article shows real contempt on the part of the authors for the serious moral and political topic you rightly raise. If you were to suggest heavily revising this content and "moving" it to Palestinian refugees in Jordan or something of the sort, I would certainly support that.--G-Dett 13:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete like the other "allegations of Apartheid": outrageous, controversial, lacking critical distance, and obviously WP:POINT. Rama 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cerejota. Cannot see any reliable sources which confirm allegations of apartheid and it all appears to be original research based on Jordan's human rights record. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per rationale provided on other allegations. Merge. Not enough meat to it.--Urthogie 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically?--G-Dett 14:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge into Human rights in Jordan and remove original research claim in header, most of the article does not back up the apartheid claim but is about general human rights, Encyclopedias are supposed to document facts not invent new jingoisms that aren't backed up by any reliable sources, the term Allegations of Jordanian apartheid was invented on wikipedia, this is worse than the other allegation articles because no one of notability, including the Israeli government has accused the Jordanians of apartheid, which puzzles me as to why the article is labeled apartheid Bleh999 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As mentioned in the other AFD, apartheid implies official stance. If that was the case, these wouldnt be allegations Corpx 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this nomination should be closed, so that someone can be free to nominate the article again without all of the nastiness, anger and personal attacks contained in this nomination. I don't think we ought to be encouraging this sort of thing. 6SJ7 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• 6SJ7, the creator of this article has been on WP for about a year. He knows what he's doing and he'll survive a few ironies at his expense. This article is far and away the least competent of that collective con job and bumbling ensemble piece we call the "Allegations of apartheid" series, which is saying something. What you mistake for anger is connoisseurial pleasure. Surely I'm allowed to whistle while I work, especially when the work in question is mopping up deliberately spilled milk.--G-Dett 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is a disjointed and covers a great deal of ground without expanding each area; however, it is worthwhile and is sourced for the institutionalized discrimination or apartheid that exists. I am put off by the insistence to project the motivations of the editors to be a chit against the Israel article; it comes off as highly POV, please desist from doing so. Also, any article that begins with "Allegation" should be changed immediately. There are either sources that support the position or there are not; to state it in this manner is also POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• What sources accuse Jordan of apartheid? Out of all of the sources there is one article by Alan Dershowitz that mentions the book by Jimmy Carter and Jordan not allowing Jews to own land, but even he doesn't directly accuse Jordan of apartheid. I don't think one editorial that is only remotely related to this subject should hold the entire article together. The title and unsourced intro are original research, the information about human rights in Jordan should go into Human rights in Jordan Bleh999 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• You vote "keep", but you say "any article that begins with "Allegation" should be changed immediately"; is that a Rename vote? Also, your assumptions of good faith honour you, but as another commenter puts it, "A sturdily built ship doesn't sink. A sturdily built ship chained to a chunk of concrete eight times its size does sink".--Victor falk 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The word "apartheid" has a precise meaning and a proper definition. This article : 1) talks about metaphorically apartheid and the title doesn't account that it's not real apartheid, 2) this comparison is solely done by the article's author (check the sources : they don't even compare Jordanian and apartheid, they are fakes sources!), doing here a clear WP:OR. All the sources appears to be randomly picked from a google search with the words "Jordan" and "apartheid", used even if the words aren't use in the same phrase or paragraph in the source. (beside, that article's creation is part of a WP:POINT to have the specific article about Israel & apartheid deleted; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid , that's how I found this one). Apartheid only occurred in South Africa, that is. Benjamin.pineau 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as yet another in a long list of fabricated originally research-filled, point-making soapboxery. As pointed out above, it looks like a hastily-strung together collection of a google search of "Jordan" and "apartheid". At this rate, I can't wait til the Allegations of Federated States of Micronesian apartheid article gets created. Tarc 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• What?!? I thought the whole inner solar system was covered, and that Allegations of Martian apartheid was next in the pipeline!

• Delete. The article draws on sources that in the main do not even use the word "apartheid". While the material is certainly noteworthy, it can be merged into Human rights in Jordan and/or Allegations of Apartheid. The article as is, is WP:OR. Tiamat 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Nominator's comment says a lot: "All were created in violation of WP:POINT by editors who have tried unsuccessfully to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, a copiously sourced article which covers a very prominent, very public, very contentious, and wide-ranging international debate among scholars, journalists, public figures, Nobel laureates, and so on." I'm not saying anti-Zionism or pro-Zionism at work here, but published articles suggesting discrimination anywhere are notable. Mandsford 00:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So what sources directly accuse Jordan of apartheid, funny that even the Israeli government has not made such a claim, the term Jordanian apartheid was invented on wikipedia Bleh999 06:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely true, althougt there is notable use of the analogy, but not enough to justify its own page. That content belongs merged into Allegations of apartheid.--Cerejota 10:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Notable use" in this case refers to one sentence in a book by Benjamin Netanyahu, and one sentence in a blog post by Alan Dershowitz. Cerejota, with regards to notability you need to review the distinction between primary sources and secondary sources.--G-Dett 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why if the result of this AfD is keep or no consensus I will re-state my merge proposal. The sources are too little to justify a page on its own, but are notable enough. Alan Dershowitz posted in a blog, but in this case it is a primary source: he was not reporting what someone else said, but what he said. And do we really have to debate his notability?--Cerejota 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. Dershowitz does not mention the word "apartheid" even once in the "Case Against Jordan"^[1].--Victor falk 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not used as a source in the article anymore.--Cerejota 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. Primary sources are less desirable on WP, and they do not in themselves establish notability except in rare circumstances. From WP:N:

"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability.

And from WP:NOR:

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. 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. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

--G-Dett 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Less desirable doesn't mean it cannot be used. It just means lesser quality. I will repeat myself: Exploding whale is both one of the oldest articles in wikipedia, and a featured article, which means there is consensus that this is a good article. However, it is almost entirely made up of primary sources, its notability is to a large extent self-referential, and would be WP:OR under your rather strict and strange criteria for OR. Ultimately, you are just the twisted mirror image of the WP:POINT kiddies and possible meatpuppets (and some not-so-kiddies, unfortunately): you just want Allegations of Israeli apartheid to be the sole article, instead of looking at each instance of sourced material on its own. While I agree in this instance with a delete and merge, I do so because while notable, the material doesn't constitute enough for a separate article and we have a page for such cases, Allegations of apartheid.

I repudiate your double-standard: There is exactly one secondary source in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Adam and Moodley, and in large part they are both notable precisely because of their book. However, Benjamin Netanyahu is an obvious notable previous to his use of the analogy. You want to delete content of encyclopedic value just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Cerejota 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no double standard, Cerejota. Just the single standard: articles must have notable subjects; the notability of their subjects must be verifiable through secondary sources. Your comment betrays an enduring confusion about primary sources vs. secondary sources. Jimmy Carter's book is a primary source because it alleges apartheid. The hundreds of op-ed comments and commentaries on how Jimmy used "the A-word," and the hundreds of news pieces on how Jewish leaders were castigating Jimmy, and how the longtime board members of the Carter center were resigning because of the title of his book, and so on, were secondary sources. The Israel article's 115 cites is chock-a-block with secondary sources, and I can add 400 more by lunchtime if you like. I can't quite believe you're still talking about exploding whale, but for what it's worth that article also has many secondary sources, and I can't understand why you think that it doesn't.--G-Dett 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per lack of notability, WP:NPOV#POV_forks ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article."), and general lack of material for an encyclopedic article. Mackan79 00:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Please see this Afd debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid#A_Consensus.3F--Victor falk 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid‎, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid.--Victor falk 21:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)--Victor falk 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: tiny page, part of a POV-pushing attempt to "contextualise" Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 03:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, while the French counterpart might have enough sources to justify an article, this page does not. - SimonP 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of WWE Divas

List of WWE Divas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Darrenhusted 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the exact same:

List of Former WWE Divas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Former TNA Knockouts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Former WWE Development Divas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
• Delete as listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep dont delete this page because i made this page for just of the former Divas of the WWE, because at the list of WWE Divas this member named Rabidwolf deleted the list because oh its a page of just of the WWE Divas of now, he made the list into just for notable former wwe divas
• i had problems with him because British Model Louise Glover signed with WWE and he kept annoying me that i needed a source where she got hired and i told him from wrestling observer newsletter and he kept telling me to get a source until WWE puts something that they hired her, which i told him that there's nothing but only on the wrestling observer newsletter and other websites even from Glover's myspace that she got hired.........from Spike7000
• i can even help or edit the page because he reverts it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike7000 (talk • contribs) — Spike7000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• When I got here the former list already read as notable. And, if you wanted it the way you say, you'd of titled it better. RabidWolf 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've reverted your often poor edits as they added little, if anything. And there's still been nothing proving Glover's "supposed" employment. RabidWolf 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The first one is unnecessary since we already have World Wrestling Entertainment roster. DrWarpMind 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all four due to overlap with current roster pages, Wikipedia not being a directory and alumni categories already existing. DrWarpMind 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A redundant list. Biggspowd 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Really, all it is is a current employment list broken down to cover the divas. So, I guess the argument is very strong when mentioning the WWE roster page. As for the second, I had figured it be deleted soon. RabidWolf 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the current Divas are covered in the World Wrestling Entertainment roster, and the former Divas are covered in the World Wrestling Entertainment alumni category. Nikki311 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I still support deleting everything, even after the third article was added to this AfD. Nikki311 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both - Wikipedia is not a directory. Either that, or Merge with WWE Divas. --SteelersFan UK06 06:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In light of recent events, I think all three pages should be deleted, per my above comment. --SteelersFan UK06 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both as per above. Davnel03 07:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The above votes were cast before a third and fourth articles were added.

• Comment In an attempt to circumvent the AfD process Spike 7000 has pulled the info from one page and pasted it to the other [2], and then applied a redirect, after unsuccessfully removing the AfD notice [3]. And then deleted the AfD message on the first page, I have reverted the copy and paste, and the AfD deletion. Darrenhusted 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete still doesn't change my view. Davnel03 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment again, I voted before the third and fourth articles were added, but I still vote to delete them all. Nikki311 18:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment same applies here. --SteelersFan UK06 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all then redirect to rosters Perhaps categorify instead if one doesn't exist. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A category exist under WWE alumni. Darrenhusted 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Muse (band). Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 01:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muse Live in Wembley

Muse Live in Wembley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is speculation about the next Muse DVD. Whilst we know the DVD is coming, we don't know the title or any other information about it. All of the known, sourcable, information about the DVD is listed in the Muse (band) article. This page violates WP:CRYSTAL  --M2Ys4U ^(talk) 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Muse (band) if there's any relevant info. Giggy _U^CP 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Muse (band) & protect till official announcement. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redir, per Anetode (talk · contribs). --Ayleuss 13:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necrotic Disgorgement

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

One-album band does not meet notability criteria, see WP:MUSIC Canuckle 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note another band NCDX were previously covered under this article's title. So there was a contested prod but for which band is confusing.Canuckle 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and a contested speedy delete in the past too. Canuckle 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BAND - doesn't assert notability Giggy _U^CP 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, total failure of WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Regnier

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

Article has been tagged requesting notability information for two months. Nothing on the page indicates that the subject is notable, and everything is written in a promotional fashion - including the boldfacing of the subject's name. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources could be found in a cursory search. Unless the gentleman in question was the CEO or sole founder of any of the corporations listed, he does not get notability inherited per WP:BIO. He is not once mentioned in the Werner Erhard and Associates article and is listed as the "course designer" of Landmark Education. Doesn't exactly sound like Steve Jobs to me. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable organiser in a cultish scam operation. Nick mallory 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom and VanTucky. Landmark may be wacky, but it's notable. I'm just not convinced he is notable. Bearian 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Landmark is notable, as scams go, but the flunkies are not. Nick mallory 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Eyrian 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

giant trivia/"in pop culture" fork. 3 other Kubrick films with "pop culture references" articles have been deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to The Shining. Biggspowd 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is as bad as many of the IPC articles that have been AFD'ed.--JForget 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge notable info to A Clockwork Orange Giggy _U^CP 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge + redirect Merge sourced info back into article and redirect. Lugnuts 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or delete, but don't merge into A Clockwork Orange or A Clockwork Orange (film). The whole reason it was spun off to its own page is that it cluttered up the main article.Spylab 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but don't merge. Paul August ☎ 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you please give a reason why? Every other Kubrick-related pop culture page has been deleted. Biggspowd 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not the place to document every time something has been mentioned on TV - pure trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I conclude that the litmus test for a pop culture article is whether the references are anywhere near to being as worthy as the original. It's the difference between showing cultural significance and showing a list of inside jokes. I won't write "listcruft" (other than to say that it's such a stupid f***ing word) but this doesn't apply. On the other hand, Clockwork would properly belong on a list of references to the William Tell Overture because of the ironic use of Rossini's well-known composition. Mandsford 00:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and don't merge. Significantly more important in popular culture than the other Kubrick films referenced above. Definitely needs references to justify many of the suppositions. Yorkshiresky 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons in the original AfD discussion that was reached upon consensus of keep. Turlo Lomon 10:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those reasons boiled down to: it's interesting; it's better written than other similar articles; there's too much of it for the main article and it's better spun off; and it adds to human knowledge. Of those reasons, the only one that isn't an argument best avoided at AFD is the contention that it adds to human knowledge. I strongly contest that the article adds to human knowledge in that, as I stated in my comments below, it in fact tells us nothing about either the source material or the things that reference the source material. Even if it does add to human knowledge in some way, all sorts of things that Wikipedia is not add to human knowledge yet all sorts of those things get deleted every day. Otto4711 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete like the other three. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. These things have nothing in common with each other beyond some more or less substantive references to a film or book. The list tells us nothing about the film or book, nothing about the various things from which the references are drawn, nothing about how they relate to each other or the real world. Otto4711 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, because the list tells us how influential and significant the film/book are by showing its widespread impact on culture. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4, repost, will salt. NawlinWiki 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super mario bros z

Super mario bros z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources to establish notability; possibly original research. (→O - RLY?) 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, this has already been deleted once, back in May - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Z, and there are still no sources. Once deleted, salt it. Corvus cornix 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt either as re-creation or hopelessly NN web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4 and salt. Tagged for G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- Magioladitis 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please reason? This isn't a vote. (→O - RLY?) 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete tag re-added after it was removed (when Dennis) added it Giggy _U^CP 23:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, if sources are not provided, this article should be brought back to AFD. Neil ╦ 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy! audition process

Jeopardy! audition process (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A unencyclopedic article that is basically a guide and violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Is also borderline spam and just isn't suitable for this site. Biggspowd 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) This is the 2nd AfD for this article. The result of the previous AfD was keep.

• Delete Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information or a how-to guide. Also unencyclopediac. (→O - RLY?) 22:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but maybe some of the content can be merged into the main Jeopardy! article. Useight 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but merge into Jeopardy!. Fiskars007 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep; this would be perfect for the main article. However, the main article is too big. Therefore, it got split off into appropriate sections. Why not just have every article be 500KB long? Andy Saunders 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NOT#HOWTO. Some of the content may be merged (i.e. one or two sentences), but the main Jeopardy! article is quite bloated, so mergers be careful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Please read the previous AfD result. (The article underwent significant revision during and after that AfD.) This article at one point shared some characteristics with a HOWTO but that can no longer be said to be the case. Robert K S 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC) From the other AfD:
  • " I think one of the things that makes Jeopardy! unique from other game shows is its audition process. Contestants can't appear on Jeopardy! unless they are able to demonstrate their knowledge. I believe surely there are articles and books written about the Jeopardy! audition process. If those sources can appear and are discussed in the nominated article, then I believe the subject can demonstrate notability." Tinlinkin 03:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "For a show as long-running and notable as Jeopardy!, the unique audition process is non-trivial and encyclopedic as well. Editors above have listed at least 6 sources. The article describes the process, and is not intrinsically a how-to guide." Pomte 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I should note that said editor, Robert K S is the primary editor of the said article. And this is a total how-to guide, and the whole "the main article is too long" thing is bunk. This information is not suitable for an encyclopedia, on its own or in a section. Biggspowd 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't create the article, but I did work to add sources and rewrite "Howto" aspects of the article, addressing the concerns of the last AfD. You're saying that work to improve an article implies CoI and disqualifies my vote, but even if that were so, it doesn't disqualify the arguments presented for the notability and verifiability of the article, which can be sourced. Robert K S 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I never said you created the article, but you do have most of the edits listed on the page. And there is a line in afd etiquette that states: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." That's all I was following, and giving your user page and outsider interests in a jeopardy site, that is valid and needs to be considered to make a decision about the article. That last afd should have been no consensus, I certainly didn't see any. This page is pure fancruft. It's also borderline spam/advertising, and violates many aspects of WP:NOT. Is Jeopardy important for an encyclopedia, yes. Is every single little thing about it important enough to have it's own article for an encyclopedia, absolutely not. And just because an article survives an afd does not guarantee that it will survive other afds. And this article does not have any real references on it, just a few things from internet message boards. And since you're giving examples from the last afd, I will repost mine: "Strong Delete the argument "it was taking too much space in the main article" is not a real reason to delete it. it should just be a section in the main article, and pared down, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where every info bit can be, you're supposed to be an editor, meaning you edit things. Biggspowd 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)". It's nice that you like Jeopardy, but we don't need an article on every aspect of it on here. Biggspowd 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I considered merging this article with the parent article, but that one is so unwieldy as it is, I don't see the benefit. As a standalone article, it's more than just a how-to, in its present state. It's an informative look at not just the current audition process, but the process of the Art Fleming-era Jeopardy as well.--Ispy1981 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because you think something is interesting does not mean it should be kept. Biggspowd 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct--notability verifiability are the thresholds for inclusion, and this article evidences both. Robert K S 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Robert K S's reasoning. Spicy 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO - An encyclopedia is not the place to learn on how to audition to a game show. Corpx 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would also like to note that the whole article is pretty much WP:OR. It shouldnt be cited to user contributed forums. Corpx

