Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect to Tommy Tucker (baseball player). I have already merged the two articles & changed the nominated article to a redirect page (non-admin closure). — Caknuck 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Tucker (19th century baseball player)

Tommy Tucker (19th century baseball player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Already a page created for this player. Tommy Tucker (baseball player) Neonblak 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since an article already exists. Any article not present in the original could be merged into that one. A redirect here would probably not be of any use, since few people would key in the search string "Tommy Tucker (19th century baseball player)". Dr bab 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
• Merge. The existing article has templates, but this one seems to have a little more content. Any content not already represented on the Tommy Tucker (baseball player) page should be integrated before deletion. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• If they are one and the same, merge and redirect. This is 1) to preserve edit history for legal mumbo-jumbo purposes, and 2) it appears to be a useful redirect because someone created the article at this title in the first place; the redirect will not kill anyone or cause the servers to self-detonate. -- saberwyn 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Like saberwyn said, merge and deletion would violate GFDL. Corvus cornix 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as well as merging some of the afd nom's content to the already created article.--JForget 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect 74.242.184.198 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and rename as Tommy Tucker (baseball player)Balloonman 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:12, 6 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 JodyB _talk 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavriel Olteanu

Looks like hoax: no references, no google hits Alex Bakharev 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:RS --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. While web searches are not the end-all and be-all, the complete lack of hits does support the hoax hypothesis. -- MarcoTolo 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article also uses the spelling "Gavril Olteanu" which has Google hits[3]. Some are a language I don't know, some are Wikipedia and mirrors, but there are others including [4] and [5] (PDF). PrimeHunter 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent work - I surrender to your superior search skills (no, really). Given PrimeHunter's sources, I no longer suspect hoax-ish-ness. This article needs much work, but I'd now support a keep. -- MarcoTolo 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio of the last section in http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/genoci/genoci02.htm. http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/ says copyright. No reservation against later recreation without copyvio. PrimeHunter 00:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've deleted the majority of the article to avoid copyvio problems - will attempt to create from scratch (as penance....). -- MarcoTolo 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. OK. I will change to keep if it gets enough content for a decent stub. It should be moved to Gavril Olteanu, but I don't know whether it's best to do it now or when the AfD is over. PrimeHunter 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Extensive searching turns up minor mentions. Recognizing the non-English nature of probable sources, he just doesn't seem to be particularly notable except in regard to this alleged war crime, and we don't seem to have sufficient sources to write about that neutrally. Perhaps worthy of a mention in whatever article covers Romanian guerrillas operating in Hungary during WW2. --Dhartung | Talk 10:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as is, but if it can be expanded with reliable sources, this will be a keep.Balloonman 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like there are non English sources available and he passes the 10 year test 6 times over. Let's give MarcoTolo time to get his new sources [6] and rewrite. Paxse 13:17, 10 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; hard to judge with so many anons and SPA's with such slanted opinions. Sr13 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Smeaton (baggage handler)

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}}

John Smeaton (baggage handler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• NOTE: Closing admin please note the number of "anonymous IP's", unsigned comments, and obvious socks voting on this project. (E.g. the only edits of User:Scottybarr, User:MsTreex2 are to keep this article. While User:Barryferguson6 User:Frank Booth have less than 5 edits each---and many of those are vandalism. There are multiple other accounts voting with less than 50 edits and histories of vandalism as well.)Balloonman 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• As an "anonymous IP" with far more than 50 edits and an edit history rivalling "Balloonman" himself, I urge the closing admin not to discount IP address users outright, but instead to judge on the merits of their arguments. 62.31.67.29 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Right. There's clearly a bunch of people on here for whom this is their first experience of Wikipedia, but that's because W has listed John Smeaton ahead of other Internet sources - that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Doesn't make their arguments invalid. 82.40.183.118 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Normally I wouldn't discard anonymous IP's... but in this particular case, where there is no doubt of socks... care should be taken to identify the legitimate arguments with legitimate points from the puppets. Especially when outside sources are actively soliciting people to come here to vote on this issue.[7]---a clear violationg of WP:CANVASS.Balloonman 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is just media hype, not the stuff of Wikipedia. I admire what the guy did, but this is not the place for such an article. Lynbarn 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) – Gurch 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A year from now, nay six months from now, no one will remember his name. Postcard Cathy 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* While topical and newsworthy it is also a credible article illustrating the public's reaction to an atrocity. It is what differentiates each individual event and will be worthwile for future readers to see how the Glasgow public reacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.206.235.134 (talk • contribs).

Maybe delete it in six months, then ? He may yet become an internet phenomenon, despite the language barrier! Who can tell how the future history will work out ? Who had heard of Grace Darling the next day ? Wouldn't it be great if the little dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke was remembered by name ? Almost certainly not Hans Brinker ! IMHO WP:HERO guidelines like WP:PORNBIO would be great for the public good ! 195.137.93.171 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and add a sentence to the Glasgow incident article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there will never be enough material in the foreseeable future to write a notable biography on this chap or a separate article on his actions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And there are notable biographies for Chuck Norris and Randy Constan ? Comments on [8] are already making references to these guys. 195.137.93.171 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* It needs tidied up a lot but the man deserves an entry as he has become somewhat famous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.73.190 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. One incident does not bestow notability. Now, if he could prove he never misplaced luggage... Clarityfiend 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although he can be mentionned in the main article of the events.--JForget 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Why would you want to delete this? The man is a hero. There are much more trivial pages on wikipedia. Surely John deserves this honour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.78.193 (talk • contribs) — 82.40.78.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. He'll be a trivia question in a fortnight or two. --Finngall ^talk 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - who? Internet phenomenon? What? Sorry, but this is WP:CRYSTAL at its best - if he becomes an Internet phenomenon, then someone will write about him and provide us reliable sources. As it is, fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing my mind; merge anything not already there to the article on the incident. We don't have articles for the other people who are getting splashes of media attention on this, and that would seem the logical place for it to go. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge his name into the Glasgow incident article.. That's where people would look for info anyway, not at his own page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.184.198 (talk • contribs)
• Keep* won't someone think of the children? Rolf Mayo 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep* this guy has a tribute site and on many internet talk boards he has achieved a level of notoriety. So long as wikipedia lists internet phenomena then it should document this Barryferguson6 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Barryferguson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep* he is an Internet meme and has received extensive media coverage on the TV and in local, national and international newspapers. The tribute website has taken an extroadinary amount of traffic, and interviews with him are playing on BBC, Sky, ITV and CNN at the moment. As well as his actions, there is the aspect of the media coverage and commentary concerning him of lasting interest. jkirriemuir 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep* Of all the witnesses to the incident, John Smeaton is by far the most televised, most vocal, and most animated. When future historians look back, his numerous accounts will help form a basis for their understanding one way or another. But most of all, he attempted to pacify the attackers, and was therefore a direct participant in the chain of events, rather than a bystander. This alone means he was involved in the outcome and should be listed either independently, or merged with the larger Glasgow incident page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).

• Keep :

• Of interest to social historians as an example of an ordinary citizen's attitude when facing direct confrontation with terrorists.
• As of thursday 5th July, Google now showing over 12,000 results for query '"John Smeaton" baggage' ('baggage' added to distinguish him from the historic John Smeaton).
• Todd Beamer (the 'let's roll' guy) gets a Wikipedia article. JS's role in this terror attack is similar to TS's role on September 11th. Would JS's article be up for deletion if he was American? 82.40.183.118 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, minor aspect of failed attack by apparently incompetent would-be terrorists. --Dhartung | Talk 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep* Wikipedia contains details of all Members of the Scottish Parliament, some of whom have never been directly elected but are 'list' MSPs. None of them has done more for the reputation or safety of the people of Scotland than John Smeaton. If you remove him, you should remove all of those nobodys as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk • contribs)