Despite the fact that said cited forum is part of the television show's official website, whose contributors include not only champions from the show, but also experts whose opinions on the show have been cited in the Wall Street Journal and NPR's "All Things Considered". Frankly, I believe it's a special case here. Andy Saunders 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How did you verify the identity of the posters there? Corpx 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Too large for a Merge and too informative to be pared down, although merge would be better than delete. Most people, myself included, have no idea how the weeding process for a show with contestants works; each show would have its own system. For most shows, the process is not of much interest, but Jeopardy is a classic. I think that most of the intellectual wannabes who edit Wikipedia, were they to "stoop" to going on a game show, would pick Jeopardy as opposed to "Wheel" or "Pyramid" and have probably wondered about this topic. Mandsford 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I do not know if this belongs in an encyclopedia, would WikiHow be more appropriate? GoAirForce 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep An article describing a process the reader my be interested in participating in is not necessarily a how-to article. If this article were "How to get on Jeopardy!" it would be a how-to article. I didn't notice anything how-to when I looked over the article. Atropos 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article was previously nominated for deletion here. The result was keep. Atropos 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Ispy1981 and Mandsford. Iotha 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:Note requires significant coverage. There are only two references in the article, which are to message boards which cannot be construed as reliable sources under WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an oversight. In the last AfD I mentioned 5 books that cover the process, and there are dozens of newpaper articles and television news stories that document the process thoroughly written every year. I thought the sources had been added, but they haven't yet. If the only objection to the article is its sourcing, that is easily addressed, and I will be adding sources in the next day. Robert K S 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keylime cove

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

About a NN, not yet opened water park. Written in a tone that is commercial in nature. Conflict of interest is present (see talk page, apprently the article is written by someone representing the company.) Originally I listed this as a G11 speedy candidate, but the article's creator argued otherwise, changed this to an AfD as a courtesy and to get some consensus from the community. Rackabello 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't so much a promotion of the park as it is something of a synopsis of who is building the park - in short, one of those signs on a construction site. The park is not yet even built, and beyond that, it is not notable yet. If the park becomes notable after it is built, I have no prejudice to recreation at that time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clear COI, tone isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia, and isn't notable yet. I've yet to see reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources documenting this theme park that isn't open yet. (→O - RLY?) 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but watch for COI. Sources aplenty, and certainly notable enough. The only major issue is the COI, and that can be remedied by keeping a close watch on the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COI. At best, this article needs to be scrapped and entirely rewritten. But simple cleanup/rewrite is not the only issue here, as the sources Starblind points to have not been vetted. The Chicago SunTimes source does not in any way qualify as "significant coverage". The Star Tribune article talks about the park only because the developer is notable, and mentions him and his history just as much, if not more, than the park. Without those, I would say this article also fails WP:N, as most of the other sources are either not reliable and independent or are borderline trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's a bit of coverage, and this is definitely locally notable (i.e. in Gurnee), but almost all of the sources describe it as one of "several" waterpark developments in Chicagoland and beyond, and part of a "waterpark craze" (I can speak to that here in Wisconsin, where my city is hoping to build one so as not to be the only city in the area without). About the only thing that makes this special is that it's being codeveloped with a hotel/conference center, but even that isn't unique, as numerous hotels and convention centers that already exist have been adding waterparks as an amenity. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Rambutan (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The only non-weak "keep" argues solely with the subject's publication list, while all others point out the lack of any third-party coverage: this alone precludes us from having an article that meets WP:V. Sandstein 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Khalid Mahmood

Professor Khalid Mahmood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I hate to nominate for deletion without total confidence, but this is a special case. I prod'd this article and it was deleted, then it was recreated, and tagged for NPOV and sources (the lack of the latter being why it was deleted in the first place) and 2 months later, no sources have been added. No real claims of notability besides being a professor. The reason I'm unsure about whether he's notable or not is that his common name makes him difficult to research [4], lots of results but are any of these people actually him? I note that what the article gives as an alternate name gets no results [5]. So what we need here are some reliable sources that are clearly about this guy. W.marsh 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I've added what appears to be his website and the list of publications is quite impressive. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• if this is kept will the closer please move it? "Professor" shouldn't be in the page name. --W.marsh 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep He teaches Library and Information sciences, my own field. For some reason, the bio never says so, and calls him a teacher of literature & mentions various other professional interests only. The number of publications is very respectable (about 3/4 of them are peer-reviewed) though almost all of them of purely national interest only. The citations won't be high, but this field has a very low citation density and not all the journals are covered by Web of science or scopus. Of the 5 books, 2 are just indexes to a run of journals. He's just an associate professor, my own rank. I hate to use this criterion, but he's not much more notable than I am. If kept, the qualifier to distinguish from similar names should be (library science)DGG (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't usually see articles that can't be rescued by anyone, but searching on his name is pulling up at least 7 people by this name...so far. There's a core in there leading to notability, so I don't want to delete it but I'm tending that way, but this needs a LOT of work that can't be done by anyone. I'm not entirely certain his life experience is notable within the region he lives in. As to the above comment; all academics have a large number of publications, it's required that they publish every year or two, and so in a CV, he's going to include everything that he can. My roommate has over 100 pub creds to her name, which makes her hireable in academia, but doesn't make her notable. Should absolutely be moved to a page with his last name on it. --Thespian 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

for all I know, your room-mate is notable. The number of peer-reviewed publications is one indication of notability as an academic: it demonstrates recognition by one's peers. DGG (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I was getting at was that the publications don't make her notable; notability also comes from other activities, so while pubs can contribute to notability, publication doesn't automatically get you there. --Thespian 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of evidence that he satisfies WP:PROFTEST. The main problem, as I see it, is that the link to the subject's home page clearly indicates that he is an associate professor of library and information science, and his publications are consistent with that, yet this article makes no reference to library and information science being his academic field. This would be like someone writing a Wikipedia article about an economist with an external link that shows that actually he is a psychologist. It does not give me confidence that the biography is accurate. At any rate, as an associate professor, he does not seem to be more notable than the average professor. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone know if "professor" is being used in the American sense (i.e. a teaching member of the faculty) or the British sense (i.e. the head of the faculty) in this context? JulesH 07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • this would suggest he's an associate professor in roughly the American sense. --W.marsh 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no obvious claim to notability, no sources to establish same. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Fails WP:BIO; not even sure if proftest applies. Eusebeus 11:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep he has an impressive career history and appears to be widely published in his home region. Shame there are no established media sources to ascertain his notability for the English WP. Uranometria 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystic projection

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

delete - this seems to be a POV fork/synthesis of a number of articles. There is no citation for the use of the phrase Mystic projection, which does not seem to be different than Astral projection. In any case, most of the article does not seem to be on the topic of the title but rather a POV history of Mysticism along with short bio-stubs of a number of mystics. All these topics are covered better elsewhere. GlassFET 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article has no independent references, and composed of WP:OR. This leads me to believe that the article also probably does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Definite delete. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V. All ghits are wp mirrors. Giggy _U^CP 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with, or redirect to, Astral projection. Bearian 02:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is different into Astral projection, as per Bearian and then delete. I'll admit that I don't know enough about astral projection or mystic projection to know whether there is much of a distinction, but the author writes that "Mystic Projection is an ancient term which precedes the contemporary term astral projection". The "ancient term" part is what we would refer to in the most basic Anglo-Saxon words, as "bulla-scytten". English doesn't have "ancient terms". Chaucer didn't write about "Ye Olde Mystick Projecktion". If this article is equally accurate, I say delete. Mandsford 01:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Zapolski

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

Biographical article of person who is basically somebody who is in charge of a subset of Est of some sort. Notability is not well established; those articles cited simply quote Dr. Zapolski. At best, notability is questionable. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Going over the sources, I notice that they cite tangents in the article, and do not do anything to affirm notability. VP of a division of a company...I don't feel that satisfies criteria for inclusion. the_undertow ^talk 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in her bio to justify being here. It's just an advertising spiel for the cultish group she makes her money with. Nick mallory 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom, as Landmark is a notable if strange group, but I don't know her from a hole in the ground. Bearian 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. As I've noted, there seems to be some effort to create similar biographies of Landmark Forum Leaders on Wikipedia, yet for the most part they have no other claim to notability. (Landmark, by the way, is the successor to est, rather than an offshoot.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of DirecTV HD channels

List of DirecTV HD channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Duplicate information as on List of DirecTV channels; separate list also not necessary to be spliced off List of DirecTV channels. --Son 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rackabello 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Content fork. Blueboy96 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above considering it's mostly repetitive for the other article.--JForget 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; content fork covered in original article. --Mhking 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity errors in King of the Hill

Continuity errors in King of the Hill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn trivia fancruft that was forked off a main article. Much of it is pure OR and speculation anyway. Biggspowd 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's really nothing here worth saving. It looks to be entirely original research. If any of it can be cited to a DVD commentary track or an interview, then it may have a place in the main article, but other than that, delete. -Chunky Rice 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as triviacruft, but maybe some of the better points could be merged into a section on the main King of the Hill article. Useight 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this needs to be mentionned, better mention it in King of the Hill, or if there is an article in the TV Wiki.--JForget 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete massive amounts of trivia are not what we need. Any notable info should go in the original article. Giggy _U^CP 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That is it. Now those overseas sweatshop animators only get one five minute break per 12 hour shift. ~ Infrangible 01:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced listcuftian criticism per all of the above. Bearian 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — This article does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia and I don't believe it will be read by many people either. Cedars 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia, junk, cruft. hard disks are not that cheap. such dross wastes the time of other editors. --Jack Merridew 10:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pure trivia and an encyclopedia is not the place for analysis Corpx 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above and nom. Not relevant or notable enough for own article, should be merged with specific KOTH episodes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been improved since its nomination. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Raymond Cook

Robert Raymond Cook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability; unsourced. Gilliam 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment He is the last man to be hanged in Alberta <-- assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect the page on Stettler, Alberta has more citations and information on this incident than this page does; point people at that, or pull the incident out of Stettler and point people at this article if you think that's better. This should have been explored a little better before nomination; it is easily sourced (I found 5 solid articles on it with just the name), and that would have been preferable to a delete nom. --Thespian 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - here, have a source: [6] Giggy _U^CP 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added that source. Where's the others? Bearian 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has been the subject of a book and a play. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article seems to have been improve with the sources, also keep per above.--JForget 14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beats of Rage

Beats of Rage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable homebrew game ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like such an easy call. "Homebrew" doesn't imply non-notability, and it seems like there is a decent amount of buzz about this game. Is there any particular reason why you only AfD'd this game, and not Rush Rush Rally Racing by the same creator? I'm leaning toward keep or merge with Senile Team. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did the google thing too, but I couldn't find any reporting on Beats of Rage from any notable website, just free downloads and the like. I'm sure there are a ton of free games out there that could be listed here, but if they aren't notable, they shouldn't be here. Popularity isn't notability (see Wikipedia:Notability). And I didn't think to check for other Senile Teams games (see WP:Othercrapexists), though the whole group should likely be AfDed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is possibly the most popular homebrew for the Dreamcast. AFAIK, it is notable. Stormwatch 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn "homebrew" freeware game. Only reliable source seems to be a review in a UK PSP magazine. That ain't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick on this game, but there are so many homebrew games that make their way on to Wikipedia, and they have never (in my experience) been notable. If this game is notable, it shouldn't be a problem to find reliable outside sources. I was not able to. I was going to ask the creator, but they have been banned. If someone can, please reference them here in defense of this game. Otherwise I still completely support it's deletion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Rush Rush Rally Racing and Senile Team have both been deleted since this discussion was started. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment They shouldn't have been. >:( - Stormwatch 23:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I swear I had nothing to do with it. Someone probably noticed them mentioned above. They were both speedied. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not accusing, but I had to vent, and still have. It sure is frustrating when you carefully gather information and craft a nice article, then someone comes and erases it, saying it's not notable, when you know it is.

Here is something to consider. Just do a search for "Beats of Rage" in Google. Sure, that is no laboratory-tested, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. But it has to mean something when a homebrew Dreamcast title gets more Google results (155,000) than any later commercial release for the same system. Here are the results I got: Border Down, 103,000; Under Defeat 89,000; Karous, 71,300; Radilgy, 52,000; Psyvariar 2, 39.100.

Senile Team has only released one game thus far, but it has become very popular and gave them a solid reputation. Taking these facts in account, in my opinion, regarding them as not notable is plain ignorance. - Stormwatch 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How many of those hits are downloads or links to downloads? How many of the other games are available for free download? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A huge chunk of them, I'm sure. But this actually does not detract from my point. Consider that a fairer comparison would be with other Dreamcast homebrews (I'm not familiar with the "scenes" of other consoles). Some well-known titles: Feet of Fury, 14,900; Maqiupai, 2,680; Giana's Return, 1,790; Cool Herders, 740. Nothing comes even close. For a homebrew, Beats of Rage is incredily popular. Stormwatch 04:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete One single reference is quoted in the article. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage". --Malcolmxl5 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and all above. No notion of notability (WP:N). Giggy _U^CP 08:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CSD A7. Mike Peel 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katt Mob

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

Non-notable group, CSD tag removed by author. Page was previously deleted for non-verifiable claims of notability, which still appear. Group does not appear on Warner Bros./Reprise Records as a signed band, possible hoax? Wildthing61476 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD A7, as non-notable yet. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete along with 2nd Look At Us. No assertion of notability. 17Drew 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete No hits at all on Yahoo and Google. Also, the author has been indefblocked for a spree of vandalism related to this discussion. Blueboy96 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no reliable sources asserted and that's because there isn't any. Spellcast 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete classic A7. Don't forget the picture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12: copyvio. Changing a few sentences makes it a derivative of a copyvio, which still makes it a copyvio. —Kurykh 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autism Initiatives

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

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

Non-notable charity. Searches on Google or Yahoo didn't turn up enough reliable independent sources. Blueboy96 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This company is notable. I don't work for them, but I know someone who does. Don't delete it, or you'll get some people in just to vote in this AFD. --AutismWorker100 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— AutismWorker100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment by nom I have since discovered that this is a blatant copyright violation; the article is a direct cut-and-paste from [7], and has been tagged accordingly. Blueboy96 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Blueboy96, it is 'not' a copyvio, I removed the bits and reworded it, so don't use that guff. --Cold washed 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— Cold washed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A mere onetwo-sentence difference. Please. Blueboy96 20:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment information on the charity from the UK government here. Seems to fail notability requirements. Eliz81 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough, if it gets deleted this will be re-created (btw, this wasn't written by any employee, just a few fanbois!) --Jazzramdude 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT if this isn't speedied - no assertion of notability through independent sources, despite being around for 33-35 years (the reword now has factual errors, such as the founding date). Definite puppetry; no one has heard of it until the article was created, and all of a sudden a bunch of redlink users with no edits are voting keep? MSJapan 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close by RA Norton: "non admin speedy close based on NRHP status. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)". Finished by yours truly, Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cave Hill Cemetery

Cave Hill Cemetery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable local cemetery. Wikipedia is not a directory. No sources. --Purple hills 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close. NRHP site. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sandstein. Whispering 11:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taipei Open Source Software User Group (TOSSUG)

Taipei Open Source Software User Group (TOSSUG) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertisement Joedoedoe 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Makes no attempt to assert notability, and the only reference is the group's own website. Guinness 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not going speedy G11 because most user groups aren't in it for the money, but it is just a user group - and it's very rare that a user group is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7, so tagged. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scavy

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

Non notable charity, no quality references supplied or easily available. Only claim to fame might be meeting with British MP. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Non-notable charity, no reliable sources. You're not likely to find any, either.--Ispy1981 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete abandoned; I don't mind leaving pages when people note on talk pages that they're working on 'em, but that was in November, and it's not been worked on since. Group likely doesn't even exist anymore. --Thespian 23:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no references in the UK NewsBank archive. Some tiny small-town charitable initiative. Not surprised it bombed with a name that sounds like a skin disease. Gordonofcartoon 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Bearian 02:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moonlight Sonata in popular culture

The Moonlight Sonata in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contrary to the title, this article is little more than a list of times that an exceedingly popular musical motif has been played. A list of performances for a musical work, especially one of this level of popularity, is simply unreasonable.

The previous nomination was littered with poor arguments ("I'm fine with having pop-culture references", "Why to delete teh information"), with no response to the fundamental problem that the significance of the appearance of The Moonlight Sonata is utterly uncited for all of them. --Eyrian 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All "in popular culture" articles should be deleted. They are just messy notes. Golfcam 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More trivia crap without sources.--JForget 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Trim Heavily and merge back I am fine with having 'in Popular Culture' sections and pages, but they really need to be about the effect that such things have on popular culture, and not just lists; so the information about 'Because' is actually interesting and relevant, but that it was used on the Garfield animated show is not. About 10 things on this incredibly long list are actually notable. --Thespian 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Support cleanup and merge. Much of the content is informative. Cricket02 04:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is pure trivia, disallowed by WP:FIVE - Merge the few non-trivial ones to the main article(s) Corpx 02:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; "Background music during the "Corn Maze" comedy sketch in MTV's Human Giant: Episode 104." That say it all. WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lily Thorne

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

Nominated for CSD, but was declined, so I'm placing it here. Fails WP:BIO, with lack of references and context. Eliz81 20:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum from nominator: she is listed a music video director.

• Comment perhaps those nominated for AfD could give some indicated of the field of the subject, so people like me, who consider ourselves competent in some but not quite all subjects, would know if it is worth our while to even look. there are over 100 Afds a day.DGG (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:BIO and completely unreferenced. Guinness 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Director seems to be just starting out; very little online about her, though, and she only seems to have co-directed this one video. She needs to do a little more for notability. --Thespian 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without more. When she co-directs four videos, then we'll talk. Bearian 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Con Kafataris

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

Biography of a person which notability is unproven Joedoedoe 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. Keep per recent changes. Eliz81 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - He does seem decentley notable per WP:BIO, but there are now independent references so I will say delete. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Keep - Changed to keep per the added sources. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - 1140 hits for this name (which is unusual enough you know they're all really him), inclusing interviews on Australian Broadcasting Corporation business news shows[8] and articles about him in the Sydney Morning Herald[9]. Easily proves notability with a quick search; this should be improved, not deleted. --Thespian 00:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and reference as per Thespian. He is certainly notable as managing director of Centrebet a publicly listed company. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in Australia and plenty of sources available for a decent article. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clear notability, reliable references. Recurring dreams 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based soley on the unchallenged (but equally unreferenced) claims already made in the article that he has the highest turnover of any bookmaker in Australia and is CEO of the Centrebet Group. References would always be a welcome addition.Garrie 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable, asserted by sources in article Giggy _U^CP 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kane Raven

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

Non notable actor. Allegedly famous for a amateur TV series in Australia, but I can't see any evidence of this. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article obviously fails WP:BIO. Also no reliable sources. Finally via this link, potentially WP:COI. That ip address that I looked up is the author of the article. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there's nothing on him. And how has that Paypal malarkey stayed there for 2 years? --Thespian 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete possibly A7 speedy. Channel 31 is a community television station and the program is amateur as the article notes. There are no sources provided and none seem to be available that I can find. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete amateur / low distribution community TV only, ie does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO.Garrie 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, community TV "star". Not notable. Possible hoax too, I doubt he really has a puma. Lankiveil 08:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, completely non-notable. --Roisterer 23:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources provided despite tagging in November 2006. - KrakatoaKatie 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life line

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

This topic is not psychology, science, referenced, or notable. The neuro-linguistic programming article is more than sufficient. Eliz81 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Although I created the article, I'm not attached to it. But I don't think the AFD is well founded:

• Not being part of a subject is not a policy-based basis for deletion, I'm not sure why those are in there other than to bolster up the one word that does count. Unreferenced articles have always had a communal consensus that the best treatment is to determine if the article is reasonably capable of becoming encyclopdic, and if so, to tag it for improvement. The deletion reference tables are removed to keep the policy page short, but they were very a long standing part of policy, and actual consensus seems unchanged. Lack of references and need for improvement are listed as grounds for improvement (truly unverifiable clearly doesn't apply). Notability -- I'm not sure if "life lines" as a concept is notable. Possibly it is, possibly it isn't, which is why I have decided to comment. See below. WP:JNN - "it's just not notable" is not a good deletion debate argument. But there should be evidence of notability if sought. NLP article is enough -- This comes down to notability again. Not every concept needs its own article. If it is non-notable then that is sufficient to justify deletion. But if "life line" as a concept is notable in its own right, and more than a definition article is possible, then a separate article may be justified.
• Notability is the one genuine reason provided. Notability would require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Life lines as a concept does have significant coverage in its field, but little outside it (then again the same is true for some concepts in many fields), and the sources it's in are "reliable", being published books and writings on and offline by many independent people worldwide. These sources aren't independent of the subject (obviously; same way that sources about flavors of quark aren't usually independent of physics), but are independent of the original concept creator (ie not mere self-publication or advertizing of a concept) and have wide recognition in the field. The notability guideline doesn't specify criteria for a concept that's notable within in a field, but many specialized concepts have articles, so one must assume it's not a foregone conclusion.

Apologies for not giving a definite answer. If cites are needed that it's widely referenced in NLP, let me know, I can probably look that up. For reference, life lines are also known as "safety lines" [10][11]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Has been flagged for verifiability since November. That's plenty of time and still there are no sources (although if sources were added, then I'd reconsider based on what the sources say). Guinness 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete current contents, then make a redirect to Lifeline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasSpeedy delete, incurably spammish. Pascal.Tesson 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urban gorilla

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

Advertising Joedoedoe 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant advertising.--Targeman 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and not even good advertising. Jauerback 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete this spam, please. Argyriou (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G11: blatant advertising. Eliz81 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this advert. Bigdaddy1981 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatant advertising. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam for a club night. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Night club? ;-)--Targeman 23:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, if it were an actual club it might have some notability, this is just a night when the same people are usually there. And according to the article it only happens bi-monthy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, you're right, didn't notice that before. :-) Wow, this advert sucks even more now that I've re-read it. --Targeman 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Eventspam. Acroterion _(talk) 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 07:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect into Buddy Holly. - 'KrakatoaKatie 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Elena Holly

Maria Elena Holly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is being the widow of Buddy Holly. I actually want to redirect and merge to that article, but since some people have done a lot of work, I decided to bring it here first. So, "Listen to Me", "Think It Over" and tell me what you think. Clarityfiend 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect, as per nom. Jauerback 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge per nom. A 3-4 sentences summary for the information collected in this article should suffice. Eliz81 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, You are right a lot of people have done a lot of work on this article. Mrs. Holly is notable on her own merits. She has been in charge in making sure that Buddy Holly's legacy is kept alive in such activities as the Buddy Holly Music Festival in Lubbock [12]. If anything the article should be expanded. The article has been the subject of vandalism of those who "hate" her in various occasions. [13]Therefore, please be careful that this is not a ploy to have her article eliminated. Tony the Marine 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Curses, foiled again! I must report to my masters, the WP:CABAL, the Illuminati and, last but by no means least, WillyOnWheels, that their carefully disguised first step to world domination has been exposed. Clarityfiend 22:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect a brief summary as noted to Buddy Holly. I'm sure she's had the odd Sunday newspaper feature profile and such, but she isn't independently notable -- only for being the keeper of her ex-husband (for one year!) legacy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - another situation of prescribed notability due to relationship. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above, doesn't seem to be notable other been the wife of Buddy Holly.JForget 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. - KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abe F. March

Abe F. March (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person is not notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. As well, the article was created, it seems, by his son in seeming violation of WP:COI. Nondistinguished 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I don't think he fails notability criteria (involved in major international event, author of non-trivial book, founded a major business...) but the article suffers from WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues. Is WP:PROF being cited because he's listed as a 'Middle East Expert' on a website? Otherwise, I'm not sure those criteria apply. Hopefully someone can fix the article up. Eliz81 20:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The book is pretty trivial. PublishAmerica does not publish non-trivial books, I'd say. --Nondistinguished 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • He also has not founded any major company. I don't know where you came up with that. --Nondistinguished 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It was in his wikipedia page (I was assuming that it was correct information, a makeup company in Lebanon). I don't know what to make of these self-published books, I was going by the fact that it's on sale at major internet retailers and reviewed at Amazon. I struck the non-trivial remark. Eliz81 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression that "Beauty Magic" was a subsidiary of Holiday Magic, but I may be wrong. It's impossible to say because I don't think we can verify this particular fact as the company, if it ever did exist, would have records that would be almost impossible to access. I don't see this company as being "major" in any case. --Nondistinguished 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only book is self-published (by Publish America), and I can't see any other possible notability. Not an academic , by the way.DGG (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, subject appears accomplished, but is not notable. Only real claim would be the kidnapping but that was resolved quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 AD glossary

2000 AD glossary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, article content moved to wikt:Transwiki:2000 AD glossary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The Manual of Style, at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Format of the lists, expressly recognizes glossaries as a valid type of Wikipedia list article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not much I can add here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there's a reason we have Wiktionary. Spellcast 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as explained on the talk page this fails the transwiki the criteria for inclusion and should never have been transwikied. (Emperor 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

I didn't know that; thanks for pointing that out. Even so, I'm not sure that this is something that belongs in Wikipedia. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is possibly no ideal solution (I flagged this quite a while ago and nothing has come up) - it doesn't fit at Wiktionary (and will/should probably be deleted eventually when someone goes through the backlog) and there probably isn't a suitable wikia wiki to transwiki it to (as may have been the solution at some point in the future), so we'll just see where how things cards fall. (Emperor 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete - seems like a pretty clear NOT violation. Where not already covered there the various bits of it should probably be merged back into the articles from which they came. Artw 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a directory for terms mentioned in a tv show - Also based on WP:OR Corpx 02:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified through reliable sources, original research. This should NOT be deleted on the basis that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as glossaries are not dictionaries, nor are their material more suited for a dictionary. Please see here for a more expanded rationale why glossaries in general should not be transwikied and deleted under WP:NOT#DICT.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thing is it isn't WP:OR/WP:V as there are well established lists [14] and if anyone had flagged that angle it would have been possible to find more - I'd imagine there are lists in the Annuals as well as the various RPG sourcebooks. (Emperor 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
    • Comment I no longer believe in sacrificing the encyclopedia on the altar of hypothetical sourcing. It's nice but there has to be some point, necessarily arbitrary but certainly some decent amount of time after creation and development, when we draw a line in the sand and say, add sources (which is the article proponent's burden) or this will be deleted. People forget this is an encyclopedia, and a fundemantal aspect of an encyclopedia is that it is a tertiary source that synthesizes other sources. I look at all unsourced content, no matter how useful appearing and well written, as inherently untrustworthy and unencyclopedic; a placeholder for real content.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply comment I agree but there is no hypothetical sourcing here - there is already a source, so claims that it is WP:OR/WP:V don't apply. Obviously we can't wait forever for someone to provide sources but one was added early on in the life of this entry [15]. My statement is that if this was the issue and people wanted more sources then it should have been flagged first and others could be provided. (Emperor 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
        • Sur-reply comment That sole external link you point to (which I'll treat as if it was properly cited as a reference) is to an unreliable source. It doesn't even serve to verify the material, much less show its notability as we use that word here. The website is commercial, doesn't appear to be independent of the subject, shows no evidence of having an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so on. Furthermore the underlying material is very derivative. This is not a glossary of terms of art/jargon of a general subject matter (as most glossaries are), but of made up words in one fictional universe. Such minutia detail treatment is highly specialized material often inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. Still, if it was published in multiple reliable sources we'd have a lot more to discuss—and there's the rub—minutia from fictional universes is very rarely the subject of multiple reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cleary violating the Wikipedia is not a glossary/annex/dictionary criteria.--JForget 14:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Glossaries are not dictionaries. Citation to WP:DICT here is a complete misunderstanding of what WP:DICT says and means, making many of the comments here moot. Another way of looking at this: Many enc. articles (here and in paper encs.) provide glossaries, and we would not go around AfD'ing articles just because they contain glossaries. The only reason a page like the one at issue here exists as a separate glossary page is that it as it becomes too long for the main article, it is split out into a separate article, just like any other growing article section does. To attack Wikipedia glossaries on nominator's terribly faulty "test case" basis is to attack all articles that contain glossary materials, and even more signficantly to attack WP:SUMMARY as invalid. Furthermore in this specific case, the article fails the transwiki criteria to begin with, it does in fact have at least one cited source, and the entries are in many cases encyclopedic, providing background and history that would not be found in any dictionary entry.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)  !vote changed to Delete for reasons other than nominator's: Now that this is (finally!) focusing on policy-cognizant issues as raised by Fuhghettaboutit, et al., I'm confident swinging to the delete side, so long as the point is not lost that I think the original nomination's rationale was utter bunk. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment in support of strong keep: To quote from WP:DICT: "Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote." Glossaries are "articles...about...concepts". Glossaries are not articles about "a word or an idiomatic phrase", and fail the wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used...)" Glossaries (when properly written) clearly do the latter, not the former (any that does the former will usually be an obvious WP:NOR and/or WP:NPOV violation). I could go on, but it seems unnecessary to point out every single way in which WP:DICT simply does not apply here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment it is interesting to see another similar glossary up for deletion here - they vote for deletion but put up a well argued case explaining why the calls to WP:DICT are invalid. They vote for deletion in the end because of the lack of WP:V and if it had it he'd vote keep. This has a sorce and if that was the issue I know I can find more (relying on fictional languages and invented terms means you have to print glossaries for new readers to catch up on). Soooo this has a source (and I can find more - although they will be pretty much like the first one), does not fit the criteria for being transwikied in the first place and glossaries aren't dictionaries - I am unsure what this is violating. (Emperor 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
      • Reply comment: Indeed. What is happening here is that User:Remember the dot brought up the issue at the Village Pump (here), and got only one supporting voice, but decided to go on an AfD spree anyway, despite lack of any community buy-in for the idea. As for the two glossaries (that I know of) presently up at AfD, they might well be deletable on some other grounds, but I would prefer to see these current AfDs end with "keep" or "no consensus" and for them to be AfD'd a second time, raising actually policy-cognizant problems such as WP:V. User:Remember the dot is trying, clearly, to use these AfDs as a precendent-setter for the idea that any glossary can be zapped, and I remain concerned that if either of these AfDs close as "delete" for reasons other than the one that R.t.d. raised, that they'll be seen as precendential regardless, and despite the overwhelming yawn of unethusiasm for this "kill the glossaries" campaign at the Village Pump. I hope that the closing admins will note carefully that the vast majority of the delete !vote are "me too" parroting of the nominator, whose entire rationale has been substantively questioned, and that those questions remain unaddressed. The potential for damage here is quite severe, as some of the glossaries on Wikipedia are massively used as terminology link targets in non-list article prose. I doubt that is the case with either of the two up for AfD right now, but they were obviously selected carefully for their weaknesses. If they are to be deleted it should be in second AfDs that address those WP-policy-recognized weakenesses, not the novel and already disproven theory that Wikipedia cannot have any glossaries or that glossaries are automatically non-encyclopedic. A quick read of the 2000 AD glossary shows that it is not dictionarian at all, but provides a lot of encyclopedically-written information. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment yes I checked their contribs after they tagged it and they'd PRODed a number of glossaries (Glossary of alternative medicine, List of glossaries, Australian and New Zealand punting glossary, Automotive design terminology, Glossary of terms in Ayurveda, Glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry, Architectural glossary and Glossary of American football between 18:02 and 18:07 on 16 July. As they'd clear not bothered reading the talk page to check the issues (as there comments above show as well) I de-PRODed it (as it appears everyone has done with all the others) and Remember the dot relisted this and the punting one for AfD. As you say this might be suitable for deletion but none of the grounds stated above fit and it is a sign of something being up that the justifactions wander all over the place from "its been transwikied" to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (which as you say don't apply) to "Its original research" (which being sourced and further sourcable doesn't apply either). it'd be a shame if this was deleted (and formed a precedent for deleting other glossaries) on shaky grounds. (Emperor 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
• Delete per nom. Slavlin 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted above, glossaries do not necessarily fall under WP:NOT#DICT. They must conform with WP:V, though, and this article does not. The content appears to come straight from this site, which raises copyright questions, and certainly does not constitute an independent or reliable source, as also noted above. Sandstein 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources, and most likely a copyright violation of the linked website http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=thrill&page=phrasebook. Observe the copyright notice at www.2000adonline.com, which asserts "Judge Dredd and 2000 AD copyright Rebellion A/S 2004. All Rights Reserved". EdJohnston 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is my understanding this could be transwiki'd to wiktionary, but as a concordance, like this one for A Clockwork Orange. Atropos 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, obvious consensus reached per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent discography

50 Cent discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary content fork, little more than expansion of 50 Cent#Discography. Blueboy96 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep It is normal for an artist to have their own discography page if it can not be merged into their own biography. Spellcast 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Adds a fair bit of reasonably notable information over and above the discography in the article (which is only a listing of the albums themselves, and cannot, as noted above, be reasonably expanded further). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment-I dont mind if this article is kept or deleted. If it was to be deleted, I would have to suggest that we merge all of the information in it into the existing 50 Cent article, e.g. the release date, sales etc. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that the 50 Cent page is 41 kb too long and adding everything from the discography makes it about 60kb. That's what Category:Discographies is for. Spellcast 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Definite Keep. The information is notable, and merging would make the main 50 Cent article too long. Useight 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep discographies are encouraged. They are not content forks. No valid reason for this to even be at AFD, as merging is a talk page discussion. --JayHenry 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete an attempt to get an additional page for the same material. If presented more compactly, it would fit perfectly well in the main article. DGG (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

I noticed you said the same thing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent filmography. There is a big difference between the need for a discography and a filmography. This discography is obviously needed because it's too big to merge in the main article. But the filmography page isn't needed because it's repeating what's already said in the the main page. Spellcast 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per JayHenry. As 'Fiddy' is primarily a music artist, and a notable one at that, a separate discography is even preferable to inclusion in the main page. Eliz81 20:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Almost every notable music artist has his or hers own discography,so why shouldnt 50 cent? there is no reason for this to be up for deletion - Real Compton G 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep it is common for music artists to have a separate page for a discography, rather than cluttering the article. Dave101→talk  21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is why God invented forks. the_undertow ^talk 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep you keep it on the page when the artist has 4 cds, or 5 books; not when there's this amount of information. --Thespian 00:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No apparent (to me) reason why this is unacceptable. hateless 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 comments that the subject should be treated differently because of its 'philosophy,' it does not meet the notability standard. - KrakatoaKatie 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activeattack

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

eZine launched this month. On the talk page the author asks us to consider what they have written. Let us do so here. Personally, I say delete and wait until some enthusiastic readers of the eZine write it up. -- RHaworth 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Non notable, and I'd argue that it's impossible for it to be notable after exactly 1 issue except under highly unusual circumstances. Maybe if and when it attracts media attention, or a significant audience, or is endorsed by some company — or anything else which would make it notable. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment self-promotion is still advertising, even if the person writing it doesn't think it is; there is a conflict of interest here that I think should be eliminated, even though I am all in favour of any zine or webcomic with a fanbase that extends outside the people the authors know personally having a wikipedia entry. --Thespian 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe there is a COI. In fact, this article was tagged with a notabliliy problem instead of a COI problem in the first place because the editor believed that COI was not a problem:History Page. I would like to steer this conversation back to the original questions I attempted to present on the talk page; does the unique philosophy that activeAttack presents in itself give enough justification to consider the activeAttack article notable? Even further than that, activeAttack's stance on freedom of information resprests a lot of what Wikipedia stands for, are the rules really meant to delete such articles? How can you claim that the activeAttack article does not enrich Wikipedia as a whole? ~fourteenlines
• Delete Not notable at this time. As far as COI, it's refreshing to see someone admit upfront that they own said product - but it's still not notable. Regarding the previous opinion given: wouldn't the notability requirement precede any consideration of the value of the content? Maralia 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In response to the previous comment, I don't think a notability requirement precedes the value of the content. Shouldn't valuable content be the most important thing in an Encyclopedia? I guess the way I see it, it does not make sense to knowingly exclude content that adds value to the Encyclopedia. ~~fourteenlines

Comment — the argument is that including everything, without care, devalues the encylopaedia rather than add to it: hence the notability requirement. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe the argument that I stated above was that valuable content, not all content, should be included in the encyclopedia. I don't think anyone in this discussion has suggested that everything be included without care. For my own education though, which statement did you get that idea from? ~fourteenlines

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rena Silverman

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

Most reference links are dead, the one that isn't dead is a blog, which probably doesn't satisfy WP:RS. Books are 2 years off from publication. Delete for now, recreate after she has a longer track record. SarekOfVulcan 18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - sourcing is all to a blog, and there are no other reliable sources to be found. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. That she wrote for a senate office building makes no sense. Bearian 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established Corpx 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOLE --Southern Texas 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as redundant to content in main article. Sandstein 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Cent filmography