• Keep* The man risked his life to protect other people. He has done more than most people on Wikipedia and deserves his place. To talk about removing the article is ridiculous. People like this should be held in high esteem and not pushed aside due to peoples 'Wiki snobbery'. We need more people like this in the world and it can only do us all well to hear about people like this. (First time Ive tried to edit a page.) User- Matt McLeod — 82.41.152.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep this page! There are all sorts of useless crap on here - this guy braved his life and who knows what could have happened if he hadn't nutted the guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nony88 (talk • contribs) — Nony88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge*(See Note..) He did something remarkable in the face of todays terrorism challange.He showed that a ordinary person does make a difference in the big picture and deserves a SERIOUS mention with connection to this incident.***NOTE:If you decide to give the terrorist their own page then I will change my MERGE to a KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.217.142 (talk • contribs) — 192.122.217.142 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep It is the complete opposite of media hype, he is a real person who did what came naturally to defeat the ends of terrorism and is quickly becoming a national hero. I can assure you that a long time from now people will still be talking about Mr Smeaton and the way he handled himself in a tricky situation and in the resulting media glare. I suggest that all of you who think his page should be deleted are just snobs who don't want a working class Scot cluttering up your nice tidy American encyclopedia! Well real life is NOT nice and tidy! How many cartoon characters have a Wiki page? Additional comment - I notice my, and several other comments have been tagged as being the only entry we have made. I have never felt so strongly about a Wiki article that I felt I had to edit a page, and I'm sure the others feel the same! Its not exactly the most user friendly experience you could have on the internet, is it?MsTreex2 12.35, 3 July 2007 (BST) — MsTreex2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia and does not intend to be biased towards the US. Notability is how we determine whom and what should be included, not personal feelings. Also, working class people are inevitably going to be less notable as individuals than others as they are the least likely to have had reliable published sources about them.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* The level of reaction to Smeaton both in the greater Glasgow area and through internet fan sites make him worthy of inclusion as an internet phenomenon. I am a Glasgow resident - this man's appearances on the various news channels are amongst the most discussed topics related to these attacks. As for internet reaction, one need only note that less than 4 days since the incident we not only have several sites, but at latest count 600 pints had been advance-purchased for Smeaton at the Glasgow Airport Holiday-Inn bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.196.190 (talk • contribs)

• Wkepedia can NOT be serious. This page MUST be kept. It's an inspiration to humanity in general and to Democratic values in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.195.139 (talk • contribs)

• Keep* This is very simple...if Wikipedia maintains a section on "Internet Phenomena" then, since Smeaton has become just that, the article should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Booth (talk • contribs) — Frank Booth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep* In the first terrorist attack of it's kind on Scotland, John Smeaton played a pivotal role in the way events panned out. Without his intervention, who is to say what would have gone on to happen. While others stood and watched, this hero put the safety of others before his own well-being and confronted a crazed terrorist. There is absolutely no doubt that John Smeaton deserves his place in Wikipedia and it would take a cold heart to delete him. Rogue Trader 13.22, 3 July 2007 (BST)
• Delete' While I admire his actions, he's still not notable, and a footnote to the incident at best. Wildthing61476 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* John Smeaton has *already* become recognised across the web for his actions, and his approach to the situation shows that the ordinary citizen *can* stand up to criminal behaviour and make a difference.Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Keep* Why is this even up for discussion? If Guy Goma merits a Wikipedia page (which he does) for giving us a giggle, then so does John Smeaton. More so, in fact, since he made us laugh during very testing times. Besides, if you pull the plug, Sir Smeaton will be knocking at the front door of Wikipedia Mansions before you know it, eager to banjo, malky and/or chib the person who hit the big button marked 'delete'. I'm off to buy him a beer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).
  • I've struck this comment as it is 194.61.49.4's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've unstruck the comment, but changed the "vote" from "Keep" to "Comment". People are allowed to contribute as much as they like to the debate, they're only prohibited from "voting" multiple times. 62.31.67.29 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* There are thousands of people on Wikipedia far less deserving of their own page than John Smeaton. The guy did help prevent a terrorist attack through his bravery. If we can have Wikipedia pages on terrorists that try these atrocities then surely the heroes that stop them are fully deserving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottybarr (talk • contribs) — Scottybarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep* To be honest this website has in-numerable gigabytes of data based on obscure hobbies and truely bad web phenomenon, the section needs expanding somewhat, but who could argue that this does not deserve a page on here? The same people who think that there should be multiparagraph sections on what underwear pikachu may or may not wear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.135.189 (talk • contribs)

• I resent your implication, good sir, and find your comparison downright slanderous. I reserve the right to feel about this article any way I please and I'll be damned before allowing my opinions be weighed on the crooked scales of some lackwit knowlessman. --Agamemnon2 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Right. How many lives has all your base are belong to us ever saved? Wayne's World merits separate articles for the SNL sketch and the movie, and genuine hero John doesn't merit an article of his own? Shame on Wikipedia for being US-centric. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's not a big deal over here. 82.40.183.118 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia of the people and places that are part of the moving culture. John Smeaton is someone that has brought some hope to those that had none, and taken away the fear that was intended by terrorism. He has done more than anyone that has been in the Big Brother house, but yet their pages remain. Kylie 3.07.07 — 83.67.59.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep and expand, or we'll set about ye! Seriously though, keep and improve. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* He is part of current news so he deserves the right to be on here, Keep John On Wiki, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.66.18 (talk • contribs)

• Keep* There are worse articles on wikipedia, at least this has some relevance to life and recent events. Although i think that the article definitely needs some expansion it shouldn't be deleted. Princesskirsty 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* We should certainly have articles on have a go heroes like this, could do with expanding though. Tomgreeny 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as a sentence to the main Glasgow incident article. As per WP:BLP1E we should not have have articles on people only notable for a single event. Only if he establishes independent notability seperate from this one incident would a seperate article be valid. Davewild 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I pity the closing admin - what a mess! I don't see how this fellow is different from Bill Clinton (truck driver) (see deletion log), aside from the minor detail that he exists. More to the point, I don't see how this person is notable independent of the incident, so really I'd redirect his name to the incident. Shalom ^Hello 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep* How about this guy, Todd Beamer, or this guy, Mark Bingham both heroes like John Smeaton who are only famous for one event when they saved many people's lives, how do they deserve a page when John does not!!! And oh yeah, for the wikipedian who said he was only famous because of media hype how about this Paris Hilton, Jade Goody and Chantelle Houghton, who are these people who deserve wikipedia pages and John does not? --RMC1989 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate.We'll set aboot ye! :-)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justificatus (talk • contribs).
  • This is not an article about a news story - it's about a human being. We already have an article about the news story. All this energy going into trying to save this article in this debate, and the article still contains only three sentences! This is an omen I tell ye. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Both John Smeaton and the Internet phenonmenon surrounding him are the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources:

• BBC NEWS, UK
• BBC NEWS, UK - another article about the Internet demanding he appear at T in the Park
• The National Post, Canada
• The Glasgow Evening Times, UK
• The Daily Telegraph, UK
• The Times, UK
• Metro, UK
• The Scotsman, UK
• International Herald Tribune, France

The man is a hero and is not merely an person on the scene at Glasgow Airport, but an international Internet phenonemon. 85.210.60.42 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per the above. Passes WP:BIO (specifically, "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" -Wang Weilin, anybody?), supported by multiple non-trivial references in reliable news sources. Tevildo 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced, and subject of a large amount of coverage in a variety of media sources. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The John Smeaton story merits inclusion for 3 reasons: 1) Smeaton was involved in thwarting a major terrorist attack, and as such is newsworthy. 2) He is a born communicator, and his involvement in the media's breathless reporting of this incident make him a principle source for academic study of terrorism in the UK. Biographical information on him is relevant to this topic. 3) The internet phenomenon which arose around the Smeaton story will be relevant to all those with an interest in the development of Wikipedia's own medium. The wit and originality of Smeaton's way of expressing himself carried over into the tribute site, with its innovative "pints behind the bar" concept.

This is absolutely not media hype, it reflects the black humour which real and virtual communities use to reinforce those things which they hold in common at times of stress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.137.26 (talk • contribs).