50 Cent filmography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obsolete page that adds nothing to what 50 Cent#Filmography already has. Maybe if the list gets very extensive, like say Robert De Niro filmography, this would warrant an article, but this is a very redundant page. Oh and 50 Cent films (a redirect) should be deleted to. Spellcast 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary content fork. Blueboy96 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep-This article should be kept because 50 Cent does not currently have a filmography page, but he has been in many films. It is wrong to list his films in his discography page, as they have been. As he acts in more films (which he is) the article will grow. Also, this page cannot be compared to Robert De Niro filmography because 50 Cent is not a full time actor. --The-G-Unit-Boss 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He's only been in like half a dozen films. Imagine how unnecessary it would be if we had a filmography page for every musician that's been in a small handful of films. Spellcast 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for much the same reason that I gave in the discography article AfD: it gives significant information beyond that which is available, beyond that which should be available, in the main article. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Significant information? You mean a release date? The 'DVDs' and 'Games' section is just repeating what's in the 50 Cent discography page. So the only "new" thing this article has is a list of starring actors (which should be kept in the actual movie page) and specific release dates (is adding "November 9" to 2005 really significant?). Spellcast 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete — huh, I must be going nuts. I could have sworn there was much more information than that in there. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains only unnecessary details about films already listed in main article. Just my 2 cents. Clarityfiend 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment-Yes, But in the article, it does not mention all of the details that it does in the filmography page. Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User above said "Keep" twice, changed this to "Comment". --- Realest4Life 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no new details on this page. It's repeating what's already said in the main page and the discography. Spellcast 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete an attempt to get yet another additional page for the same material. If presented more compactly, it would fit perfectly well in the main article.DGG (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 50 Cent is not primarily an actor, and there's no way to predict whether in the future he will warrant his own separate filmography a la De Niro. Until that time comes, his film career is better off being summarized in his main biography. Eliz81 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It shows the details of the movies and as 50 Cent stars in more movies the page could be expanded and show more info.it also gives significant info which isnt shown in the main article. - Real Compton G 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What "significant" info are you referring to? Spellcast 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, compilation of information easily obtained by clicking through the wikilinks to the film page. It's one thing to have a list, it's another thing to add irrelevant informatino (like release date and co-stars) just to make it look more important than it is. --Dhartung | Talk 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge- as far as it is not a big page it's best to merge the whole thing with his discography and the discussion is down. 97 Football 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- It shouldn't be merged to his as discographies don't include film information per definiton of the word, see wikt:discography.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. --- Realest4Life 19:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with 50 cent article's Filmography sub-section which only contains the link to the afd articleJForget 14:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This filmography is nowhere near the filmographies of that of John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Robert De Niro. At this point in the actor's career, a branched off filmogrpahy is not warranted and should be merged back into the main article. --Nehrams2020 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging the whole thing the way it is now would make the 50 Cent filmography section bulky. This filmography table is adequate enough and is standard in many bios. We'll be better off just deleting the page. Spellcast 10:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment-There is too much information in the 50 Cent Filmography page for it to be merged into the 50 Cent page. Some would say that the extra information is not needed and can be seen on the films page but his would also go for his discography page whos Afd was closed and the article was kept. --The-G-Unit-Boss 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filomena Hanas

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

This is a hoax, together with this user's other two articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Świętokrzyskie traditional medicine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tęgie Dziewice Świętokrzyskie. This name's only web presence is on a porn forum. The links are bogus. Targeman 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if this is real, this person fails WP:MUSIC by a mile. A grand total of four Yahoo hits and nine Google hits. Blueboy96 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above - doesn't hit WP:MUSIC or WP:V. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax or hopelessly NN. Definitely does NOT match WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Are User:Zd123as, User:83.27.31.131, and User:Russian Pop connected in any way, or is it just a coincidence? Bearian 02:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a joke regarding moonshining as per Świętokrzyskie traditional medicine. greg park avenue 17:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as there is no web links or Google hits mentionning that make mention of Filomena Hanas, other then the other afd nominated article Tęgie Dziewice Świętokrzyskie.JForget 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tęgie Dziewice Świętokrzyskie

Tęgie Dziewice Świętokrzyskie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax, together with this user's other "contributions": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Świętokrzyskie traditional medicine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filomena Hanas. This purported band's name translates as "Fat Virgins from the Swietokrzyskie region". The links are bogus. Targeman 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, G3 My suggestion--do it now. Obvious hoax. Editor has been warned; came very close to reporting this guy to WP:AIV after seeing his other "contributions." Blueboy96 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'll agree with the speedy delete - this is unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC and, if the nom is right, is rather on the unnecessary side. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment considering the peculiarities of band names, why is that name obviously a hoax?DGG (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The name in itself is not necessarily a hoax, I just translated it FYI. However, given that "fat virgins" and "frigidity" appear in 2 of this guy's 3 articles,and that Filomena Hanas's Ghits point to sex forums may give an idea about what kind of contributor we're talking about. --Targeman 20:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a joke regarding moonshining as per Świętokrzyskie traditional medicine. greg park avenue 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as obviously a hoax, as there is 0 Google Hits other then the 2 afd article related.--JForget 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Deprivation Disorder

Emotional Deprivation Disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTE as the WP:OR creation of a single individual Anna A. Terruwe, M.D, and, apparently based more upon the works of St Thomas Aquinas than any recognised medical discipline. [16] the only sources for the article are to Conrad W Baars who translated Terruwe's work into English, and his daughter, Suzzanne, and evenagelist who holds a MA in "mental heath counselling" [17]. I really doubt if this is in any way notable enough to remain as an article in an Encyclopaedia Zeraeph 18:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As synthesis of the OR of Baars. None of the references provided are from publications of any kind, just articles published on Baars' Web site. Per the lead paragraph, this is not a condition that has been recognized by any official medical body. Caknuck 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment You are misuing the criterion of WP:OR, unless you have a good reason to believe that Suzanne Baars and/or Bonnie Shayne are the primary authors. Applying your standard for OR would not allow articles on groundbreaking research.

From the opening section of WP:OR: "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position..." That seems to apply in spades here. Also "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following... It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." Articles on groundbreaking research are fine, once they draw their information from reliable, non-primary sources. Again from WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This article fails this aspect of the policy, as well. Caknuck 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The synthesis has been done by someone other than the Wikipedia author. The article is actually fairly descriptive of the theory, etc., and thus I disagree that the article is OR, unless it's also COI. But the subject is not notable, and no evidence of notability has been presented. Has anyone other than Baars and Shayne ever quoted Baars' papers? If there were references to this disorder, even to debunk it, in a psychology or psychiatry journal or textbook. this article would deserve to be kept. But the pet theory of two or three pshrinks is not, on its own, notable enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Cheers, Caknuck 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That said:

• Delete unless independent sources of information about this condition and the Terruwe/Baars theories can be found. Argyriou (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I put a cleanup-verify template. "Emotional Deprivation Disorder" has 1440 google hits (exact phrase), several of which are books. There is also a paper on Google scholar. I've notified the article's creator for more sourcing.--Victor falk 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Zero Medline hits makes me doubt this is in real medical use. Espresso Addict 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd like to point out that WP::OR does not imply self-authorship on wikipedia, rather it means that the material does not occur elsewhere in a credible reference, making the work 'original to wikipedia', literally having its origins here. CeilingCrash 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Caknuck and CeilingCrash. Bearian 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Book about the subject is written by the same authors as almost all web resources about it. Sole Google Scholar result is a dissertation about literature where it appears that the non-expert author assumed this was an accepted medical condition. It isn't. To establish notability, it would have to have been written about by third parties with a fact-checking process that would have included researching the subject (i.e., a reliable source). There are none. JulesH 08:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winnicks

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

I believe this page is a hoax, as I cannot find any references to winnicks. It may just be a regional non-notable term. Absurdist 18:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like nonsense. Even if this was true, it would likely be a non-notable regional term. Spellcast 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article has no sources and does not assert notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete would be a better option for this garbage. Jauerback 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems hoaxy. Not that this is a great reference, but it would suggest Winnicks are something else entirely! Eliz81 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jauerback. Gahhhh ... utter nonsense. Blueboy96 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in Google Books that isn't the last name of someone. Made-up but false is not the same as nonsense and is not speedy-eligible. Speedy isn't there for stuff you want to get rid of more quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Unless someone has access to the English Dialect Dictionary to prove that this word does exist, consensus obviously endorses the opinion that this is a hoax article. Even if the EDD verifies the existence of a dish with that name, the bit about how they were "often prepared in an old fashioned Fenland dwelling known as a 'Tatty heap'" & that this is a one-off edit, leads me to conclude that this was a joke, & if not deleted moved to WP:BJAODN. -- llywrch 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment'. That definition is not in EDD, nor is Tatty heap.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nonsense.--JForget 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about television

List of films about television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is a suggestion to merge this information into a category. IF anyone can come up with a good category some of these films would work with, then perhaps. However, the list should go as it is another "about" list that focuses primarily on the "existence" of television production somewhere in the film. A true film about television is going to be hard to find, but some may exist. Bulldog123 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "films about" have the inherent problems: how "about" the subject must a film be and who tells us that its at least that much? Carlossuarez46 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No way can this list be encyclopedic or maintained. IMO it fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as there is also no inclusion criteria. Does it mean it mentions television? 100% solely about television? Very arbitrary...also, bruce almighty is not "predominately" about television. So what if he works as a reporter, the show isn't about him being on TV. This list is definitely not needed, not even as a category. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listrcuft. Useight 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's an encyclopedic list in there somewhere, but it would have to be tightened up considerably to qualify. Being There? Give me a break. Clarityfiend 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - Bulldog123 previously nominated this article for deletion. The issue was discussed on the article's Talk:List of films about television, which I suggest reading. Bulldog123 never responded to the reasons for keeping. Ward3001 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — This is not what Wikipedia was intended for. If people want to catalogue the topics of movies they should set-up another wiki or a user-editable database. Cedars 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Bulldog said: A true film about television is going to be hard to find. If Good Night, and Good Luck isn't about television, then I suppose he would only consider a legitimate item on the list to be a film that explained how television was invented and the electronic specifications that make a television work. With Bulldog's logic, nothing is about anything. If there was a "List of U.S. Presidents", Bulldog would argue that the list is not legitimate because it doesn't tell you anything about the Presidents besides their names, or that the list isn't all-inclusive because the President after George Bush hasn't been elected yet. I understand that making a list about everything isn't what Wikipedia is for. But I think if you look at some of the items in List of films about television you would see that some of them, in fact, are about television. Dunnd 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Anchorman is not about television, neither are most of the movies listed there. This is pure original research. Corpx 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the list or convert it to a category. Some of the films may need to be deleted, but otherwise this is a legitimate list or category. Tworth 22:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While I enjoyed the basic idea of the list, I think that if it went further and described the TV connection in each one, it would become clear how unrelated the films are. I'm trying to remember what this is called... indiscriminate information or something... and it's an apt description here. Poltergeist is about a haunted TV set; Pleasantville and UHF are about "magical" TVs as a satire on the TV land (and to some extent, Galaxy Quest is as well); Quiz Show and "Good Night, and Good Luck" are about historical events; The Truman Show, Network and EdTV are "what if?" movies; etc. I don't know if these indiscriminate topics can be linked together by a television set. Mandsford 01:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:NOR/WP:NOT#IINFO. I remember a while ago I attempted to slightly improve this list by correcting the category from the irrelevant Category:Lists of films with features in common to the more accurate and much more relevant Category:Lists of films by topic, but two editors kept reverting it back to the wrong category. You just can't help some people. Masaruemoto 06:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Masaruemoto neglected to point out the rationale for the reverts to what he considers the "wrong category": Television is both a topic and a feature. Many Wikipedia articles have multiple categories. It's his opinion as to which is more accurate and relevant. You just can't help some people to be flexible. Ward3001 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I neglected to point out is the ignorance of the editors who reverted my corrections, in their failure to understand the fundamental difference between a feature of a film and a topic. You have just pointed that out better than I could though, thanks. Masaruemoto 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a great example of inflexibility and violation of no personal attacks policy. Ward3001 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete likely incomplete, listcruft, unmaintainable and this can be put into a category as the tag suggested in the article.--JForget 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Wilkerson

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

Apparent hoax. Google, Google scholar, Google books, and several academic databases bring up nothing about Christopher Wilkerson the philosopher. "Wilkerson's paradox" and "Wilkerson's cat" similarly bring up zero results (and appear to be plays on "Russell's paradox" and "Schrödinger's cat"). Finally, as an ip editor pointed out on the talk page, this edit is the author's only other contribution. shotwell 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No multiple, non-trivial sources asserted. Spellcast 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Targeman 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Willkersons' cat, indeed. The hoaxer also screwed up by claiming that much of his work was in letters to Bertrand Russell, but Russell is not listed as an influence or as influenced by. Herostratus 06:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence corey

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

Not quite an A7 speedy, as it does assert at least minor significance. But no sources are cited, and the article does not IMO indicate any clear notability, evne if every fact in it were well-cited. Reads like a resume or CV. Does not pass WP:BIO. Gilliam 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article as it stands is brutal, but there's notability here. Looking at WP:PROF, there's a suggestion that "an academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1." I get almost 400 Google News Archive hits on his name, and once you weed out some false positives, he's quoted in publications ranging as far back as 1984 (in Time Magazine no less). More recent quotes are from CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, et al (many stories appear to be through Associated Press). He also has a pretty damn big body of work in some prestigious journals. As the chair of a major university's virology division and the head investigator of a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases program, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, I think he's doing pretty well. Keep - but move to the properly capitalized name. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Corey is currently principal investigator of the U.S. HIV Vaccine Trials Network, head of the University of Washington’s Virology Division, and head of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Program in Infectious Diseases. He is also a professor of Medicine and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Washington." The article is written like a CV, so what it needs is to be edited, not deleted. Inevitably, full professors at major universities will have sufficient publications sufficiently cited to have made an impact on their field--otherwise the University of Washington wouldn't have appointed and promoted him. DGG (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Numerous papers in prestigious general medical journals eg NEJM, JAMA, Am J Med as well as numerous papers in high-quality specialist journals eg J Infect Dis, Clin Infect Dis, J Exp Med, Blood, J Pediatr etc etc. L Corey gets 648 Medline hits, a substantial proportion of which seem to relate to this person. Espresso Addict 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment. I'm knowledgeable on HIV research, and would be prepared to work over the article once it stabilises. Espresso Addict 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oldwindybear. Whispering 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affective Deprivation Disorder

Affective Deprivation Disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The topic seems to be the recent invention of a non-notable person Maxine Aston and has never been peer reviewed. There are only 7 entries in Google [18] two resolve to Maxine Aston's personal webpage [19][20], two resolve to postings promoting Maxine Aston's website on a non-notable MSN group [21][22] one refers to a link to a blog, as yet unindexed, promoting Maxine Aston's website [23] one refers to an index of recent updates for the same, unindexed, blog, [24] and one refers to a blog that has recently been deleted [25]. This doesn't even come close to WP:NOTE. There are plenty of citations in the article, but any that do not reference Maxine Aston's personal site are only sources for established concepts, such as alexithymia that are referred to in the course of the article. The links clearly show that, in it's previous incarnation Affective Deprivation Disorder was previously referred to as Cassandra phenomenon and, as such, was rejected from inclusion as a non-notable application of the term (which seems to have other, quite different applications, elsewhere) Talk:Cassandra phenomenon. I was tempted to request a "speedy" but as the individual who created this article seems so enthusiastic about it I felt sure it was more suitable for AFD. Zeraeph 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support deleting the article. Aston has never published any research, so is not a 'researcher' as the article claims. No graduate degree. She's not qualified to introduce new psych disorders.

This material has already been rejected by wiki editors as "Cassandra Affective Disorders", it has simply been rebranded here. CeilingCrash 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

added by CeilingCrash

More directly, the article is Original Research as the only material references are the author's web-site. 208.49.146.130 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• So if a person does not have a graduate degree, then they are not qualified to do research? I guess someone should have told Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Plato, Socrates... ~ Infrangible 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, but not in a medical field, and she doesn't have any academically recognised work at all...and APART from which, she doesn't actually CALL it Affective Deprivation Disorder on her site...she calls it Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder so that, barring verifiable sources for the presence of a Tardis in soulgany's front drive, the title alone is WP:OR--Zeraeph 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I forgot that aspect...WP:OR--Zeraeph 18:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This article is not WP:OR, unless you think that User:Soulgany is Maxine Aston. It is, however, utterly bereft of reliable, independent sources, and thus I think we should
• Delete. Argyriou (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wasn't suitable for a speedy, as theories (or diseases) aren't one of the classes for speedy as non-notable. She is certainly not yet notable as a scientist, "I achieved a first class honours Psychology Bachelors degree at Coventry University in 1999. I am currently working towards a Masters degree in Health Psychology." from her home page. [26] which also thoroughly indicates the non-notability of this proposed disorder. DGG (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::There are some wild claims going on here, firstly that I (Soulgany101 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)) am Maxine Aston, which I am not. Secondly, there is a claim that no reliable information has been cited. Although this may have been true for the precursor article 'CAD' it is not relevant now as there are many reliable sources about alexithymia and its impact on relationships, see below:

1. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/cassandra/

2. ^ Emotional Intelligence, and Alexithymia are found to be independent but highly overlapping constructs, and are inversely scored. See- Parker, J.D.A., Taylor, G.J. and Bagby, R.M (2001) 'The relationship between emotional intelligence and alexithymia' Journal of Personality and Individual Differences 30, 107-115

3. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/cassandra/

4. ^ Alexithymia is thought to affect 10% of the overall population (Linden, W., Wen, F., Paulhaus, D. L. (1994) Measuring alexithymia: reliability, validity, and prevalence. In: J. Butcher, C. Spielberger, (Eds.). Advances in Personality Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.). Alexithymia has a representative prevalence of 85% in autistic spectrum disorders (Hill, E., Berthoz, S., & Frith, U (2004) ‘Brief report: cognitive processing of own emotions in individuals with autistic spectrum disorder and in their relatives.’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34, 2, 229-235), 40% in posttraumatic stress disorder (Shipko, S., Alvarez, A., & Noviello, N. (1983). Towards a Teological Model of Alexithymia: Alexithymia and Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, 39, 122–126), 63% anorexia nervosa and 56% in bulimia (Cochrane, C.E., Brewerton, T.D., Wilson, D.B. & Hodges, E.L. (1993) ‘Alexithymia in eating disorders.’ International Journal of Eating Disorders 14, 219-222) , 45% in major depressive disorder (Honkalampi, K., Hintikka, J., Laukkanen, E., Lehtonen, J. and Viinamäki, H. (2001) ‘Alexithymia and depression: a prospective study of patients with major depressive disorder.’ Journal of Psychosomatics 42, 229-234), 34% in panic disorder (Cox BJ, Swinson RP, Shulman ID, Bourdeau D (1995): Alexithymia in panic disorder and social phobia. Comprehensive Psychiatry 36/8:195-198), and 50% in substance abusers (Taylor, G.J., Parker, J.D.A., & Bagby, R.M. (1990) ‘A preliminary investigation of alexithymia in men with psychoactive substance dependence.’ American Journal of Psychiatry 147, 1228-1230). Alexithymia is further linked with schizotypal, dependent, avoidant, and borderline personality disorders, as well as psychosomatic disorders such as migraine headaches, lower back pain, irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, nausea, allergy, hypertension or fibromyalgia (Taylor, G.J., Bagby, R.M. and Parker, J.D.A. (1997) Disorders of Affect Regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge University Press).

5. ^ Moriguchi, Y., Decety, J., Ohnishi, T., Maeda, M., Matsuda, H., & Komaki, G. Empathy and judging other’s pain: An fMRI study of alexithymia. Cerebral Cortex (2007); Bird, J., Silani, G., Brindley, R., Singer, T., Frith, U., and Frith, C. Alexithymia In Autistic Spectrum Disorders: and fMRI Investigation (2006)

6. ^ Taylor, G. J. Bagby, R. M., Parker. D.A., Disorders of Affect Regulation Cambridge (1997)

7. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/cassandra/

8. ^ Nemiah, C.J., Freyberger, H., & Sifneos, P.E., ‘Alexithymia: A View of the Psychosomatic Process’ in O.W.Hill (1970) (ed), Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol-2, p.432-33; Krystal, H. Integration and Self-Healing: Affect, Trauma, Alexithymia (1988), p. 246; McDougall, J. Theaters of the Mind 1985, p.169-70; Taylor, G.J, Parker, J.D.A., & Bagby, R.M. Disorders of Affect Regulation- Alexithymia in Medical and Psychiatric Illness (1997), p.246-47

9. ^ Yelsma, P., Marrow, S. - 'An Examination of Couples' Difficulties With Emotional Expressiveness and Their Marital Satisfaction' in Journal of Family Communication 3 (2003) p.41-62 [1]

10. ^ Winters, J., Clift, R. J. W., & Dutton, D. G. - Emotional Intelligence and Domestic Abuse' in Journal of Family Violence 19 (2004) p. 255-267 [2]

11. ^ Brackett et al - 'Emotional Intelligence and Relationship Quality Among Couples' in Personal Relationships, 12 (2005) p.197-212 [3]

12. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/

13. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/cassandra/healing.shtml

14. ^ http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/

So if there is some problem with a particular detail of the entry it can be debated in the discussion area of that entry, and altered or improved if necessary.Soulgany101 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article under discussion is not the Wikipedia article on alexithymia. The sources cited above (except for http://www.maxineaston.co.uk/) are about alexithymia, and not about "Affective Deprivation Disorder", which is what this AfD is about. So why are these sources supposed to be relevant to the issue under discussion? They do not establish notability. A Google search on ["Affective Deprivation Disorder" -maxineaston] gave only five hits. The Acronym Finder does not have this meaning for AfDD.[27] The term is a neologism for an unverifiable disorder.  --Lambiam 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I put a cleanup-verify template. The sources above should be incorporated in the article --Victor falk 21:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

comment As Zaraeph pointed out, the credible references listed only speak of alexithymia, the existence and definition of "Affective Deprivation Disorder" is mentioned nowhere except by Aston on her website.

This is precisely original research.

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position ...

Note this does not imply Aston wrote the article herself. Only that it originates here. I don't believe any reasonable defense can be made to keep this article. CeilingCrash 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • comment One small problem, none of the WP:RS above relate to, or even mention, the topic of the article! They only reference established concepts the article refers to that already have their own articles, like Alexithymia or Domestic violence not one of them refers to Affective Deprivation Disorder. If you were to remove everything that has no WP:RS you would be left with an article that did not mention it's topic at all, literally.--Zeraeph 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment I have just removed all statement that do not have a valid WP:RS (see:[28]). There is literally nothing left of Affective Deprivation Disorder let's just merge the rest into alexithymia where it belongs and delete this homemade PD. Only in doing this did I realise that somebody actually posted "Diagnostic Criteria" as though it were recognised and in the DSM, that is downright dangerous. --Zeraeph 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reposting. (Please do not corrupt the way I present my post. To repost below it, as you have done is fine.)

• Nowhere is AfDD claimed as a DSM disorder, and it is incorrect to suggest that it was.
• The article is not about alexithymia, but about relationships in which alexithymia and low EI play one contributing role only.
• Reliable clinical references have been supplied verifying that alexithymia or low-EI negatively impacts, and creates disorder patterns in relationships - see: ^[2][3][4]
• This term does not have its locus in a personality disorder or trait (as with alexithymia or personality disorders) nor to a behaviour (such as domestic violence) but has its locus in relationship. As a relational disorder (which includes clear references to relationship) it requires its own article. Soulgany101 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nowhere is AfDD claimed as a DSM disorder, and it is incorrect to suggest that it was.Soulgany101 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, and I did not suggest it was, but the inclusion of self published, homemade "Diagnostic Criteria" could easily cause people to mistake it for one --Zeraeph 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• The article is not about alexithymia, but about relationships in which alexithymia and low EI play one contributing role only. Soulgany101 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well unfortunately the only references you can provide related to alexithymia etc...you have not a single reference in accord with WP:V to substantiate the existance Affective Deprivation Disorder, the topic YOU chose for the article, let alone it's notability. I have a website, if I publish a couple of pages on Affected Credential Tenacity Disorder on each of them, that won't make it real or notable, no matter how many citations I can find for Affected, Credential, Tenacity and Disorder to create a Wikipedia article.--Zeraeph 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reliable clinical references have been supplied verifying that alexithymia or low-EI negatively impacts, and creates disorder patterns in relationships. Soulgany101 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But that doesn't verify the existance of Affective Deprivation Disorder, the topic YOU chose for the article. In fact, what you claim should either be a subsection of alexithymia or, at a push, something like alexithymia in relationships, which did not mention Affective Deprivation Disorder at all unless you could provided a published, peer reviewed source for it's existance as a recognised disorder by that name, and which would have to show proper references in accord with WP:V for every condition you claimed to be related. --Zeraeph 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• This term does not have its locus in a personality disorder or trait (as with alexithymia or personality disorders) nor to a behaviour (such as domestic violence) but has its locus in relationship. As a relational disorder (which includes clear references to relationship) it requires its own article. Soulgany101 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me the term was made up by Maxine Aston when she found out she couldn't co-opt Cassandra Syndrome to use Wikipedia as a springboard for the Google rankings of her commercially driven, self published, personal website. --Zeraeph 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment The quotations are sufficient to support articles on emotional intelligence or on "alexithymia" written from a more general perspective; I see no evidence that the terminology suggested by Ashton here has ever been used. DGG (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • comment My point exactly...and as there are already articles on emotional intelligence and alexithymia I would support merging the verifiable sections in an heartbeat. --Zeraeph 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• comment This article is an attempt to synthesize credible information about alexithymia into a new thesis, about a 'relational disorder'. Wikipedia is unmistakably clear on this issue :

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a new theory or method of solution;

It introduces original ideas;

It defines new terms;

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

In short, you can't just make cr@p up and toss it up on wikipedia. "CeilingCrash 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and CeilingCrash as OR and NN. Bearian 02:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Article now blanked by author and tagged for WP:SPEEDY as per her request, see Talk:Affective Deprivation Disorder [29][30]. --Zeraeph 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zorba (trance group)

Zorba (trance group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not clear that there exists reliable third-party coverage to build an article on. What is clear is that the creator of the page works for (or is) the band's promoter which raises serious concerns of conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent. If WP:RS can be added, keep. Otherwise, delete AND delete their other group, G.M.S.. Precious Roy 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - After a detailed search, I could not find any WP:RS's to add to the article, not even upcoming appearance press releases. There does not seem to be reliable third-party coverage to build an article on. I have serious concerns of conflict of interest. Everyone who wanted to participate in this AfD already has. Closing this AfD with Delete would be supported by consensus. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The most notable mention I could find was this source (and a MySpace link). But there has to be multiple, reputable sources so this still doesn't make the cut. Spellcast 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:COI comes into mind, though it is in itself not a reason for deletion. However, I don't find the "keep" comments convincing. —Kurykh 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - *Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs), and Achidiac (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Chidiac

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

I'm not convinced this person is notable. The article cites a few newspaper clippings that mention his name as the owner of a business. The bulk of the article is unsourced, probably self-biographical. Weregerbil 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No opinion on notability, looks borderline, but the present article is blatantly promotional in tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The article might be an autobiography or OR. Dare I say sockpuppetry? Bearian 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article, like wikipedia, is a work in progress made by people who wanted to highligh his cause. I'm sure over time the content will be improved as others get to edit more into it. More media and articles about this person will follow when he gets to edit it himself. 10:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.91.14 (talk • contribs). Strike duplicate !vote by T3smile —Travis^talk 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hi There. I am the person being written about. I've been made aware of its inclusion in Wikipedia, looked at it, toning it down and taking a few things out that I am uncomfortable with. Please do not delete, work in progress.Achidiac
• Keep - more information coming from industry peers, including content, news reports on TV, etc. Awaiting clearance for addition of further content. Definitely a person worth noting as a pioneer heralding change in the global entertainment industry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by T3Smile (talk • contribs).
• Update - this is still a work in progress aimed at highlighting this notable person. As I am new here, my studies over the next few months will complete this page as well as fill-in others as there are a lot of links to this guy that I need to verify before adding. Not an autobiography (I am female), just a great guy who did some big things to converge technology in the 90's and early 2000's.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by T3Smile (talk • contribs).

• Sorry, but must people be so rude as to ignore comments here I'm making? Doesn't help anybody, especially me by just saying "promotional" and certainly is not an autobiography. If you want to add a comment like this, please show me where it is promotional and I'll fix it. Some people might have to read wiki guidelines with regards to new people. sheesh.--T3Smile 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There hasn't been that much activity in this discussion since your last posts. In fact, I think I'm the only user to have made an edit after you. The promotional delete was accidentally deleted from the discussion before you posted your comments (this should be reflected by the timestamp and the history). It would probably be more correct to move the promotional delete comment up where it was before it was deleted. I will do that with this edit... I think it should be where it belongs. I think. -- Ben 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If you search in Google, "Anthony Chidiac" seems to be an american gynecologist that had a traffic accident. Besides this, that seems to show non-notability, the article is too promotional and biographical (you can promote someone with his biography... that's absolutely possible!). E.g.: Why is there a photo of Chidiac's parents??? --Neigel von Teighen 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts and research Neigel. I had that problem with google too - try "anthony chidiac microsoft", or go to page 2 of your search. As mentioned in article, subject ordered the removal of all media pertaining to him to ensure his privacy after media circus surrounding Bill Gates Gig. Will delete reference to chidiac's parents. Anthony Chidiac Gyno article refers to a wrongly detained individual that made news due to circumstances. Not the same "Anthony Chidiac" - Gyno is in Florida, this guy is in Australia. Realise its possible to promote subject but not intended. Documenting notary person in history is my aim, however I never wrote for an encyclopedia before. When you mention "promotional" is it because I added links to other wiki sites? Need further clarity over how its deemed promotional - give examples. Again, thanks for your time and trouble. --T3Smile 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

— T3Smile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete no notability - all mentions through those articles are trivial and dont count for notability Corpx 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep wikipedia notability quote - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" I think the fact that he pioneered the transformation of the internet cafe (as reported from reliable independent sources) and that he also scored a big gig with Bill Gates to do with his MPEG codec "transformation" work is more notable than somebodys dog being able to talk - in other words, there is more garb on wikipedia that has less notable content than this entry. This guy needs to be noted somehow, and I would be keen to see what else others can post to further support notability before making a harsh decision for deletion. I know of this guy - he's been on TV a few times here in Australia about his work - the last time I saw him on it was at christmas time. Note to others - try to look at ways to be more concise and less wordy. I'll try to help where I can. Apologies to all if the original "1st revision" was very plain and without much substance, links, and otherwise. --Rdpaperclip 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

— Rdpaperclip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - this seems like a self-promotion piece; notability is more than being quoted in a news rag, article, or being on television. What is the impact on society or culture of a given area due to their actions is what really seals the deal for me. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per all above - NN self-promoting autobiography, from what I can tell. No notable press found even on google.com.au. —Travis^talk 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Response to Travis - google.com.au "anthony chidiac microsoft" brings up Pinnacle Systems article 4th down in order, also page 2, ninth item notes from santos.net.au. This is only a quick scan from what I see. --T3Smile 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw those, but I wrote "No notable press." That press release does not fit the definition of an independent source, and a small blurb on a band's website doesn't help, either. There is a barely-readable image of a newspaper article that is apparently the source of the previously-mentioned blurb. It might be notable, but since there is no newspaper name, date, or page number, it still doesn't help. —Travis^talk 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback Travis, I am making the call to "The Age" on Tuesday to see if they can restore the archived copy of this article electronically. I have copy of the article here too and need permission from the newspaper to upload - much easier to get the Age to re-instate it electronically with Anthony's permission to do so. It was on Page 1 of the "Multimedia" Section. I can quote you the source of where the age got the information from too - Ian Naughton, Multimedia Victoria.--T3Smile 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Response to Storm Rider: sir you are brilliant. Your description on impact on society has propelled me to re-think how the introduction is worded to reflect such, and I will now edit such introduction to reflect what would hopefully "seal the deal" for you and a consensus of others. I really appreciate your comment. Bit rich though to note a deletion is necessary on my first piece of work. Again, as mentioned previously its not an autobiography the colleague is the subject of my thesis work. Thankyou. --T3Smile 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update - hello to all, I found a wad of compelling documentary, music and video evidence that I will upload to a website once I get the permission to do so. This will take time, as it has documents from WB, Jackson, Headline News, and really neat clippings in different languages. This new info prompted me to do a re-write and I hope you like it. Biggest problem I need to overcome is really getting Anthony Chidiac's permission to do so, and this discussion is really not helping as only a few people here have added any commentary worth noting about and prompting me to make relevant changes for encyclopaedic compliance. Need to remember, a lot of this guys work happened when the internet was a cloud of thought and WikiPedia wasn't even dreamed of.--T3Smile 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note- Could someone advise me how long this process takes? I need to move on to provide information on other people that link off this guy that are either stubs of (so I can get more info about), or have notable bios of as well. But it starts with this guy. If this is deleted I cannot put any more information about other Notable people in the Australian Technology Industry as my time and effort will be a waste.--T3Smile 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • It usually runs for a week. If an administrator comes along and decides that "it's over"... Then it's over. -- Ben 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dear Wikipedians, thanks for adding me. There were over 1200 articles written on my career achievements and I have them stored for my daughter to reference when she is older. I would agree to such material being used, scanned, YouTubed, and added so long as part or all of my entry here on Wikipedia is locked out to vandalism. I know of only one of the two or three that have written about me here. Please make contact with me by messaging me for this material. I have viewed some of my other colleagues and was shocked to see such vandalism being made. One such example - Peter Andre intro was edited to say that he was a bisexual. Laughable but seriously defamatory. Glad to see "guardians" keep them clean, but I would prefer part of this entry to be locked. Thankyou --Achidiac 11:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment added a few more pics of the cafe concept and sent message to T3Smile regarding: "History making DVD" - Need to get Microsoft Corp approval for a 30 second snip only - wont be a problem considering over 2000 given away at the Expo. Headline News Video from sources to be posted on YouTube after T3Smile gets approvals and linked to this article. 9am with Dave and Kim TV show may publish video report or may give approval to publish on YouTube. Note to T3Smile and others - keep looking for the newsworthy stuff that makes people giggle - note the entry I made on the challenge I had before we opened the internet cafe concept - quips and controversy was quite amusing and likely a better read than bignoting (yawn). I wont be back for a few weeks as I have family commitments. Wishing you all the best and when I get back can write more concisely about the 1980's Digital Audio Editors that were out there before ProTools (Atari and Amiga Variants that used the 680x0 chipset).--Achidiac 13:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article fails WP:NOR, and the subject isn't notable. Also fails WP:BIO. What is really disturbing is that the subject himself is editing the article in violation of WP:AUTO. GreenJoe 14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nigel and these searches which yield press releases and trivial mentions. Addhoc 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment I'm really disappointed that some people here cannot read, have made the subject of this article upset, and will soon make the Student in question that has continued to evolve the article very upset as well. Addhoc, thanks for the thoughts, but even the article itself talks about the articles written on the subject were pulled from view at the subjects request due to the negative repercussions and we're really counting on having the subject himself authorise the re-release of such material in order for us to refer to, and utilise, such works. That, in itself, would be quite worthy and in fact, newsworthy if it can be done. Gee he's got stuff from MJ and Gates and a phenomenal load of content - schematics of the ADAP II, history of digital audio editing etc. etc. that deserves to be here and we can collaborate and debate on. I have known in the past for such article work on wikipedia to spurn great educational content to magically appear from other sources...leaving this article on for only a few days before deletion wont hit the 15,000 people that were there at the DVD Gig, nor will the 11 million people who viewed the TV shows comment further about it. In time, this article will have succinct definition, for now its got a great set of legs.--Rdpaperclip 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - suggesting that other editors can't read isn't helping. Addhoc 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Article on vunet.com on Gates Gig trivial mention
  • MediaLine News - source RDVD Council trivial mention
  • Front Page "Multimedia" Section Article in "The Age" trivial mention
  • Headline Article in "The Age" trivial mention and virtually the same content
  • Another Article in MMV News less than a trivial mention
  • Pinnacle Press Release on Gates achievement press release
  • Herald Sun Article on Cafe concept semi-trivial reference
  • The Age Article on o3 Cafe Concept same story
  • Picture of Jetseat Area in Cafe Concept picture
  • Parliamentary Debate - Hansard Paper with transcript of first ever Parliamentary Webcast, 11th May 2000 trivial mention
• comment really appreciate the comments and time you have placed in your thoughts here addhoc. I acknowledge the sources are weak but that could be solved by asking me/community to dig up more sources and/or publish, which is what is best for this article (put up a notable source message not a deletion message to start with). Deletion is a last resort option, not a first resort one. Please allow this encyclopedia to be able to note other computer pioneers that dont actually reside in America. Don't forget, the bionic ear was an Australian Invention and Australia does have some formidable talent in the field of I.T.--Rdpaperclip 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A NOTE FROM SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE: Look, I'm really sick and tired of wallys that all they want to do is degrade people trying to give back something to the global community as part of their background work by writing in here for free. I see none of the people that added their delete recommendation have done really anything to change the way we do things in society and neither do any of the initial people that recommended this article (which was only a few lines long at the time) for deletion offer any assistance or advice to the authors as to how to satisfy the wikipedia guidelines (read:guidelines). So could someone please advise the two or three authors how to get all this material about me off this site if people here intend to denigrate and defame this entry in this "marked for deletion" page. GreenJoe, you are probably more disturbing to just berate new people wanting to contribute to the greater community, your comments completely unfounded and you most certainly offended me. A budding University Student in a minority group was just trying to get some great material to pass and achieve her Masters (why dont you read the authors profiles?) If I wanted to correct others to keep an article about me factual and something I am comfortable about letting the world know than it is MY RIGHT to do so. It also makes mention of such in WP:AUTO. Now, even the subject of this article thinks the article may not seem appropriate here if w@nkers that interpret their own set of rules derived from their own head degrade people trying to achieve literary outcomes and become contributors, bringing information about culture and other information not on this site that is worthy of addition. if you want to comment or vote, then a better explanation as to why is required, or better still, you could edit and make the article noteworthy or encyclopaedic. Likely will take you less time to edit and make it conform than to degrade newcomers on their first try at this. I will recommend to the Wiki Admin that all one liner type 'votes' be disregarded as per deletion policy that does not look at this process as a collation of votes but a collective reasoning. Two words is not a reason. I know another two words people can say to you too. Thankyou.--Achidiac 17:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to contribute to Wikipedia, you have to learn not to take it personally. You're just not-notable, and an article on you doesn't merit inclusion. Also your writing WILL be edited mercilessly. See also WP:OWN. Now get over yourself. GreenJoe 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable biography which has an apparent conflict of interest. Miranda 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment GreenJoe, you are completely out of line in your behavior here. Wiki admins, please omit and suppress this guy from taking part in this discussion about deletion. The further he adds damaging and degrading comments the more it sends this user encyclopaedia into disrepute. The person that is the subject of such study has the right to voice his opinion as much as everyone else does if someone wants to write about his notability and I strongly support his viewpoint. As for editing merciliessly, that would be a good thing as editing mercilessly versus deletion are far different things, and there is always reversion to previous versions if others disagree with such editing, but the guy still has encyclopaedic "notoriety" (bad word, but who else do you know got a gig with Bill Gates? Did a remix for a Michael Jackson hit that sparked artists to record and edit digitally, and Uses airline seats to change the way we view the internet cafes?) . By editing merciliessly versus deletion, one means that the community can add opinion to the slant of such article. From a WP:COI point of view I have viewed edits made by subject himself and they seem to be of a negative slant towards himself and he takes out pompous and frivolous information, adds "near tragedy" and riveting material as to how the events occurred so its hardly writing as if conflict of interest. If the guy wanted his biography up here he would have written it himself on his user page and then asked the community if there was any notoriety there. As it stands, I initiated such article, had support from a student who was writing her thesis on Australian pioneers of computing, and invited comment and debate for such. Its simply not a deletion but a cleanup and more notable sources should be dug up.--Rdpaperclip 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep - I know of this guy. I thought he was dead or something. Great read. Needs more sources but on reading this section it looks like they will be provided in good time. Very much enjoyed the "challenges" section. Can be edited some more. Credit goes to the newbie that did most of the editing.--220.237.180.4 06:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