• Keep This article should be kept because John Smeaton is a modern day hero in Scotland. Deleting this article would be a disgrace and a slap in the face against the global fight against terrorism. As time passes the content will grow. Who else has had as much press coverage across the world than John Smeaton over the last couple of days?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJP2007 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss his heroic actions and internet driven popularity. Hell, at least one source even notes the enthusiasm generated here on Wikipedia. [9] Rockpocket 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Funny guy.--AchtungAchtung 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Major media story worldwide. --JJay 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is full of pages with little or no information on uninteresting and quickly forgotten people such as reality TV show contestants, one hit wonder musicians and mediocre athletes. A terror attack in Scotland was until now non-existant and the event is now marked on the history of Glasgow. All major television stations worldwide used John Smeaton's witness report and Glaswegians will always remember his name in connection with the first ever terror attack on our country and as the epitome of the spirit of Scottish people. The fact that the deletion issue has sparked so much debate is in itself proof that John Smeaton's wiki should not be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.201.244 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. Speaking as a Glaswegian, I think some of John's view, and particularly his catch phrase "This is Glasgow, we'll set aboot ye!" sum up elequently the determination and principles of the city's people. I also think that the fact that we are having this debate so soon, and the fact that 1,000 pints were pledged within days of the incident is a stunning illustration of the power of the internet as a campaigning and publicity tool which, along with similar internet phenomina of the past (such as the Blair Witch Project) will still be talked about for years to come.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.245.61 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. He did something news worthy and non-trivial—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.245.187 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. This article must be kept. For a start he has been on BBC, CNN, Fox News, Sky News, a whole host of newspapers across the country and abroad and even has his own website. Scotland has never suffered a terrorist attack and yet he instinctively steamed in. He has been mentioned by politicians in the House of Commons as a "hero". Had this man been an American who put his own life in danger, who foiled a terrorist attack, who ran towards a burning car full of gas, petrol and nails, prevented the attacker from reaching the boot and blowing up the car there would be no questions asked about this page. This man, along with one or two others, perhaps saved the lives of everyone inside that terminal building. Just because he's a "weegie" who you can't understand does not mean his actions are worth any less. John Smeaton is a modern day hero. Instead of running from danger he ran towards it. We, the Scottish people, are a brave and passionate people. We stand up to danger and will not let these terrorists attack our country. We call ourselves the best small country in the world, and I think John's actions epitomised that. So for those reasons, the page should stay Crocodiles 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Even if no-one remembers his name in a week, he wouldn't be the only person on wikipedia to have such a fate. He has done much for the nation, showing that the ordinary man on the street can make a difference in todays world. Perhaps a similar person would be Guy Goma, who has a wikipedia article. What was his achievement? He was mistaken for someone else. If Guy is worthy of inclusion, John Smeaton cetainly is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.123.32 (talk • contribs).
• Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong DELETE per Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article This is POLICY not!Balloonman 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your POLICY link simply explains that being in the news once doesn't guarantee an article, i.e. it's not a defense against a valid reason to delete. It says nothing about actively deleting things because they've been in the news once. Please pick another Wikipedia policy to justify your deletion request. 62.31.67.29 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a defense... a person who is the flavor of the day, isn't notable due to his/her 15 minutes of fame. even if Bebo instructs people to come here to vote...Balloonman 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if not for the follow-on attention after the fact that he has received, I'd have said merge with the Glasgow airport event article, but mentioned in numerous WP:RSes for the internet phenom and therefore seems notable for that too and WP:BLP1E ceases to apply. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• This entry should stand as a bona fide internet phenomenon. Clearly the popularity of the sub site, and numerous - fixed - news website entries are enough to warrant this page to be maintained. Although it's "early days", the public response is strong (and still growing). This guys 15 minutes of fame are far from over!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.35.13 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. In most circumstances, a person notable solely for actions in a single event would be ideal merge candidates, but in this case the guy has received hero status. This is not some mere pop culture phenomenon, but an actual act of bravery recognized by the media, who have devoted individual articles to the person [10]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate. --Justificatus 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)We'll set aboot ye! :-)
  • I've struck this comment as this is Justificatus' second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: What idiot flagged this for deletion? If I hear someone talking about John Smeaton and I'd never hard of him I'd want to look him up and find out who he is. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.190.0.26 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. Not just important as a current item but liable to be referred to for years to come as an example of active citizenry and culturally-shaped responses to observed norm-transgressing behaviour. I suspect that whoever flagged for possible deletion has a very non-encyclopaedaic bee in their bonnet as motivation.Endie 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. You have to ask whether anyone will want to look at this article in, say, a year's time. There are plenty of other people who have been similarly heroic in such situations (e.g. the bus driver involved in the 7/7 attacks) who do not have articles dedicated to them. MFlet1 10:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia's great, the lad clearly isn't notable by some intellectual standard but he'll be a page of interest for years to come - the media' made him notable, sadly the bus driver at 7/7 didn't get the same coverage. There's 1000s other articles that should be deleted first. And can't some people on Wikipedia lighten up, stop treating it like some holy cow (it's a flipping website) and get on with their lives elsewhere? It really doesn't matter, leave the damn page he's on BBC 6 O'Clock News ferchrissake... Me677 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.The actions he performed combined with the the statements he made about how Britain (and more symbolically, the western world) would not accept what is going on, justify this man's reference. His quote will be remembered for a long time. Steggall 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep or failing that merge to Glasgow airport incident. Seems notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I see a lot of anon/new users in this debate; I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sockpuppet use in this debate.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Notable (if rather recent!) Internet meme. Cheers, DWaterson 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.The actions of this man show how public action by any citizen can make a difference others les worthy and even fictional characters have pages. why should a real hero be any less worthy? His quote will be remembered for a long time. Adn he should have his own page so people can see how every one of us can resist terrorismUser:Adouglasmhor:Adouglasmhor 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — Adouglasmhor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KeepI would tend to say that we should keep this article he has done something in the public eye that has earned his 15 minutes of fame and righfully deserves to go in the history of Wikipeida, we prune and publish information on celebritys and other not so well known public figures. (Atrades 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

• Keep Notable as he has become an internet phenomena, a phenomena which has received coverage in traditional media sources too. Red star 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable due to the massive attention given to this man. The internet has been filled with discussion and references, with the Scottish and UK wide coverage being considerable.

The UK Prime Minister noted the response by the "British Public" who were not going to accept attacks on their way of life during Prime Minister's Questions on June 4th, 2007 - with John Smeaton being held as the first example of this behaviour occuring. It is definitely notable with the possible future backlash that may occur. 82.9.61.225 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was hoping to add this to the article, but in PM Qs, all Gordon Brown said was "I want to remind people of just how brave and courageous the explosives experts in London and those who tackled the terrorist activity at Glasgow airport were." The First Minister has "suggested that there should be some formal recognition of the bravery of the emergency services and members of the public after their efforts last Saturday."[11] or "vowed to salute the brave terrorist-battlers."[12] but I can't find him mentioning John Smeaton by name. However, Alex McLeish has "backed calls" for John Smeaton should get a medal and directly referenced him by saying "I love all that 'We'll set aboot ye' stuff. That’s the Scots mentality — and now the whole world knows it."[13] 62.31.67.29 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I only because everyone is obbsessed with him. There is a website about him for God's sake! Liamoliver 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable for the time being, review notability in a month or so, let's not delete it yet and upset everyone, just chill and we'll be able to look at it all more objectively in a few weeks. there's be no harm done. although it needs cleaning up badly. Spunkymcpunk 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If you can have pages on people from sport, for being famous for being famous then you can have a page on John Smeaton (JS). Someday someone will write an article on the aattack and this will be a supporting link [or even be inserted in such an article]. 139.80.176.2 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Alex Salmond, First Minister of the Scottish Government, has vowed to honour John Smeaton and the other civillians who assisted the police with an honour, possibly the George Cross the highest award civilians can receive for bravery. Surely Wikipedia should recognise his bravery by allowing the page to remain. Techip 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge He is certainly worthy of a mention in the article about the attacks. MarkRandall 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let us not remove it yet, the information is fresh. It could grow into a more substianal article akin to this Wesley Autrey article (which is of a similar vain). Znx 08:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Easy Keep A lot of Wiki people still think in terms of paper-written encyclopaedias of yesterday. It is not just totally natural to have an immediate entry for phenomena such as the Glasgow terrorist attack and the more prominent people involved -- it is essential to keep the article up for as long as there is a Wiki and space available! Online encyclopaedias deal in real time; they possess vast spaces for depository of information; it's where people turn to when something happens; or when people need to look up something in the past, as they will, probably, in five years time, when wondering about a Trivia entry on someone like John Smeaton. This is a no-brainer decision and only people upset with media's emphasis on instant celebrity are upset. But Wiki is not E! channel or Big Brother. Wiki is simply of this time. The Gnome 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: At the moment, John Smeaton is highly notable and what's currently being said about him is positive and can easily be backed by reliable sources. To delete the article now would be presumptuous. This could go either way - either he's further lauded and becomes like Wesley Autrey or Todd Beamer, or he's forgotten about and we have no reason to keep an article on him. As we can't predict the future, it's best not to delete this in the presumption he will be forgotten about in the future. Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy does not demand we immediately delete articles that private people in the news for one event. What it actually says is if the person "remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them". It's too early to tell if we should "generally avoid" having a John Smeaton article, specifically because the media story has not run out and John may well be in line for some award or honour, which would raise his profile. Remember that the media aren't just publishing stories of his attack on terrorists, they're also publishing stories about the website set up in his honour, the calls for him to appear at T in the Park, the 1000 pints pledged to him, the call for giving him a medal, etc. It's about him, rather than his part in thwarting the attack. 62.31.67.29 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

*Comment As I said before, I think a merger of the encyclopedic content into the Glasgow attack article would be appropriate, but he's not worth an individual biography for this one incident. Just because The Sun describes him as an hero doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep after reconsidering. Not just notable for one event, also notable for the meme, pints, etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Please can this be deleted as this is only a topical news story and not some thing that should be used in an encylopedia.

• Delete This is only going to be used by the politicians as a way of keeping something very devious out of the public eye, if he get a medal all you would hear is goodwill stories about how much a hero he really is and keep of the subject really at hand i.e. How the heck these people got a job as doctors and were allowed it to the country in the first place, dispite increased checks supposedly done by immagration and the intellengence agencies.
• Comment. Most of the anon/new keep voters here who are saying that he "deserves" an article are using totally invalid arguments. We were all newcomers once but it makes me angry when people don't understand Wikipedia policy and try to push things to one side in a debate that they don't know how to properly participate in.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I think the article show be kept but highly modified. I think it's interesting and notable that he's become such an internet phenomenon and I think that's more unique than the fact he's a "have a go hero" in what just happened to turn out to be a very high profile incident. Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — [[User:Psychofly]|Psychofly]]] ([[User talk:Psychofly]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psychofly]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge, despite gaining fame on the internet behind most heroes, couldn't this all be merged into the parent article? -- Zanimum 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Yes, I am not a regular contributor but, using the links on this page, I have been and read the relevant wikipedia policy sections such as this one and I still feel there is merit for keeping this, even long term. The remnants of this internet phenomenon will survive for a good many years, and should a tangential browsing session present an unwary user with a reference to John Smeaton wikipedia is likely one of the first places they will look. This is a valid use of wikipedia resources.

Pmendham 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I'd say keep, he is the subject of much public interest, and has become a minor celebrity. Add to that the fact that he has been put forward by the police to recieve awards for bravery etc he is not subject that will fade from the so-called limelight as quickly as some assume. And to be honest... i just don't see the problem with it being there. Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.121.189 (talk • contribs)

• Delete: Pointless article that will hardly stand for much in a few years -- johndrinkwater 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Leithp 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep My first instinct was to think "internet celebrity", but he does seem to be getting a lot of press coverage. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As well as first hand participant to a major event in Scottish history (the first ever act of terrorism committed on solid ground in Scotland, AFAIK), and being feted as a modern hero, John Smeaton also serves as a valuable indicator of the role of the media and internet in raising a seeminly ordinary individual to a pseudo-stardom and reknown. Moreso, surely the strong Scottish awareness (John Smeaton has become a phenomenon in this country) is important in consideration - whilst some American or other non UK english speakers may find themselves confused by the person and incident, I don't see that as a strong reason for deletion unless Wikipedias policy is to discourage cultural understanding and cross-referencing. Finally, I think the idea of descriping anonymouse users ala myself as sock puppets is the sort of arrogant attitude that leads to people regarding wikipedia as an insular, arrogant, 'we decide the truth' style resource rather than being as reliable as, say, the encyclopedia Brittania.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.254.89.228 (talk • contribs).
• Keep He is noted for the press coverage alone.Journalist1983 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is becoming very notable - The Guardian did a two page piece on him today and the public's reponse, it is also illustrated in the paper verion with various "posters" demonstrating his sttaus as an internet meme too [14] which is why I popped along here to have a look at this entry. (Emperor 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
• Keep He is cetainly notable and I'm sure his quotes will be remembered in future. As others have said, many other internet memes have pages here, but the difference is that Smeaton is also prominent in mainstream media in the UK, and has been noted elsewhere in the world. If he's completely forgotten in a few months time, merge it with the Glasgow Airport attack article, because at the very least he deserves a mention there as an imporant part of the aftermath as well as the atempted attack itself. But for now the article is relevant and if it wasn't here many people would be wondering why. Bluejam 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge content into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. Please could the editors whose only justification is "the guy deserves an entry" read Wikipedia policy on what is (and is not) notable here, and also what Wikipedia is not for here. Press coverage, by itself, does not establish notability... and is also not necessarily a reliable source. It's a fine line as to how much fame someone needs before they become notable - I would argue that people like Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc should not have articles either, because they are non-notable people from an encyclopedic perspective. Does Mr Smeaton deserve a medal? I'd be honoured to pin it on him myself... but does he belong in an encyclopedia? Taking an unemotional, rational look at it - sorry, no. EyeSerene^TALK 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. The John Smeaton story has had a large amount of press coverage, but for the moment it probably doesn’t justify an individual entry. But it should be retained in some form. Wikipedia is after all an information resource and somewhere down the line I can see people wondering what this John Smeaton stuff was all about. Spacecool 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is pretty poor quality at the moment, but there is a great deal of interest in this guy - for better or worse he is increasingly symbolizing the response to the attacks. I personally ended up on the page b/c I was hoping that there would be more info on wiki than I have so far found from other sources. Ketchumk
• Keep: Hey, Jimmy! Has received a significant amount of media attention, and may well receive an official medal. PatGallacher 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The Bebo morons are suggesting that Wikipedia is wrong to have nominated this page for deletion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia" didn't nominate this page for deletion, only User:Lynbarn did. They used the phrase "The idiots at Wikipedia", which can be inclusive or exclusive depending on how you want to take it. 62.31.67.29 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP* - He already seems more notable than Paris bleeping Hilton. GrotesqueOldParty 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per RMC1989. If people who do nothing notable except die in a terrorist attack on an airplane can have articles without controversy, then I can't imagine what is wrong with this one. Of course, the article could do with some improvement. It would probably be FA by now if all the above effort had gone into it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - John Smeaton well exemplifies the attitudes of Scots, and Glaswegians in particular, to contemporary terrorist attacks on their country. There aren't any other such well-documented exemplars and therefore this one should be kept. To remain engaging, WP needs leavening with this type of colour.
• Keep This is a heroic man who played a vital role in thwarting a major terrorist attack. His name and the incident will be forever linked. Certainly it needs edited but if you delete it the only loss will be to Wikipedia's relevance. I have to say I'm surprised that this is even a topic for discussion. FrazR
• Keep - BLP and the like were really aimed at something else. I can't see this harming him in any way. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Ultimately, if you delete this article because of it's 'limited' attention time - then you should delete thousands of others - e.g. Wesley Autrey? I don't see his page being deleted. What's the difference? Similarly, there are pages on Renetto, Worzel Gummidge and Nikki Hilton. Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia - not a definitive one. 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - His contribution & notoriety are roughly equivalent to those of Crispus Attucks, Todd Beamer, Joseph Gary -- who all have their own entries. A historian might well be interested in more than Smeaton's name, age, & job title; his actions & attitude can be interpreted as reflecting broadly on citizens' response to terrorism (though Smeaton is braver than most & therefore a standout).Mc sputnik 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Mc sputnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - John Smeaton is my hero, he has saved Scotland from terrorists, although if he is to be deleted from here, it proves what sad people wikipedia are with no thought for the world.
• Keep or failing that Merge to Glasgow airport incident. Notable for only one thing is still notable, look at Gavrilo Princip . Edward321 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What? Are you guy's nuts? I'm in Chicago and he's the talk of the town here even. This is a special moment in time - recording it is required. It is an encyclopedic event that will be forever known and mythologized. jombl 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — jombl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. The mergists are arguing that WP:BLP1E applies here - will he be remembered 6 months, a year, five years down the line? WP:NOTNEWS suggests that we should not cover hype, or at the very least merge it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepHis interviews were completely visceral and honest and he deserves to be well known (unlike most famous people).

139.133.7.38 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• KeepThis is a higly topical item of news, he has been in every major paper since the event happened and is still being interveiw on international T.V

saintmarkpeth 11:14, July 6 2007 (UTC) — saint_markperth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep – his participation and commentary on this historically significant event has been given significant mainstream coverage, and the internet phenomenon has also achieved mainstream coverage. Well sourced, clearly notable. Do we have to wait for the movie? ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Demonstrable name recognition, multiple sources referenced. Passes WP:BIO. Buy him a pint. Badgerpatrol 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have to be honest, at first I couldn't imagine why this article was being considered for deletion, and having read the posts here and trawled the policies and guidelines, I'm still not sure. As someone who has used Wikipedia for some time but without contributing, I am also fairly worried that my opinion will not be counted in this discussion. To combat this, I have examined the issue very closely and measured this case against Wikipedia's own Criteria for notability of people.
• Strong Keep. His is a very interesting modern day anthropological case study and he is fast becoming an important mascot with regards the war on terror at home - interesting too for the modern historian. I genuinely think this page will be returned to for years to come, especially if terrorism in Scotland becomes a common theme. His statement regarding Glasgow's treatment of terrorists is also very important and is as poignant (at least to those from the city) as Churchill’s ‘we will never surrender!’.Martshaw81 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC) — Martshaw81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

THE CRITERIA

. 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.