— 220.237.180.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Conflict of interest, non-notable, spawning likely sockpuppetry. I don't know anyone else who got a gig with Bill Gates etc etc, but from the looks of the sources neither do the media (whose publishing is the only thing that matters) either. Calliopejen1 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So many comments. I'm deeply disappointed that my first article noting an Australian pioneer is met with such censure and really nasty comments from people that do not live in Australia, except one person here I think. Note to Calliopejeni - The sources are major newspapers and publications in Australia, and there are a few American sources there too. I logged in today and my front page was about domenico selvo, who is arguably a foundation layer for the republic of venice. Dont see any news articles about him and a lot of the content is hearsay translated through stories.--T3Smile 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• article help please - I've stepped away from it for a day and I don't really like the intro of it. I feel it sounds like he is the best thing since sliced bread, where in fact he is an Australian computer pioneer, "got a gig with bill" (as per comments) did big things with big artists in the digital audio domain by desiging a digital editor pre ProTools, and transformed the internet cafe with a real-life example of how a licensed bar, club, "airline" chair seating converges to encourage not defeat social interaction. Does anyone have thoughts on such? Please don't delete, I just need more guidance as to how to write it better. --T3Smile 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep great entry for a 1st timer. refs on notability weak but sufficient. cleanup necessary - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.197.161 (talk • contribs).

— 203.171.197.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete The article appears to be an autobiography or self-promotion. Brianga 09:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe I heard about Anthony from the Stan Mitchell Interview on 3AW. The quote you put in this article under "Challenges" made me remember such, but you didn't note your source to this information in the entry. I believe that is why some people here are quoting autobiography/self-promotion. Most of the information here was covered in that interview, however you would need to keep to the facts of that interview unless there are other sources, and again you will need to quote them. This interview I believe took place in 2001, and it piggybacked the Bonacci & Wood Interview prior to the Bill Gates Extravaganza. Would it be worth mentioning such interview as a reference? I think people here are trying to establish source of all this information, and though the author(s) here are new to this, if you don't mention your main source of all of the information the whole article smells like a rotten fish. For the people outside of Australia, Stan Mitchell's Radio Show on 3AW is a talk show and made the radio station the no.1 most listened to in Melbourne/Australia. --220.237.180.4 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice timing. :). Is there a transcipt of this around somewhere? Please don't put "keep" on two comments... It tends to make people think that you are trying to stuff the ballot box. I'm striking the keep. -- Ben 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in the article, fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Tello

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

Not quite an A7 speedy, as it does assert at least minor significance. But no sources are cited, and the article does not IMO indicate any clear notability, evne if every fact in it were well-cited. Reads like a resume or CV. Does not pass WP:BIO. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete article mentions Emmy wins but doesn't elaborate further (I'm guessing these are local Emmys). No sources either. Weak delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.- Gilliam 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN cable TV executive. Caknuck 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has been mentioned reasonably detailed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, here. That's a reliable source to give him some notability. The article does give an idea of the importance of his role on TV. (Which is one of the WP:BIO requirements)--Kylohk 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Thornborough

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

This person does not appear to be notable per WP:BIO. Nondistinguished 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Book Company.

• Delete unless info from reliable sources is added to teh artilce to establish notability and passage of WP:BIO. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO miserably. Jauerback 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable author. DGG (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No basis for establishing notability. Uranometria 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - fails WP:BIO, not notable. - KrakatoaKatie 09:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Weihmayr

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim towards notability is that he was nominated for parliament in Canada (and failed), which is not enough by established standards. Further, some military decorations (not quite a clear case). Press coverage given is local to London, Ontario. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neither the Canadian Forces Decoration nor the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal are important decorations. The former is awarded to nearly any Canadian service member who makes it 10 years without coming up on charges and the latter was handed out to officers & senior NCOs liberally. Subject wasn't even "nominated for parliament" per the nom; he failed even to win the nomination to run in a by-election from his party. Any time an article contains a line like "Weihmayr is included in Wikipedia as a result of local media controversy...", it sends up the "reaching for notability" red flags. Oh, and considering the primary author is User:Otweihmayr, we probably have WP:AUTO issues here too. Caknuck 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the referenced decorations are so lacking of merit, why are there Wikipedia articles about them? Caknuck's use of the word "liberally" is original research or opinion. --12.156.196.130 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That the decorations are notable doesn't imply that people who received them are notabe too. --B. Wolterding 07:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Good Book Company

The Good Book Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This particular publishing company does not appear notable per WP:ORG. It is apparently being supported by authors who are connected with the company in seeming violation of WP:COI. Nondistinguished 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Thornborough

• Delete Fails WP:CORP miserably. Jauerback 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above; no real cites at all. Bearian 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Search results on the web are either christian book sale catalogues or directory pages. Neither of them are secondary sources, hence fails WP:CORP.--Kylohk 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As it doesn't satisfy the CORP criteria and also fails the WP:V criteria.--JForget 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to Tribhuvannagar as misspelling. ●DanMS • Talk 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribuvannagar

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

Had prod'd and it was removed: Unsourced, unorganized article which promotes Web site www.merodang.com. Gilliam 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and close Towns are inherently notable. I have redirected to Tribhuvannagar, which was the identical article, and rewritten it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I keep hearing people say 'towns are inherently notable', but I still can't find the policy that says that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist -- in fact I'm sure it does, because I think I saw it once, but I haven't been able to find it recently. Please direct me towards this policy, thanks. Spazure 06:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cowbelles 2: Back to the Dairy

Cowbelles 2: Back to the Dairy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, variation on already deleted article Cow Belles 2: Back to the Dairy, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mild keep: This appears to be a sequel film to a notable film, but notable actors. Tiggerjay 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete This was already deleted previously. Uncited. Tiggerjay 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Crystal balling. Entirely uncited. --Yamla 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the kind of cowbell we need more of. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced crystal-ballism. Acalamari 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Welwyn Garden City. Not even an assertion of notability, other than being a high school. Sr13 07:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanborough School

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

Delete No claim to notability is made in the article, nor is it inherent from the article Jack1956 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This is fails WP:N and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In line with hundreds of other retentions of high school articles. There are vast numbers of Wikipedians who think that notability is inherent in high schools. It is disruptive to raise this issue for about the 2,000th time, and users who do so should be subjected to penalties. Golfcam 21:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No claims to notability (no content at all other than 1 sentence and a link), and high schools are not inherently notable from what i've seen. I have talked to a few WP editors at a messageboard I frequent and they have told me that WP has started to crack down on schools being kept just because they are schools. Chuck Quizmo 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Not notable, no useful content. Cedars 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability + no content is a no-no. Corpx 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Welwyn Garden City, unless a claim of notability (and some content) can be added and supported. Alansohn 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Welwyn Garden City at the suggestion of Alansohn and per the WP:LOCAL legacy. Yamaguchi先生 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, per consensus below that the criteria of WP:BK are not met, and by extension of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. Sandstein 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Ark to Alpha Centauri

First Ark to Alpha Centauri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a notable book per WP:BK Nondistinguished 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad

Comment: See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahad Radius

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - oh dear, it's published by PublishAmerica. That says it all, really. The one review is a passing mention in a news-clip column, and that's about it. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: He's had coverage on Radio, Newspapers and Television across Asia, Europe and North America in English and in Bengali. His residency in the UK, origination from Bangladesh and publication in the United States, gives him ample leverage to propagate his books across the four corners of the world. That is "significant" coverage in my estimation.[31] Gilgamesh007 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Book of very little to no impact, with the only thing resembling a reliable source being a single paragraph in a Guardian column from a year-and-a-half ago. Not even close. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity publication from a vanity press. Edward321 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Worth Keeping His book had a full page feature in the popular UK national The Muslim Weekly, with a circulation of 40,000 copies [32]. It is an established source because that was where I first read about the author's works. His book won him awards on TV [33]

Xcalibur2 09:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: According to local council website, the book "became an Amazon top 10 bestseller". The book was reviewed in the local press and per the scanned newsreport from Xcalibur2, received an award from a television channel; appeared on BBC local radio; written about in The Guardian, Muslim Weekly and numerous Bengali language newspapers in the UK. → AA ^(talk) — 10:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, something really strange must have happened for an "amazon top 10 bestseller" to drop to sales rank 1,705,684 so quickly![34] It's also quite miraculous that such a best-selling book went unnoticed by the New York Times Review of Books and similar mainstream publications. --Itub 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Itub, please remember to assume good faith in absense of clear evidence when responding to other editors views. I have just put forward my views based on the evidence presented without making any judgement calls (and I would not care if the article was kept or deleted). → AA ^(talk) — 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per user AA. Sales ranks on Amazon yo yo from hour to hour, day to day. A book ranked at #3,500,000 today can rise to #10,000 tomorrow if a 100 copies get bought in a go. Keep in mind also this novel was released in 2005 when it was at the height of its purported best-selling marketing campaign. Uranometria 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How in the world can a town-council website be reliable for what is or isn't a top-ten Amazon.com bestseller? Are there any other sources which indicate this? If not, I'd say that this line of reasoning needs to be contextualized as dubious at best. --Nondistinguished 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point on why a local government website is not a reliable source. It's not a site dedicated to reviewing Amazon top tens but one would presume, they presented the facts regarding this book as they were at the time - but I'll leave it to the closing admin to determine whether it is or not. → AA ^(talk) — 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You outline exactly why it is dubious. Maybe the lackey writing the copy accidentally reported it as a top-ten book, maybe somebody misread the rankings. Who knows? The problem is that whenever there is a single source for a claim, you shouldn't go with the claim. I find it very questionable that a PublishAmerica book would become an Amazon.com "best-seller" and there would be no mention of it on their website. They're very much into self-promotion, after all. --Nondistinguished 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:BK. NN book. --Ragib 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. - Arman Aziz 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apart from the strong numerical consensus indicating that there is insufficient coverage of the subject and his ideas by reliable sources, it should be noted that the subject being a role model, while laudable, is not grounds for inclusion under any of our guidelines and policies. Sandstein 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Ahad

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

This person is not notable per WP:BIO. He is mostly going around the internet trying to promote his ideas and his science fiction writings. I believe that many of the contributors are connected to the subject and so the article may be representative of a conflict of interest as well. Nondistinguished 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahad Radius and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ark to Alpha Centauri

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Does not pass WP:BIO as either an author or a scientist. His published book comes from a vanity press, and his "scientific contributions" have recieved neither significant coverage nor peer review. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as Arkyan mentions, there's no outside references - a few from around his home town, from the looks of things, but they're not very exciting and the scientific stuff seems to be pretty well unrecognized. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - How many Muslims do we know into science and creative fiction? I'd rather guys like him serve as a role model to his community than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing. He has 33,000 website hits on his bio page: [35] and a fan club of 3,500 people on Myspace[36], is well respected as an up and coming science fiction writer. He passes on professorship and his discoveries have been recognised by his British Astronomical Association and independently published on various sites. I say give him a chance. Uranometria 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this argument comes too close to I like it to be a reasonable justification for keeping the article. --Nondistinguished 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the British Astronomical Association has nothing about this person on their website: [37] -- Nondistinguished 21:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• His letter of October 2005 is archived in the Journal [38], where he cites his constant (-6.0) and radius (at c. 14000 AUs). That had to have gone before a papers secretary, academic referee and the Journal editor before publicising. He further cites Professor Roger Griffin at the UK Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, for his academic verification [39] Uranometria 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Having a letter published in a periodical does not make someone notable enough to have an article featured about them on Wikipedia, regardless of how many people looked over it. This isn't Physical Review Letters, here. This is the journal of an amateur astronomy club. --Nondistinguished 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Journal of the British Astronomical Association" is "the voice of amateur astronomy in the UK" Full papers are refereed, but according to its for contributors, the letters to the editor are not. When others start using the term, then there will perhaps be a basis for an article. WP does not exist to encourage role models. DGG (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP does not exist to encourage role models. Since only the more distinguished people and higher achievers of a particular discipline get noted on WP, then their inclusion on the encyclopedia acts as a role model to encourage others aspiring to achieve similar feats. Uranometria 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Worth keeping - I came to know the author from his two published books. He does self promote a fair bit, but then when you're with a publisher like Publishamerica I suppose you have to :)

As someone said on another forum, there's 30 distinct Google hits for "Ahad's constant" and 65 distinct Google hits for "Ahad radius", so it's not like he's doing the marketing all by himself. Astronomic discoveries are always named after their founders: Roche Radius (credited to Edouward Roche), Chandrasekar Limit (Subramanyan Chandrasekar), Oort cloud (Jan Hendrick Oort), so on. Perhaps the subject's bio needs toning down in text so as to not appear he's "over promoting himself" contray to wiki policy and a separate page added for the Radius and Constant on one article? Xcalibur2 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Amateur scientist notable for a concept which has not been published as an article in peer reviewed journals, and which thus fails WP:SCI. The person fails WP:BIO. No barrier to having an article later if his work receives reognition. Edison 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of reliable sources that establish notability.

• "How many Muslims do we know into science and creative fiction? I'd rather guys like him serve as a role model to his community than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing." - What is that supposed to mean? Corpx 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• It means he is noted in his community for his work. If you visit the links on his page you will see he has been recognised by the High Commissioner of Bangladesh (his country of origin) on an internationally aired TV show and his bio sits quite legitimately on a number of international sites. That makes him notable and accomplished on objective notability tests, though he may not satisfy WP policy, which dare I say it, is very subjective and open to abuse. If he never went to school, was deaf, dumb and blind BUT received a knighthood from the Queen, he'd be noted and listed on WP. Indeed, if I look at the category "British Muslims" on Wikipedia, I see all the terrorists and suicide bombers listed on that page who are deemed notable per WP:BIO. Just an observation. Uranometria 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• No, I meant your generalization of muslims as people "than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing" Corpx 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Arkyan. Eusebeus 11:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even having a publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which isn't the case here) is not sufficient for notability. There are millions of people who publish. To be notable, the work has to have significant impact. And having fans on MySpace is not sufficient either! --Itub 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sir Howard Newby, the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council, said that applications for Physics, Mathematics, Engineering and Chemistry degree courses had fallen by 30% in recent years. He added that this is a common problem throughout much of the world. John Campbell Brown, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, uses magic in his talks to attract students to study astronomy and physics at the University of Glasgow. Any article on wikipedia that encourages young people to study science is in the public interest and should be kept. shelagh 07:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a motivational guide/tool Corpx 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is motivational:

• "On Wikipedia, there are no required topics and no one is setting assignments. That means that anyone can find part of the encyclopedia they're interested in and add to it immediately (if they can do better than what's already there). This increases motivation and keeps things fun."
• "Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

• Wikipedia encourages as well as motivates people to contribute by stimulating interest, if a spin off of that interest leads to studying the subject matter further, then it is in the public interest -- and it should be fun. shelagh 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• You are quoting somebody's essay Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. That essay really means nothing Corpx 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• In which case, I would like to recommend the article Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great for deletion. shelagh 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Definite Keep: It would appear that the author has crafted a tale of interstellar travel worthy of enjoyment by the next couple of generations. The moment when the first New Earth is discovered in the next decade or two in the Centauri stars, people will want to build that kind of ark [40] because the science around it is so compelling and impeccable. Gilgamesh007 11:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Definite delete. I don't see the slightest sign of actual notability or of anything resembling reliable sources arguing said. And most of the keeps seem to mistake an online encyclopedia for a motivational tool instead of addressing the actual issues in question. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• MathWorld, a critical education tool, was an early example of useful web sites for education. Eric Weisstein, the author, originally started it as “Eric’s Treasure Trove of Mathematics.” He spent years collecting and writing entries for what would eventually become a highly regarded reference encyclopedia.