The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If we take the original interviews as primary sources, then it is clearly demonstratable that there have been a number of secondary newspaper, internet, radio and television articles, and that John Smeaton should be considered notable on this measure

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Even if the depth of coverage were to be deemed 'not substantial'. which I personally feel would be incorrect, there exist multiple independent sources that have been cited, and these continue to grow. I don't feel that anyone could argue thatthe coverage is 'trivial'.

The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. I am sure it is only a matter of time before we are reading the John Smeaton biography, no doubt entitled "We'll set aboot ye" and serialised prior to publication in one of the redtops.

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Scotland's First Minister has already assured the country that the heroes from Glasgow Airport - including John Smeaton - will receive appropriate honours.

The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I think that in this case, demonstrable wide name recognition is undeniable. Try it - I'm sure if you ask a number of people who John Smeaton is, the majority will mention he is a baggage handler at Glasgow airport rather than a notable 18th century civil engineer

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. That John Smeaton made a widely recognised contribution is in no doubt. I'm not sure that any of us could claim at this time to be able to state with certainty that his contributiion will NOT become part of the enduring historical record. My own inclination is that it will, much like Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" or the actions of Mayor Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks

Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products I have to say, this issue causes me the most distress. We sit and discuss John Smeaton's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia based on his heroic conduct, his forthright interviews and his burgeoning cult status during and following the terrorist attacks on the airport where he worked. However, once he signs the well-nigh inevitable Irn Bru promotional deal, then no more discussion is necessary. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Given that the Criteria for Notability state "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards", I would say by virtue of the fact John Smeaton meets so many of them the article is not a candidate for deletion. two other points to consider are that other less-notable people have an entry, so why shouldn't he, and secondly that the argument that 'he won't be remembered in a year' is a spurious one. Having read both What Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not, I can see no grounds for this being a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia is after all a repository of knowledge, often of knowledge that may otherwise be forgotten. 80.80.187.181 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Quote from Bebo: "The idiots at Wikipedia are flagging John Smeaton’s page for deletion. We need to make sure this doesn't happen. Get on to Wikipedia and get involved in the discussion. We can't let these idiots at Wikipedia remove a Scottish hero, as easily as that!".[15] To set the record straight, we welcome anyone to Wikipedia who wants to get involved... but please note, this is not a discussion about Mr Smeaton's heroism, which is uncontested, but about whether an article about this incident belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone being newsworthy is not the same as someone being notable - check out articles on other Scottish heroes (eg William Wallace) for comparison - it makes it clearer what sort of content and standards we should be aiming for. EyeSerene^TALK 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of articles on Wikipedia about utterly non-notable members of the "nobility" of Europe going back to the Middle Ages. I somehow think one article about a baggage handler who happens to have done more than all of them combined can be allowed to stand without bringing down the sparkling edifice that is Wikipedia. GrotesqueOldParty 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThis event happened, John is a real person and people will come here to learn about him (whether you consider it media hype or not). Are you trying to censor real events, real people and real history? There's a word for people who try to do that, and you can find that on Wikipedia. This entry can not be deleted. Ellisario D.M.M.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.202.130.202 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. He meets several aspects of WP:Bio and his article is referenced by multiple non-trivial sources.GiollaUidir 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a real person. He is someone who has featured in the news. He also happens to be a Internet Phenomenon. Cm619 23:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack even though I'm sure the result of this debate will be keep. Seems a lot of people are using the "he's awesome" reason or the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning. But overall he is probably notable. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack - He has no notability except for being involved in this incident, of which he is not even remotely a key figure in it, and therefore does not deserve his own article. A mention or two in the main article is all that is necessary. The359 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yeah, you'd hate to have an article devoted to someone who helped stop a terrorist... it could take attention away from articles about nasty cats. [[16]] Not that I have anything against Lewis. GrotesqueOldParty 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Wikipedia:Pokémon test, User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Articles are judged on their own notability, not on the notability of other articles. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I know - and the argument isn't really over "notability," it's over the degree of notability. As I said above, let this article stand. It can always be revisited later. Meanwhile, if you really believe what you say, how much time have you spent trying to get unnotables deleted lately? (Don't mess with Lewis, though. I like Lewis.) GrotesqueOldParty 04:49, 7 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. Sr13 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larissa Aurora

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

This "Model/Actress" has done nothing notable to warrant her own Wikipage. All she has done is be eliminated from two reality shows. Additionally, this article does not cite a single source to back any of its claims. I fail to see how this article passes WP:BIO) Gamer83 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reality show contestants are not notable unless they do something notable outside the show. In this case, her modeling career is not notable enough for inclusion Corpx 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Flavor of Love 2 and/or Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School.--JayJasper 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect (I favor deleting). Non-notable, no references (and two MySpace pages!). Precious Roy 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect Save the energy; just redirect like Bootz was. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect There isnt a reason why she should have a wikipedia page in the first place, she isnt a major person and hasnt done that much. If people want to know something about her then they need to go to her website. You could link her site on her name in the Flavor of Love 2 article. MarkDonna 21:58, 6 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. Nandesuka 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded"

List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of loosely-associated topics. Similar to the many, many articles deleted because they share a common word or words in the title, the items on this list have no relationship to one another beyond the author's happening to pick the same two words as a subtitle. They are drawn from multiple styles of "books" (including fiction books, textbooks, plays, poems, "erotic fiction" and anthologies) from across disparate centuries, have dissimilar protagonists, do not share the same "virtue" and the virtue does not garner the same reward. This list tells us nothing about the fiction or the real world. Keep arguments from the first AFD are incredibly poor, including among others such unpersuasive reasons as "interesting" and "well-written." Otto4711 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The inclusion criteria to this list seems completely random. Dr bab 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to categorize subtitles of books. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT as a list of loosely associated topics. Corpx
• Delete. The introduction tries to make a point that "Virtue Rewarded" is a subtitle of special importance in literature; but this goes completely unsourced, and hence must be considered original research. Without this point, however, the list remains a collection of loosely associated topics. --B. Wolterding 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You must be joking. If you think that's OR, then you simply know nothing about either the novels or scholarly discourse on the 18th century novel. You do not source common knowledge, even if there is someone somewhere who doesn't know it. Geogre 11:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per prior AfD result and the Keep arguments of Bunchofgrapes and Everyking therein; nothing has changed. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) deemphasizing in light of my more detailed remarks infra Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you refer to the following arguments from the previous AfD? Write an equally well-written and -sourced list/article hybrid on any other specific subtitle you care to, and we can keep that one too. / This is well-written and interesting and I imagine some people will find it useful. If you think these are valid arguments for keeping the article, please have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; in particular, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --B. Wolterding 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Newyorkbrad, and this is a distinct and unique list of books, with a very specific historic link. It is certainly not random. (Is random really a reason for deleting an article?) Peace.Lsi john 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a reliable source for this historic link? --B. Wolterding 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Paul August ☎

• All right. I conceived and wrote this piece. Quite a few books, as such, have been added by other contributors over the years, but, well, I planned, designed, and started it, and wrote the unsourced lead, and made the table... I was trying firstly to be funny, and secondly to make a WP:POINT about silly lists. Long time ago... [is lost in nostalgic musings. ] I wasn't an admin, I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about. I hope the gods of Wikipedia won't ban me for it, and I think the time has come to speedy the sucker. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep anyway per WP:ILIKEIT, an argument whose disfavored status is overruled in this instance. I think it's good to have an occasional article whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else ... and it's certainly not doing any harm. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I won't add more alphabet soup here... just this one: If you're looking for articles whose painstakingly assembled content is to be found nowhere else, have a look at WP:BJAODN. There's plenty. --B. Wolterding 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto4711, and especially per Bishonen, whose opinion is one of the most cogent I've ever seen in an AfD discussion. And Newyorkbrad, you may want to strike out one of your keep !votes, as you're entitled to only one. Deor 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  I think the closer would recognize a certain amount of playfullness in my participation in this particular AfD, but in the interest of comity I will take Deor's suggest. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Newyorkbrad and also because the whole renominating it so soon is kind of overkill. --164.107.222.23 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The last AFD was held last year and it certainly should have no bearing on this one. The only connections these books have in common are that they share 2 words in the subtitle. This is the textbook definition of directory of loose items (WP:NOT) Corpx 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:IAR. Capmango 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Might as well nominate AFD for AFD then Corpx 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• N Delete Virtue should be punished.--Perceive 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it's a good list, with substantial information, & a clear criterion. DGG 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. 1) This list is totally sweet. 2) In the vast corpus of academic publishing on The British Novel I'm sure there's something about the significance of the subtitle; if not, I'm going to draft up "Literary filiation and the subtitle, or Virtue Rewarded." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think these books have anything in common except two words in their subtitle? Corpx 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes--the post-Pamela books are making a very clear allusion to the title (though perhaps not the substance) of Richardson's novel. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the point of the list is negated if all items on it dont meet the set critera. Unless you remove the first two entires, do the items have anything else in common?