"Wikipedia and PlanetMath have solved the development and marketing costs by leveraging their unique organizational structure. Contributors are motivated in many ways to help improve the projects: sometimes for recognition, sometimes out of gratitude, sometimes for the challenge, and usually with a commitment to the community they are building. The work gets produced and the proof is visible for all to edit."

Without motivation, there would be no articles, no users, no discussions and nothing to delete. shelagh 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are over 100,000 members of the Planetary Society. I suspect it is similar for the British Astronomical Association. He not an officer for either organization, nor has he won awards, nor does he appear to even have had an article published - which argues strongly against the notability of his purported discoveries. Edward321 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Planetary Society was founded in 1980 and is dedicated to inspiring the public with the adventure and mystery of space exploration.

The British Astronomical Association was formed in 1890 and has an international reputation for the quality of its observational and scientific work. shelagh 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Worth Keeping his noticeability is not only confined to astronomy and spaceflight. He was the first Bangladesh born author to successfully publish a mainstream fantasy novel into the worldwide arena via a US publisher [41]Xcalibur2 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• This claim is basically false. In fact, we have an article on the subject: Bangla science fiction that shows how false it is. --Nondistinguished 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unless you can show which author and which publication on that page reached a "worldwide arena" with their mainstream fantasy novel, it would appear that Ahad's claims are true. Also keep in mind that the majority of fiction listed on that page is from bygone eras, prior to the advent of online bookstores, thereby limiting their "worldwide" reach - even if they had been published via a US publisher.
• This comment is essentially an original research question and so is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The claim is that the Wikipedia article on Bangla science fiction is not representative of a world-wide reach, but I see no indication of this from either the sources or the text itself. --Nondistinguished 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, are there ANY independent sources that support this claim? The "reference" is from the publisher's own site, and a third party reference showing Ahad is the "first" one is necessary to support this claim. --Ragib 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Based on the scanned news report above from Xcalibur2 (received an award from a television channel; appeared on BBC local radio; written about in The Guardian, Muslim Weekly and numerous Bengali language newspapers in the UK), he passes all the general notability criteria in WP:N. → AA ^(talk) — 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 09:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's another ref to him in the local news [42] and The Muslim Weekly. → AA ^(talk) — 10:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Couldn't find out any mention of the "constant" in any peer reviewed scholarly work. Awards from local TV channels are not proof of notability. Once we debunk these two claims, the bio fails WP:BIO, and WP:N --Ragib 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Channel S, Bangla TV and NTV aren't "local" TV channels by any definition of the meaning. All 3 on which his TV appearances were made and awards presented, together reach a global audience. Uranometria 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And so? As a regular viewer of NTV, I see thousands of people getting this or that award. This by itself doesn't assert any notability. As for being "presented award from Bangladeshi High commissioner" etc. thousands of people (including myself) have received awards from the President, the Prime Minister and other important people of Bangladesh Govt. That, by itself, doesn't make any of these thousands of people notable. --Ragib 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And scores of people win the Nobel Prize each year. Are they all notable? Don't take this personally, I'm just going by what I see. This debate could go on forever by the looks of things... Uranometria 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I agree with Ragib. The award in itself is not notable, so it does not establish notability just by receiving it. But it is just one additional item in the "significant coverage" criteria at WP:N.

1. "Significant coverage" - multiple TV channels with EU coverage; multiple local Bengali newspapers; BBC local radio; national weekly magazine; The Guardian. This would seem to be significant coverage
2. "Reliable" - yes they are all reliable
3. "Sources" - multiple secondary sources
4. "Independent of the subject" - yes

→ AA ^(talk) — 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:"All amateur astronomers are equal, but some amateur astronomers are more equal than others" Would this article be up for deletion if Abdul were American? Thomas Bopp has no claim to notability but his article isn't up for deletion. shelagh 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Did Ahad do anything near as famous as discovering Comet Hale-Bopp? --Nondistinguished 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comet Halle-Bopp was a flimsy piece of light show that briefly appeared in the night sky, then faded like a firefly along with hundreds of similar objects seen in the last few centuries of recorded astronomy. We shalln't be seeing its return again for the next 2,000 years. Amongst a few notable things that Ahad has done, is he's drafted the first interstellar blueprint for a human voyage to the next Solar System [43] and focussed the minds of thousands of people worldwide [44] to contribute to that vision. Both Thomas Bopp and Abdul Ahad are significant in their own respective ways, and equally deserving of encyclopedic entries IMHO. There are HUNDREDS of comet discoverers, but very few people have drafted interstellar spaceflight blueprints Uranometria 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting opinion. Can you cite anyone who shares your view that "Comet Halle-Bopp was a flimsy piece of light show"? Comets don't come around that often and are not the invetion of the discoverer (they actually exist). There are plenty of half-baked and fully-baked interstellar-voyage ideas out there and most of them are not notable. I could invent one right now for you, if you'd like. There is no independent corroboration that he "focused the minds of thousands of people worldwide" nor that his particular idea is any more interesting than anyone else's. That is in contrast to an actual comet that was one of the brightest recorded in the 20th Century. There is just no comparison. --Nondistinguished 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• In this very discussion here, he has focussed your mind, my mind and the minds of so many other Wikipedians to study and closely scrutinize the merits of his work. Elsewhere, keep in mind that search engines are full of the name 'Abdul Ahad', other people who share his name since it is very popular. Wherever I see the term 'Ahad radius', 'Ahad's constant' or some other phrase specific to this guy, I see a whole bunch of people crowding around to discuss his ideas regardless of whether they be full baked or half baked. That in itself argues in favour of his notability. Uranometria 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This insinuation is ridiculous. Also, the existence of other articles on NN persons is not a justification for keeping this one. (The others should be AFD'd if the persons fail WP:N. --Ragib 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky is famous but not notable -- there is a difference. Not all subjects of Wikipedia articles are notable. It would seem that notability is an issue for some but not for others. shelagh 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, notability is an issue for every article, especially Biographies. Please do not sidetrack the issue here, i.e. the notability of the subject of the article under AFD. Other articles are irrelevant here. Thank you. --Ragib 21:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do as I say not as I do? You cannot insist on notability for one biography without insisting for all. Wikipedia is full of non-notable, famous people. Notability clearly is not the deciding factor about keeping/deleting articles but merely a contributing factor. This discussion is only taking place because books by Abdul Ahad were published by PublishAmerica. It has nothing to do with notability, fame, scientific discovery or any other excuse you might care to use. Deny it if you like -- no surprises if you do -- but it is true. shelagh 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I made is this: if you have concern about notability of other articles, feel free to go ahead and nominate them for deletion. Existence of such nn-bios is not a justification for keeping *this* article. Notability is *definitely* a deciding factor when it comes to deleting non-notable biographies. Please refer to WP:N for details. If you don't like that, please ask for a policy change at the Village pump or other places. But at this page, we are discussing *this* particular page. So, let's not diverge into any philosophical discussions about what Wikipedia's deletion policy should be. Thank you. --Ragib 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Wikipedia:Notability (people) A plaster for every sore: articles may still be included if the subject doesn't meet any of the listed criteria and yet may not be included if the subject meets several of the listed criteria. Which brings me back to my previous point: it doesn't matter whether Abdul Ahad is notable or not because, in the view of those in favour of deletion, being published by PublishAmerica cancels out any claims he may have to notability. shelagh 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are admitting that he isn't notable or aren't you? --Nondistinguished 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Ahad is notable. shelagh 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By what criteria of WP:BIO? --Nondistinguished 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, per consensus below and by extension of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. Sandstein 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahad Radius

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

This particular article is about an original research concept being promoted by the amateur inventor of the idea. Doing a quick Google search for the term will turn up many different messageboards and discussions where this idea is being promoted as a "great new discovery". However, it doesn't qualify per the standards outlined by WP:SCI. Plainly not notable, and the authors of the article seem to have a conflict of interest connection to the idea. Nondistinguished 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ark to Alpha Centauri

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Term is not yet in widespread use by reliable published sources, thus article does not meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms or Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Satori Son 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only source is self-referential - no independent sources to establish this is a term of even passing use in the scientific community. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Seems to me it is the light equivalent of the termination shock of the heliopause ("photopause"? cf transneptunian objects vs the Oort cloud). The Journal of British Astronomy is a perfectly legitimate scientific paper. That the theory's author is an amateur and not a professional astronomer is irrelevant, many extremely important scientific contributions have been made by amateurs.--Victor falk 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that while the Journal of British Astronomy itself is indeed perfectly legitimate, the cited reference in this article is a letter published in the journal authored by the concept's creator and thus is not a reliable source. Were it an article written for the journal, it'd be another story altogether. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I presume you mean "not formally peer-reviewed", not that he meant to send it to his aunt. Unfortunately, as it is a journal for amateurs, it does not formally peer-reviews articles. That does not mean they publish articles based on things "hey! that guy has the same name as the captain in Moby Dick and he draws his curves in mauve and magenta! that'd look pretty on page 3!". It is a primary source, surely you don't mean that primary source shouldn't be mentioned? The secondary source is from the Mathaba News Network, which is not a big news agency, but I think that usenet groups such as alt.astronomy, alt.astronomy.solar, sci.physics.electromag, uk.sci.astronomy, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro.seti, [45] are much more relevant ones.--Victor falk 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally not the best sources since Wikipedia is a tertiary source. There are a number of things to consider: Is the subject notable according to relevant guidelines? Is the subject original research according to relevant guidelines? The answers to these questions are no and yes respectively. That's the justification for deletion with which you need to deal. --Nondistinguished 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The cosmic night sky's constant that he's formulated seems pretty self evident and it doesn't take a genius mathematician to empirically come to a bottom line number. The universe has a finite brightness (per Olbers paradox) and that finite brightness can be verified using star brightnesses in catalogues. Then the radius is merely a point where the Sun's flux equals the cosmic background. Again, pretty self-verifiable.

As regards professional or amateur, how many PhDs did Einstein have? (Just kidding). The reach of Sun's gravity well (i.e. its sphere of influence) out into space is an astrophysical quantity of importance, so should the reach of the Sun's light dominion. Ahad's work would seem to be encyclopedic in that respect and worth an entry. Uranometria 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no matter how easily verifiable this is, there is no evidence the term or the concept it represents is notable. Further, to merely call it by this term even if easly verifiably true is inappropriate. Say, for instance, that I am the first person to publish on the internet (right here on Wikipedia, even!) some algebraic relationship. Should I start an article on "Someguy1221's equation"? Someguy1221 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No. But you could send "Someguy1221's Equation" to, for instance, to Annals of Mathematics, and have it published. Generally, the accepted name for a theory or a hypothesis is from the paper where it was first published.--Victor falk 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• And the point here being that Ahad Radius was not published by a peer reviewed journal. --Nondistinguished 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• You misunderstand the point exactly. Peer reviewed publication is not a sine qua non for establishing scientific reliability.--Victor falk 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• What criteria are you using? I use WP:SCI. --Nondistinguished 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Worth keeping - I came to know the author from his two published books. He does self promote a fair bit, but then when you're with a publisher like Publishamerica I suppose you have to :)
• As someone said on another forum, there's 30 distinct Google hits for "Ahad's constant" and 65 distinct Google hits for "Ahad radius", so it's not like he's doing the marketing all by himself. Astronomic discoveries are always named after their founders: Roche Radius (credited to Edouward Roche), Chandrasekar Limit (Subramanyan Chandrasekar), Oort cloud (Jan Hendrick Oort), so on.

Perhaps the subject's bio needs toning down in text so as to not appear he's "over promoting himself" contray to wiki policy and a separate page added for the Radius and Constant on one article? Xcalibur2 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Absolutely no evidence no notability here. I did a Google Scholar search on "Ahad radius" and go no hits at all. The Google hits themselves seem to be mostly bulliten boards and the like. This is a valid concept IMO, but shows no sign of having had an impact in either science or society. --EMS | Talk 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Google scholar is quite haphazard in what it finds; for instance, SciSeek has 32 hits [46].Also, usenet groups are a very important way of communicating and discussing scientific hypothesises and therories ("establishing notability"). Before the avalanche of discoveries earlier this century of transneptunian objects that led to the demise of Pluto's planethood, there were maybe as far as I can recall at most a couple dozens astronomers that worked on them. --Victor falk 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Usenet groups are a very important way of communicating and discussing scientific hypothesises and therories. I could not disagree more. Usenet groups are for fun: anyone can post on them, and they are not reviewed for accuracy or for quality. Using them as reliable sources is a dubious practice indeed. I think your vision of what constitutes an adequate source or subject for Wikipedia does not conform to the five pillars, or, at least, you don't seem to understand what constitutes original research and why it is banned from Wikipedia. --Nondistinguished 16:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Usenet groups are for fun: anyone can post on them, and they are not reviewed for accuracy or for quality. I have to respectfully disagree with you. Some of these groups are 'for fun' as you put it, but not all. Sci.physics.research [47] is a moderated forum, where posts are screened for serious research material and journal-quality discussions. Indeed, Abdul Ahad has evidently formulated his theory about him being the first person to demonstrate analytically that the Earth could never retain a particulate ring system in orbit around it[48]. Noteworthy resarch, totally new to science. Uranometria 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• What's more WP:SPS seems to directly contradict your opinion about self-published sources. --Nondistinguished 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:SCI as a scientific term or concept. Blogs, science fiction writings, and a letter to the editor do not satisfy the need for publication in reliable peer-reviewed scientific journals. No barrier to having an article written if the concept later becomes notable. Edison 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article gives no indication that the proposed "Ahad radius" has any physical significance or other interesting properties -- unlike, say, the heliopause, which is an actual, experimentally detectable boundary, or the various Lagrangian points. If and when the concept gets used in a peer-reviewed scientific publication (whether by Ahad or someone else) or another authoritative source (e.g., an Astronomy textbook from a reputable academic publisher), that will be an appropriate time to create a Wikipedia article for it. Hqb 18:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The concept would have far reaching implications in areas of philosophy and religion on interstellar journeys of the future. I have been amusingly folowing the debates, as here [49] for example. Impact on society, cultures and religions spanning the globe would be widespread, with established notions such as solar deities and Sun worship becoming meaningless past the Ahad Radius. Gilgamesh007 11:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fictional concept that has gotten no attention from real world sources Corpx 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• If a quantity is mathematically, empirically verifiable, can it be called "fictional"? Gilgamesh007 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A letter to the editor is not a reliable source, and there is no indication of notability. --Tengfred 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether the concept itself makes any sense or not, there is no proof that it called that way, or even used, by any independent reliable source. --Itub 12:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I detect a possible conflict of interest in the tone of this debate amongst individual editors. You don't call these [50][51][52] independent, real world sources who are supporting the concept and aiding its marketing? Gilgamesh007 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• No. The first one looks like a collective blog, the second one is just a link from an amateur society, and the third one is a search engine. I'm looking for real scientific publications. What conflict of interest? I'm not even an astronomer, if that's what you mean. Is it a conflict of interest to be interested in having only notable and verifiable topics on Wikipedia, rather than self-promotion and made-up stuff? --Itub 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you're expecting the Max Planck Institute of Physics to credit Abdul Ahad with this discovery, I'd probably ask you to come back to this debate in a 100 years or so. No, discoveries like these take a long time to become widely known/appreciated. Sometimes posthumously. Those who have a basic literacy level in arithmetic and high school math can see the logic of this analysis. I accept that for WP we need established sources. But not for simplistic insights such as these, that are pretty much self-evident. Gilgamesh007 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Even assuming for a moment that this self-evident insight is correct, it still fails as a self-promoting neologism. See WP:NEO. --Itub 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I really would like to keep this, as it's an interesting concept. Unfortunately, it's not common or widespread in the literature. Maybe after it's had some time to spread it will become notable enough to include in an article. It's not there yet, and as such it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Vonspringer 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have been monitoring this for some time. This is a significant discovery and is in such widespread discussion spanning 3 years, I don't believe it can be called OR (original research) any longer. If established sources haven't picked up on it as yet, then they are either too busy or too blinkered to see its implications to a future spacefaring human civilization. Gilgamesh007 10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment But what is the actual discovery here? Yes, there surely exists some distance from the Sun where its contribution to total illumination in the visible spectrum is about equal to that of all other sources combined; this doesn't mean that such a distance is inherently worthy of a name and an encyclopedia article. Second, lacking a peer-reviewed source, we do not even know if the distance calculated by Ahad is correct at all. Hqb 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• what is the actual discovery here? Sorry... couldn't resist being drawn back to this. At the risk of pre-empting user Gilgamesh007's reply, I had a skim read through this guy's usenet posts [53] going back to 2004 (incidentally, his peer review process appears to have been done publicly online by his friends and colleagues in those particular groups in front of moderators). It appears he is being credited with the following:

• The first to research a valid method and the associated flux equations that lead to a total night sky brightness constant ("Ahad's constant"), excluding all light coming from the Sun
• The first to then give an estimated value of that constant at c. -6.5 magnitudes (or 1/300th of a Full moon) worth of light using star catalogue data
• The first to then postulate that there might be some distance beyond the Solar System where the Sun's light power would equate to that constant
• The first to give a c. 11,500 AUs estimate of that distance, where the Sun becomes overpowerd by the collective star light of the surrounding universe (the so-called "Ahad radius"). The edge of the Sun's sphere of light dominion relative to the universe background.