Well, the subtitle, obviously. The problem is that I haven't read most of these books, but I think it would be possible to argue that they share a common focus on sexual morality (or in the case of the erotic novel, sexual immorality). Is that focus exclusive to these works? Hardly. Is the list silly? Absolutely. But that's the essence of its charm. --Akhilleus (talk)

• I think the WP:NOT list of loosely releated items is referring to lists like this. Corpx 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, exactly--to me, "the subtitle is 'Virtue Rewarded'" is a pretty tight criterion. The more cogent objection is "why should we have a list based on what appears to be an insignificant characteristic of these novels?" And my answer is "because it's cool"! And yes, I realize that this could be construed as an argument for deletion instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just dont think an encyclopedia is the place to catalog boot titles and subtitles by the words in them. It seems way too trivial. If a bunch of books share similiar focus/content, they should be placed in a category, like Category:Books about sexual morality Corpx 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What would be the fun in that? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Actually WP:ILIKEIT is a reason to delete the article. "Because It's Cool"? Akhilleus, you are right that is a pretty good reason for deletion. Wildthing61476 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the phrase has entered common parlance (witness thesetwo very disparate headlines as examples), and an exploration of its literary origins seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Rewrite the opening using less WP:OR and more WP:RS, and perhaps rename to simply Virtue Rewarded (literature) or something similar. --DeLarge 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question is, are there any WP:RS for the opening? As User:Bishonen admitted above, she created this intro as a joke. We can hardly expect that there are any sources "just by chance" - unless you can provide some. --B. Wolterding 12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please use a little more care with your wording. I didn't admit it. Nobody cornered me and forced it out of me. I freely acknowledged it. The intro isn't a joke, as such, though the list is—while the claims in it aren't verified, I'm convinced they're correct. I might be able to find some sources. But I'm afraid I'm not prepared to undertake the research effort involved, since I'm in any case recommending "speedy the sucker". That's "she", not "he," btw. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
      • Excuse me if the word "admit" was slightly incorrect; I'm not a native speaker. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying source what's there, I'm saying rewrite using sources. As I said, it's an established phrase in literature. I created Selling coal to Newcastle in a couple of hours after it had previously been transwiki'd and deleted, and it was nominated for a DYK within a couple of days. Would this article take less time or more to improve? I don't know, and since my lunch hour is almost over I'm not likely to find out for several hours. But I see an encyclopedic article here, regardless of its origins. --DeLarge 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• The two sources you mention refer to this phrase in the context of medicine and corporations. I've never read these books, but an editor mentioned above that the usage in the list was suggestive of sexual morality? I dont think the two sources you provided are talking about the same "Virtue rewarded" Corpx 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have been clearer. The links were a demonstration that "virtue rewarded" isn't just a ye olde literary subtitle, but a phrase long established in English and used in a variety of contexts. I recommended renaming the page because I think there could be a more expansive article, with the list serving to demonstrate its etymological origins in 17th and 18th century literature. And since the basis of this article would still be what's currently here, I'd infinitely prefer an expansion/renaming, rather than starting from scratch with a userfied version that doesn't give credit to User:Bishonen (which may be a GFDL violation). Regards, --DeLarge 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the first AfD, vice is where the real rewards are. Nevertheless keep because ILIKEIT. And if that super-strong argument doesn't hold up then userfy until reliable sources can be found. Haukur 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Witty, thought-provoking, no possibility of edit warring anywhere in sight. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Listcruft of book that contain the same subtitle. Obviously there's thousands/millions of subtitles and you're bound to get a collection of subtitles with the same name. Wikipedia is not a listing site and there's no relevance in this list. Wikipedia is not the place to categorize subtitles of books and it is not a place for original research. The only form that this article should remain on is the users own page. Englishrose 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & ample precedents and due to irrelevant coincidence of name. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, come on. I've seen a whole lot of list that should not be included here, but this isn't one of them. This is definitely informative, definitely enjoyable and much better than any pokemon aticle out there! (I know other crap exists and all that, but come on people, this is truely more encyclopedic than any Pokemom article!!!!!)--SGT Tex 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, then nominate the "pokemon article" for deletion, instead of keeping this one because that exists. Corpx 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Retitle. With the following articles beginning "Moral... Special:Allpages/Moral_* and the article Morality play, there should certainly be an article Morality fiction or somesuch, with this list as an adjunct. There seems to be an obscure and fearful suspicion that a hint of wit hangs about this list... --Wetman 09:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a notable, coherent topic. Everyking 10:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and find more on this - it may ultimately need to be rewritten, per DeLarge (the suggestion to rename to Virtue Rewarded (literature) is a particularly good one), as a list is not the best form for this, but the article on Subtitle (titling) is woefully short at the moment, and I am sure the literary Wikipedians out there can find some obscure book or articles about the meanings and usage and interesting example of subtitles. Possibly such examples need to be scattered throughout Wikipedia as interesting trivia in the relevant articles, but there should be a unifying article somewhere. If deleted as a list, some of the worthwhile content should be rescued and placed in Subtitle (titling). I am very close to being bold and renaming to Virtue Rewarded (literature). Would anyone object to that? Carcharoth 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would. Feel free to re-work and rename it, but just renaming doesn't fit the present page. Pro primo, it's a list. And not all of the examples are literature. There's a handbook about writing dissertations, and ... [can't bring myself to go look] ... there may well be other non-literary books. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
    • Those are on there as ironic recreations of the original gesture of critical self-defense. I now see Marshal MacLuhan being brought to bear on this future dissertation, and the genre studies stuff, and the people who claim to be writing about parody but are really writing about Roland Barthes. Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't quite bring myself to type the K-word. See, <pedant> "virtue rewarded," as Bishonen knows, was the 17th and 18th centuries' version of "a thriller" or "romantic." Fiction was under severe attack as useless, and the conventional defense was the one they'd grabbed from Sidney's Defense of Poetry (and which he had cribbed from Plutarch's Moralia and Horace's Ars Poetica and sort of from Aristotle's Poetics) that fiction could be defensible if it showed us a world where virtue is rewarded and vice punished. Therefore, nearly every entertainment that showed kings and queens behaving badly would say that it was "virtue rewarded" in the Restoration. Richardson's Pamela carried that over to the novel (which was very, very suspect as silly and a swamp of vice that taught girls to be sluts). A Puritan writing a novel? Unheard of! "But...but...it's going to show virtue rewarded" (where "virtue" is code for the hymen). It's the abstinence education novel of 1749. Once Richardson did it, his allies would use the same subtitle from time to time, but then it just became a subtitle that referred back to Richardson. When you see the later ones, they're pretty explicitly trying to invoke Richardson. So there is a really cool bit of social and literary history one can get from the list. </pedant> Bishonen knows this. I have urged her to write it, but it's kind of hard to take such a light romp through four centuries and into the heads of all those authors to say it in a scholarly fashion. So: the list could serve as a very nice hint to a future researcher -- this is a dynamite master's topic, if not (with some literary theory thrown over the mess) doctoral dissertation -- but it's a list. I hate lists. Geogre 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But, Geogre. It's a list that says "I hate lists"! Bishonen | talk 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
    • "A list that says I hate lists"? Isn't that a bit pointy? If there is something there, write an article (or do a dissertation on it if an article would verge on original research), but don't just leave it as a list to make a point. Carcharoth 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • A bit pointy? I guess you didn't notice my delete (indeed, speedy delete) !vote here? As in "I was trying ... to make a WP:POINT... I was an irresponsible n00b mucking about ... speedy the sucker.". WP:POINT was my principal delete reason. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
        • I had read that, but had forgotten you had said that. Still, I think that your pointed point misses the point, if you get my drift. I, for one, can't wait to read something about the history and meaning of the subtitle in literature. I searched, but failed to find anything. Carcharoth 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And then, therefore, I would agree with its sentiments in hating the lists and so would want it kept, but that it's a list and wants to delete itself. I concur with that sentiment, too. (You know how I have argued that an article on "virtue" and "virtue rewarded" should be written and how you should do it.) Do we eject the baby (the things on the list...and all those things that should be on there -- those "virtue in dangers" and "virtue saved") to get rid of the dirty bathwater it's floating in? Geogre 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen's D vote is persuasive and Perceive may have a point too. More worryingly, these "books": Do they run on Xbox, on PS2, or what? Where can I download them, and how many channels is the sound in? ¶ Keep the sucker for now and then think of eventual delistification per Geogre. -- Hoary 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pamela and the Xbox: [17]. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, but that's a good link! (No, video games are not just the same as novels. Pamela taught country girls to sell their virginity for a wedding ring, according to Henry Fielding. Hitman teaches young boys to aim for the head. There is at least a slight difference. Good on them, though, and great link.) Geogre 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Although the title of the article may seem ridiculous and utterly trivial, the list appears to have some value in the field of history of literature. It binds together some works with a common theme, so it is not really indiscriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because of the intertextual links between these works, which make it not a random list. Why not also just move to Virtue Rewarded? I too hate "List of..." articles, but why should this be one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per several above, and against the author's protests. Nomination seems to miss several points - Virtue is a general, well virtue, which does not need to be divided up in the medieval fashion. Rewards are not the same - well fancy that! Johnbod 16:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. At first glance, it sounds like an arbitrary focus for a List, if one knows next to nothing of pre-20th c. English literature, but that's part of the List's charm and attraction, one can't help but wonder, what's this list really about?. Of course, the List is actually well-researched, coherent and "legit", though it may lack the obvious virtues of Lists like List of Pokémon characters, et al., whose virtues include zillions of living fans. Apologies to Perceive, this List should also be rewarded. Pinkville 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to emphasize something that has been suggested a few times above but not actually said, Virtue Rewarded is not merely two words that happened to come together as the subtitle of a number of written works, Virtue Rewarded is a cultural phenomenon, a defining concept that had some power in its day, and demonstrably (via this List, for example) to this day as well. The argument against this list would be akin to claiming that books with generative grammar in the title have nothing substantive in common, and that the fact that such books feature those two words in their titles is mere happenstance. But generative grammar and virtue rewarded are subjects, intellectual concepts that are/have been the subject of debate - whether in novel form, or the form of academic texts. Pinkville 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Juliette, or Vice Amply Rewarded is further evidence that a notable literary theme underlies these subtitles. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Good example. Pinkville 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• That the theme of "virtue rewarded" may or may not be notable as an intellectual concept does not mean that a list of every time the words "virtue rewarded" appear together in the subtitle of a book is notable. That is the distinction that is too often missed by people who want to keep these sorts of catch-all lists. The notability of Subject X does not automatically extend notability to every example of Subject X or everything that discusses Subject X or parodies Subject X or uses the words "Subject X." Otto4711 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. To quote Simone de Beauvoir: "Must we burn Samuel Richardson?" Mais non. Ça serait la vertu infortunée.--Pan Gerwazy 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it me, or are all the 18th century literati crawling out of the woodwork? :-) Carcharoth 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "Virtue Rewarded" is a commonly used term and apparently originated from one author after another in the 17th and 18th century using Virtue Rewarded as a subtitle for their book to provide a connection between their book and existing books that already carried the Virtue Rewarded subtitle. This list is a collection of book subtitles having a definite association. The very useful list probably does not appear anywhere in print other than Wikipedia. What a valuable addition to Wikipedia this article makes! Good job. Some modern uses of the term:
  • Virtue rewarded: the new dependency of the NOW woman. (reliance on government for solutions to social problems). Harper's Bazaar (May 1978)
  • Capitalism, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (February 9, 1986) Pg. 718
  • Finance and the Family: Virtue rewarded / Ethical investment. Financial Times (July 26, 1986)
  • Little Nell, or Virtue rewarded. New York Times (March 13, 1988)
  • Straight talking: Virtue rewarded. Evening Mail (April 27, 2001)
  • Virtue rewarded Evening Standard (April 18, 2007)

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:55, 9 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 JodyB _talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey's Law

Grey's Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism (this version of the law found only on one web site). If it sticks around, we can add it later. Phaunt 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd say it actually did stick, with 12,500 GHits. It's not called Grey's law though, but it's variously attributed to Vernon Schryver or Arthur C. Clarke (although it's just a paraphrase of his third law); see the discussion of origins here (Paul Ciszek claims the invention and calls it "Napoleon-Clarke law").
  Back to the question of sourcing, which is a bit difficult to find, and notability (apparently far less than the Hanlon), I'd say merge into Hanlon's Razor#Origins and similar quotations. Duja► 10:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. ZZ 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above, make into redirect and add it again if it sticks and adequate citations are found. .. dave souza, talk 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Ubernostrum 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep, add citation history. dml 13:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Variants would supplement and add to each other Tagasilab 16:56, 10 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, notability not asserted, no sources. NawlinWiki 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queens The Musical

Queens The Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

New production with no substantial claim of notability, and no third-party reliable sources cited. I had tagged with {{prod}} but page creator deprodded. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Google hits for "Scream Queens the Musical", but apparently none for this. --Javits2000 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There'll be plenty of third party sources when the play is performed at the end of the month for Pride Festival —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tartimarty (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Write the article once sources are available. --Javits2000 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case would you like me to temporarily remove it? Tartimarty 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 6 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 (WP:CSD#A7) by Anthony Appleyard. WODUP 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primitive prints

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

Contested prod. Small, local, defunct clothing manufacturer. No assertion of notability, no sources. Ford MF 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed; there doesn't seem to be any sources and the product have largely been forgotten. --Stormbay 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Let's wait a few days and see whether the author adds material supporting notability. For the current version: delete per nom. Han-Kwang 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete DB-BIO Corpx 21:45, 2 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 JodyB _talk 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Centennial Group

Pacific Centennial Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) No sources, been put up for speedy deletion twice, but I restored it after I got a message that made me think that maybe it's notable enough. Community consensus is better in this case. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While the speedy tags were clearly put up by a disgruntled customer, I think the article falls under speedy deletion. I fail to see any notability; it reads like an ad. I wonder what message you got that made you think it's notable? Could you post it? --Edokter (Talk) 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no outside verification of positive or negative claims. All the Google hits point to company pages, company officers' pages, or Wikipedia, which not only erodes RS, but also leads me to question notability, because there's not even a third-party product or company review. MSJapan 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• As a staff of this company, I understand there might be some conflict of interests of stating points. I understand where I stands hence if the community of Wikipedia feels that the article should be taken down, it should be taken down. Period. As of response to Edokter, the company received an email from National Library Board (Singapore) for nominating the company website to be archived. In the email, it states "NLB has deemed your website (URL: http://www.virtualoffice.com.sg/) to be an important part of Singapore's documentary heritage and would like it to remain available to researchers and generations of Singaporeans in the future. Hence NLB will be taking snapshots of your website under the appended terms." However, I will see to it that the article will be cleanup to fit Wikipedia's standard. As of response to MSJapan, there are no credible sources of third-party in our niche industry and as a private company, there are limitation to disclosure as there is difficulties for verification. All-in-all, there is a fine difference between fair opinion and outright vandalism. To me, a fair opinion must contain verifiable evidences or sources and not a blatant statement. In short, I understand and totally agree that we must preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and do allow me about a week to cleanup the article to make sure it's of quality & unbiased reference to the general public. Sg wiki editor 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Check out traffic ranking Alexa for proof of such blatent activites of "fugged traffic" against competitor companies. Starting June 2006 there was fugged traffic and you can see a sharp increase in traffic from no where with then entrace of new competitor, http://www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg, (compare us with them over a 3 year period and you will see the trend ) suggesting the use of "methods" to quickly gain higher position to ranking which may not be a true representation of data, and now this to try this way to get further ranking, while we would also like ourselves to be in WIKI, but we know exactly what wiki is NOT for and never fanthom the idea that we would be on WIKI. We have also conducted a search in the National Library Board website at NLB Search Sitefor this article and found nothing, search terms include fredom group, pacific, centennial, virtual office. Also to consider, if the library already archived this info, why the need to be here. I will be making a phone verification tomorrow to confirm this. Yes I am his competitor but I do think that WIKI has better purpose than this, If they are the Development Bank of Singapore, that is different, 1000s of employees with practically the whole of Singapore in it, they have a place in WIKI to inform people should they come to singapore and need a bank account. To MGJapan, I am truely sorry for having labelled his site with additional information, but we feel that it was fitting that all info regarding the company be presented. If you need proof of such history, we have verifiable sources showing his history. I use WIKI since my days during my U to hunt down words required in entomology, to find difficult to find recipies of curry i miss from home while i was in Boston studying for my degree, to get drug names found pharmaceutical companies, to learn about new discovery, and now to teach children i work with about research. I really do not want to see a great system be misused for such devious purposes. We are strictly not using this for a grudge match. We came into the picture because he decided to add our names and attacked similar competitors like ourselves. We have always though WIKI was a civilized place, dun you think so.--Smartvirtualoffice