• Unless someone else can correct me, as far as I can gather that's what this whole thing is about. Uranometria 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oh and an online version of his paper "The Music of the Night Sky" [54]. What a funny bloke. Uranometria 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Satori Son. Dan Gluck 19:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Ahad is one of over 100,000 members of the Planetary Society. I suspect it is similar for the British Astronomical Association. Neither organization appears to consider Ahad Radius important enough to publish an article on, which seems to indicate it's pretty non-notable.Edward321 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Weak Keep. I admit its notability is extremely borderline. And, as noted above, it's not exactly a new copernican revolution. But it's about real science, which is inherently more notable to an encyclopedia. --Victor falk 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete : NN concept/term. --Ragib 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete : The frequency of occurrence of the term on the net (hits on google search) is mostly because of self-promotion. -Arman Aziz 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC):

• Comment Ghits establish absolute notability (and in many cases with a dismal accuracy). The relative notability is what matters. How notable is the concept within the relevant community, ie astronomers that study the solar's system's close neighbourhood? As for self-promotion, it is acceptable for a novel scientific concept to be named after its proposer. Cf Olber's paradox, the Chandrasekhar limit or the Schwarzschild radius--Victor falk 12:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why you are conflating the dubious practice of self-promotion (i.e., trying to bypass the normal scientific process by going directly to the popular media, rather than first having the discovery vetted by formal peer review), with getting a concept named after oneself by the scientific community. Somehow I doubt that Olbers went around telling everyone about "Olbers' paradox", or that Chandrasekhar wrote a paper on the "Chandrasekhar limit". Those names were assigned by others, in recognition of the significance of the concepts in question. Hqb 12:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am very curious as to who these people are that are going around spreading these 'Ahad radius' articles. A few names that spring to mind are some guy called 'Javid' and some bloke named 'Robert' amongst a few other pseudonyms I can find. Looking at that guy's myspace page and gauging his credentials, I can't believe he's got the graphic skills to able to draw such spheres. I think it should be called the Helios Radius! Any votes in favour of that? Uranometria 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parisgate

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

Article on a new term which is not yet in widespread use. Could find no use of term by reliable published sources (Google News Archive search produces 0 hits, for example), thus the article does not meet the inclusion requirements of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Contested PROD, so comes here for deletion. -- Satori Son 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paris Hilton. Little here of substance, nothing here that hasn't already been summarized more cohesively & with better sourcing within the main article. Caknuck 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there anything of substance relating to Paris Hilton? ~ Infrangible 02:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, don't redirect. Largely unsources neologism. --B. Wolterding 16:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per B. Wolterding. Also superfluous in light of main article about her. Eliz81 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, if the term must be kept. Only the first sentence defines the word Parisgate. The rest of the article goes on to rehash the whole tiresome Paris Hilton business, which is completely covered in the Paris Hilton article. There is nothing in this article that is not covered elsewhere or could not be added to the main article. ●DanMS • Talk 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sense and Goodness Without God

Sense and Goodness Without God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notoriety. SolarBreeze 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While the book has an ISBN number, it is from a self-publishing group called AuthorHouse. At best, merits a redirect to metaphysical naturalism. Eliz81 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N, WP:BK. In my opinion, doesn't merit any redirect --- as a self-published book, it wouldn't even qualify as a WP:RS if it were cited in metaphysical naturalism. cab 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Neither the nominator not anyone else now argues for deletion. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Watson (football player)

Ben Watson (football player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hasn't played in fully professional league. Alexrushfear 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The notability guidelines state if they have played in fully professional league, or the highest level of amateur level. When I read the definition of "amateur" it says you play for the love of the game, and when you get paid, it's "professional". This is how I see it. He plays for an amateur league (I'm not well versed in soccer, but it appears it is an amateur league), which has it's own wiki article, it appears the league is notable, and since he's on the team, and is documented as in the roster, I am going to say he satisfies notability guidelines, so I believe the article can be kept. However, it would be very nice to see the article expanded. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually that's a very good point. Change to Keep Alexrushfear 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• As the nominator, you should probably just withdraw your nomination, instead of changing your vote (at least, that's how I see it happen when a nominator changes their mind). Whatever floats your boat. Have a good day. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm not that clued up on procedure for these kinda things on here. Alexrushfear 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Boxing League

Web Boxing League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Three reasons. No independent references (WP:V). I've had a look, but could only find games directory entries. Lack of independent sources means it fails our WP:Notability guidelines. Whilst the lead text boasts about the number of players, popularity is not notability. Also, most of the article is game guide material and statistics, with no out-of-game context (WP:NOT). Marašmusïne_Talk 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete

I object to this deletion. I do not believe this article should be deleted. It seems by looking at the deletion page that certain editors have targeted online games as not suitable to be in Wikipedia as a matter of personal preference. The online gaming phenomenon is part of internet culture, a global phenomenon that has social and cultural implications worldwide. While I believe there should be a threshold for inclusion, certainly an online game with a seven year history and over 100,000 players has proven itself to be sufficiently durable and popular to pass the triviality smell test. Popularity is not notability? And why not? One could argue that Wikipedia itself is more popular than it is notable. Isn't this nothing more than a big online game with millions of people playing editor?

As to the specific reasons stated above. No independent reference. I beg to differ. The article includes footnotes with links to pages written by players of the game not on the WeBL staff. These are independent articles written by players about game tactics that directly support many of the descriptions given in the article. What other type of independent references are you looking for specifically? Is nothing notable unless college professors are writing books or articles in journals?

No out of game context. Please specify what kind of out of game context you feel would make this article valid. Do you need a dissertation on the socialogical impact of internet gaming? You seem to want to hold this article up to the same editorial standards as an article on the fall of the Roman Empire. Don't arbitrarily say it lacks context without saying what would give it context. If you give us a specific criticism rather than a general criticism, we can make remedy. Exactly what kind of context do you seek? --Art of Pugilism 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Context references added

I've added context references pointing to Wikipedia articles on boxing, online gaming, popular culture and video game culture. If this is not the type of context referencing you expect, then please specify. --Art of Pugilism 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should not have been marked for deletion

From Wikipedia's deletion policy: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion."

If you felt the page needed notability and/or references, you should have tagged it as such and not immediately nominated it for deletion. --Art of Pugilism 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oki doki, I'll make this fairly brief. Independent references: The links provided are not reliable sources. From WP:Reliable sources: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. I don't consider web pages made by players of the game to be trustworthy or authoritative.

From WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

From WP:Deletion policy: Reasons for deletion [...] Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. (Which in this case would be WP:WEB or WP:CORP (which WP:SOFTWARE now soft redirects to.)

As I mentioned above, I have tried to look for good sources but could not find any. If such sources turn up as part of this AfD, that's great.

Finally, context. WP:WAF goes into this in some detail, but we can come back to that if WP:N and WP:V can be established. Marašmusïne_Talk 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

"...authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." You are really not in a position to evaluate what is authoritative in relation to the game unless you have played the game. Have you? I submit to you that the only way and independent source CAN be authoritative is to have been a player of the game. All the articles written were written by accomplished players. Your definition of an authoritative source lacks context. You have no way to objectively evaluate the sources if you have never played. The quote above states "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As a long time player of this game having achieved great success, I can attest that these authors and articles are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. You cannot expect a peer review article on this topic. In online gaming communities, articles written by successful players are highly respected and authoritative.--Art of Pugilism 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To expand on the quote I took from WP:N: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity [...] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. Marašmusïne_Talk 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put 'authoritative source' into context. If, for example, Stuart Campbell wrote an article or review on Web Boxing League, that would be an acceptable source. Marašmusïne_Talk 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No real notability on this, other than Artofpugilism's lawyering. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete without independent reliable sources to establish notability. 2000 players a week isn't even a WP:BIGNUMBER. — brighterorange (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Establishing Notability by Video Game Journalism - By requiring an independent source such as Stuart Campbell, you set the bar unfairly high for this category. By this standard, you should wipe every online game from Wikipedia (which effort I believe is already underway). First, there are not quite as many Stuart Campbells running around out there to write authoritative treatises on online games as there are college professors writing arcane gobbledygook about topics of academic interest . Second, such authoritative articles are not usually particularly authoritative.

Let me quote from Wikipedia's own article on video game journalism regarding ethics:

"Unlike linear media, getting a complete sense of a game can require far longer than the time it takes to play it from start to end. Further to this, games such as RPGs can last for hundreds of hours. Computer and video game reviewers therefore tread a fine line between producing timely copy and playing enough of a game to be able to reliably critique it.

Therein lies the rub, an argument to which I have already alluded. Requiring a completely independent source for an online game is to require a source that is unauthoritative almost by definition. It puts any online game in an impossible position when trying to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I don't believe it is lawyering to interpret the phrase "trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" to mean one has to have in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge that can only be gained by playing. If anything I think Maramusine is lawyering by maintaining an overly rigid interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. That position is biased against topics that don't have a spate of pointy headed academics cranking out "authoritative" articles on subjects about which they have only superficial knowledge. I don't feel that his position is in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission to provide authoritative articles about topics of interest to the world at large.

I reiterate my assertion that the article has cited independent authorities, who are authoritative based upon their in-depth knowledge of the game. Further, I believe that there needs to be an expansion or a reinterpretation of notability guidelines addressing the video and online gaming genre to reflect that fact that the only true authorities on such games are the players themselves. --Art of Pugilism 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to discuss it at WP:N. Let me know if concensus changes to allow "game-guide websites made by the players" as independent sources, because I've got loads of computer games I wrote at school that I think I can get my friends to make fan-sites for. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. there is a derth of independent, reliable sources on this site. Resolute 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to satisfy notability. QuagmireDog 06:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a discussion comment at WP:N. As for your sarcastic comment about the computer games you wrote at school, once you get 100,000 of your friends to play it over a period of seven years, I'll be the first one to support your article. --Art of Pugilism 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended. If only primary sources are required for verifiability (which is basically what you're suggesting), then all I have to do is claim I've had 100,000 players, per the opening sentence of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Marašmusïne_Talk 06:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Personal web pages are not reliable sources and there's no reliability established Corpx 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A Question

This site has been listed and rated on a number of online gaming sites. The ratings are player ratings, not independent reviews. They are simple averages of ratings of players, who also give their opinions of the site. Most are good, but some are not. What is the opinion of editors on the cumulative effect of player reviews as a source of notability? The online gaming sites are independent sites not associated with the game. --Art of Pugilism 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• There has to be articles about the league, not quote it. Also, could you please format your comments to be in line with the other comments? Corpx 02:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE - Ratings, player reviews and popularity are not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nn, spam, list of stuff, etc. Fin©™ 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

In an effort to find ways to come to terms with your notability issues, I went through a few other popular browser-based internet games. I'm curious as to what qualifies for notability for sites such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattrick (Hattrick). I saw no mention of a secondary source anywhere on that page. Perhaps in the player usage graphs? We have those as well, if you like. There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_League_Football (Token League Football), which is flagged for a lack of links -- but nothing of notability, of which I found none. There is astonishingly little information on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmaker_Football (Playmaker Football) wiki, yet it is allowed to exist. Yes, it's a stub -- but what good is an uninformative stub versus a fully written article that already exists?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a mass deletion of every internet game on wiki -- I'm merely looking for Webl to get a chance. It boggles my mind that we're lacking notability when it isn't a problem for the above-mentioned games. Thanks in advance for any information.

JimSardonic

WP:INN should hopefully answer your questions. QuagmireDog 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remote influence

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

No sources. Presented as factual -- that is, as a technique that works, which is quite unlikely to be the case. This is at best another form of pesudoscience. No indication of notability even as a belief, unlike such topics as ESP. Includes significant promotional elements. DES ^(talk) 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I contacted the author telepathically and found he is not even remotely influenced by intelligent thought. He failed to seduce me. --Targeman 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL! DES ^(talk) 16:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Crush by elephant. It's almost blatant advertising. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remote delete. It was invented by a yahoo group in 1999, not a typical source of notable...anything. It seems to me all this page is here for is to spam a CD and a book. Someguy1221 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are plenty of academic journals that mention the term on the search engine, but they aren't related to psychic. Hence it's just not notable, especially other media like magazines and newspapers don't mention it.--Kylohk 08:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all of the above. I am now remotely asking a cloud to produce snow. Bearian 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• When it snows, ain't it thrilling, though your nose gets a chilling, we'll frolic and play, the Eskimo way, walking in a winter wonderland... --Targeman 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's advertising; It's an unnotable example of telepathy; The term has many other meanings as well, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dan Gluck 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and expand. Daniel Case 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Browne Blackwell

Henry Browne Blackwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a man who seems to non-notable in his own right. Apart from his dates and place of birth, the article is about either his father, his wife, his daughter, his brother, his sister-in-law and his sister. A non-entity surrounded by minor players? Emeraude 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Lucy Stone as nn. All we need to know about him is already in his wife's article. Clarityfiend 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Lucy Stone says that he was himself an abolitionist, which this article does not mention. it is possible that there is actually information on which to base a substantive articel about this man, but this isn't it. Redirect until/unless sufficient information comes to light to indicate independant notability. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lucy Stone. The most revealing thing I could find online was that he was a merchant in Cincinnati [55]. He seems to be most famous for allowing his wife to retain her maiden name, which is a very dubious assertion of notablity. Caknuck 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability has been asserted, changing to Keep. Caknuck 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lucy Stone. I agree that he seems to be a nonenity among others who were notable. Check out Samuel Charles Blackwell for the same reason. Gordonofcartoon 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You can't just Google "Henry Browne Blackwell" and then give up. He wrote under "Henry B. Blackwell". He has 475 hits in Google books [56]. His obituary was in the Boston Globe and the New York Times. The NYT says he was one of the founders of the Republican Party. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Possibly rename as Columbia Encyclopedia has an article on Henry Brown Blackwell which states "Blackwell, Henry Brown, 1825–1909, American reformer, b. Bristol, England; brother of Elizabeth Blackwell. He was an abolitionist and later, with his wife, Lucy Stone, a worker for woman suffrage." The Dictionary of American Biography of 1928-1932 states that he was one of the earliest advocates in America of women's suffrage. There are certainly references from reliable sources about this man to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment So Columbia only mentions him because of his sister and his wife? Emeraude 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we delete Mr. Blackwell, think of all the rock stars and modern celebrities that will have to go down with him - or wikipedia will really look stupid.71.197.106.123 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment ???? Emeraude 11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lucy Stone per first three comments on this page. nn. by himself. Uranometria 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Fairly notable 19th century figure according to objective, reasonable standards, as a publisher and political figure of some prominence. - Nascentatheist 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. His article needs to be improved, but he's clearly a notable figure. Atropos 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable figure per Capitalistroadster. The need is to do more work on the article not to delete it. --Malcolmxl5 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Cann

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

Hasn't played in a fully professional league. Alexrushfear 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep Person has played for Derby_County_F.C., which is in the Premier League, which is a professional league. Satisfies WP:BIO for athlete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC) See note below

• Comment Do you have proof of Cann ever playing a league or cup game for the Derby County 1st team? Alexrushfear 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, yeah...look at the link on his wikipedia article. It shows right there that he has statistics for Derby. I'm trying to assume good faith but I find it really hard when it appears you threw out a nomination without researching this at all. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Soccerbase link shows zero appearances with Derby County. Same goes for ESPN.com's Soccernet.Caknuck 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As does the Derby County website. Alexrushfear 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In my eyes, whether he actually played or not, with him being on the roster, is sufficient for me. That's my opinion, obviously. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but as far as I can see he was something like the 4th choice goalie, so that puts him at more or less substitute reserve keeper. Even for a Championship team (they weren't in the Premiership while he was there), that's not that remarkable. Alexrushfear 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete According to the Derby County Web site, Cann played for the U-19 squad, not the senior club. He's also played for the Welsh U-19 Nationals [57]. However, he has yet to make his mark at the "top level" required by WP:BIO. Caknuck 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete according to this he never played for Derby. Seems to be just another trainee "let go" by a club after not making the grade. Totnesmartin 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can't use answers.com as a reliable source because they copy/paste directly from wikipedia into their page. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• If you look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Makabu-Makalambay, many soccer players that played for U-18 and U-19 were not deleted either. Like I said before, I am not well versed with the divisions of soccer players, but from the arguments from the other AfD, U-18 and U-19 satisfies WP:BIO requirements --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Under 18 or Under 19 isn't fully professional, as players might be on a youth contract or just a triallist. Nor is it amateur, as they are being paid. If he were to gain a full international cap, then that would be an exception. Alexrushfear 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note Well if U-18 and U-19 are not fully professional (as defined by WP:BIO), and they get paid, then he does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Has never played in a fully-professional league. Number 57 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no appearances in professional league and without club. Dave101→talk  22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per norm. He might have been in the Derby County squad (what sumnjim calls a roster) but there seems to be no proof that he was ever anything other than a youth team trainee who never made the first team squad for a match. His stats list no appearances for Derby and so he fails notability at present. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as the userbox in the article even admits that his appearances for Derby were 0(0) when he was released. If he does become successful, he can be re-created. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom.GoAirForce 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Yates

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

Person who claims to have had a psychic experience after almost drowning. Marked for speedy deletion, but had a couple of news sources. My feeling is that she's not notable, see WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki 14:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched Google News looking for news stories, and there were only three hits. One was a press release about Fire the Grid, and the other two were minor stories about local meditation centers participating in Fire The Grid. Hardly sounds like an notable international movement. Psu256 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. There's clearly a real movement going on here, and her story checks out as a legitimate news story.Preceding unsigned comment was posted by User:LeeChesnut at 16:55, 18 July 2007
• Delete The subject in question is not notable at all. A google searh is also unclear abou the subject. Moreover, one must take note that the bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not noteworthy. Wasn't there an article by the same name that was speedy deleted very recently? Useight 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A previous version was speedy deleted under A7. IMO this was improper, as the article does (and did) make assertions of significance. That of course says nothing about what the result should be here. DES ^(talk) 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Siva. --ROGER ^TALK 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• This is marginal, IMO. There are very few published news stories linked by google. But there does seem to be a lot of online discussion, and that fact may be worth noting, pareticuarlly if it reflects a degree of word-of-mouth notability in the real world. Given that shee is activly seeking publicity, BLP issues really don't apply, except as a question of notability. very weak keep. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sources only touch on the notability of the subject.--Ispy1981 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - notability is not measured in how many hits you get on youtube. She is but one of many people that profess an experience with "beings of light". Maybe she can be added to another article that focues on this phenomenon. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- FTA: "Shelley Yates became a somewhat notable figure..." That tells you all you need to know. Cap'n Walker 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E, and that newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itsotp

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

Non-notable acronym whose use appears limited to Aston Villa F.C. message boards Struway2 | Talk 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is clearly neologism The subject matter is most likely to have been recently been coined. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, and a very very very narrow one at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NawlinWiki. Number 57 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:NEO Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As well as being a neologism, there seems to be some original research as well. Spellcast 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please make itsotp... ~ Infrangible 02:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)