• Keep - Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP as a point of reference, I believe that Pacific Centennial Group could be notable for two reasons - 1) It has won an award from an independent organisation and of which was received from President of Singapore, and the source is credible; and 2) It has received an email from National Library Board of Singapore, noting that their corporate website will be archived as part of Singapore's online heritage. However for the 2nd reason, the source is an email and verification could only be made via forwarding of email to qualified administrator to prevent abuse. Being small isn't a problem. What's important is that the article must be independent, accurate and is notable enough. And while Wikipedia is not a business directory, commercial organisations do play a part in people's life and wikipedia users should be able to use the articles to take a neutral reference of the organization. The article must not influence the reader, positively or negatively, or directly used for advertising purpose. A proper article must be factual and provide academic insight about the subject, without distortion towards commercial agendas. I believe that the newly revised article of Pacific Centennial Group should be able to fulfills the basic expectation of an academic researcher. Lastly, based on the history of this article, it has been aggressively vandalized from open IP addresses and the edits were generalized into two classes - external link pointing to www.smartvirtualoffice.com.sg and uncivilized spams. DO NOTE THAT I'm the primary editor of this article and I'm also a staff of the company mentioned in the article. Sg wiki editor 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93_(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting this I will remember this, Evilclown93,

• Strong Delete The use of a public community service as your personal campaign signboard is a big NO NO. While your self rightousness of not allowing self selling on certain forums, I have a strong agenda here at WIKI. I love WIKI and use it everyday. WIKI is definately the place for you to put this. You are far better at twisting words around to make you look right. I just state facts.

No your note about awards, for all concern, there are so many awardees each year, so should all of them come to WIKI to have a piece of the pie. What sort of ideology are you representing, Democracy? WIKI is not about democracy either. Please take your agendas else where to advertise.
2. Being featured in the National Library Board, we have been featured and invited on multiple occasions by our PM for closed door discussions lately, to help resturcture some of the Entrepreneural guidelines, do I also qualify to be put here. DO NOT throw name like the president of Singapore here and the National Library board here and expect that you will be elevated to some new level of being. WIKI is not about making you a hero, if we condone this, then everyone who shook the hand of the president of the united states with a photo will need a spot here on WIKI including my father and my mom, who incidentally did just that! You want to advertise your site, take it else where. To Evil Clown, if you have noticed, he has taken the opportunity to put links of ALL HIS related site on the page, and made attempts to quickly index that information on GOOGLE, further proving that this is strictly for SEO. I recommend the action of SPEEDY DELETION.
3. We made several calls to NLB to enquire about this heritage thing, no one knows..... if this is meant for our heritage, it should be known to as many people as possible, and I was passed around all morning from one department to the next and they no clue what this is about.

• Let me put things in perspective. I'm here to present cases of notability and its up for users to present their feedback. I would be happy if you could also present constructive feedback, but time after time, I see that you posted your opinion right on the article, of which can be clearly seen for vandalizing purpose. The links of all of our sites are to facilitate the user to quickly find the right website for reference purpose. However, you have yet again accuse us of leveraging Wikipedia for commercial purposes. Where's the proof? As for the email from National Library Board, I will present the evidence to a credible third-party for their review if necessary. Currently, I'm just presenting my case to the administrators just like a defendant. I believe I have the right to provide necessary information so that to convince the community that the article stays, but I also believe that if the community of wiki admins still feel uncomfortable and taken the article off, I will not challenge.

Based on your statement, you claimed that we abuse Wikipedia for our own commercial gains. You also claimed that we made attempts to quickly index the information on Google. On other articles, you also claimed of traffic spikes on Alexa. Seriously, Wikipedia did send people to our site. But which article don't? Also, on what evidence you have to show that we index the information on Google? As for Alexa, that's just our estimated traffic pattern. End of the day, it is well-known that Google has its own algorithm for indexing and that Alexa lacks of accuracy due to browser dependence. It seems that you just taking pot-shots to keep us busy in giving our evidence and presenting our case. However, the ball is back in your court now - What's evidence do you have for whatever you had claimed? For example, you claimed that certain staffs of NLB don't know about the archiving of websites. While there may be possibility that I lied, there is possibility that the archiving is known to just a department which they didn't know was handling the project. It is of no surprise in large organisations where disparate departments don't really know who does what. Still, I have the email for this and as mentioned, I will present it as an evidence to wiki admins if necessary.

While you claimed to be helping Wikipedia, your actions do not seems to be so. And while you claimed that it is because you want people to know the truth, the previous edits were in the largely in nature of malicious purposes. The difference between "THIS PROVIDER HAS MOVED 3 TIMES!" and "Previous Locations of Pacific Centennial Group" is that the former is for spiteful purpose and the latter is for users to understand more and draw their own conclusion. I deleted your opinions on the article because it was not factual and doesn't have reasonable evidence. And if you claimed that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart, you should help to cleanup the article or recommend for speedy deletion, and not taking law in your own hands. If you believe that we moved 3 times (we actually moved twice) or increased our prices, then do add them appropriately like "Previous Location" or "Previous Packages & Pricing".

I seen how MSJapan, Evilclown and several other administrators work and their explanation were largely inline with the policies of Wikipedia. Evilclown made the decision that the article may be notable but because I'm a direct staff of the company, I maybe in conflict of interest. I could have lied on that so save that article, but I believe that honesty is far more important. If Wikipedia don't accept the article now and delete off, I will put it more effort to make it more notable and hopefully in the future, someone else would recognized us and put us up again.Sg wiki editor 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here are an article which could resolve this situation - Resolving Dispute. I seek your co-operation in abiding to this official policy during your replies. Should you feel that the articles lack of certain information, I will be pleased to amend and include them with either citation or references from RS.

BTW also, we may still proceed to file a report to the police or engage a lawyer for those edits that was vandalized for malicious purpose. Since you claimed that it was not from you and was from your customers, I seek your co-operation to inform that customers of our course of action. However, if it was really from you, I hope that you could stop these nonsense. Seriously, a man must have courage to admit their wrongdoing. If wrong, then just apologize. Likewise, if after the police investigation has completed and the vandalism was not from you, I will issue an official apology with a reasonable compensation.

In short, I hope to settle this amicably, sincerely and honestly. Sg wiki editor 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was thinking about notability. Being notable also depends on the targeted audience. Taken for example - a famous jazz bar at Orchard Road. For a person who want to research about Singapore, this article is not notable. For a person who want to know about Orchard Road, it may be notable. For a person who want to know what famous places of entertainment at Orchard Road, Singapore, this article is highly relevant. I think the best question to ask is - "Why Bother?" Why should users bother about Pacific Centennial Group and what it does? Seriously, if I am just a typical user, I would probably think of that "Why Should I Bother About This Company?. There's tons of article. Is it worthy enough? From this point, another way to establish its notability is industry recognition. Let's just say that in 100 years time, if someone want to do a research on virtual office industry in 21st century, will the article provide any critical information? Is the company recognized within the industry? If the article is removed, will it impact the general view of the industry? Fundamentally, all these still depends on the user. Sg wiki editor 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• After some thoughts, I think the article should be deleted. Here's my explanation:

- First of all, I had reasoned that being notable is about being recognized by the industry. While it maybe true that Pacific Centennial Group is recognized, by itself may not be sufficient to be listed. I came to this conclusion after reading a magazine and was looking through the advertisements. Each of the company has its importance in the industry they are in. However, it would be nuts if I say all of these companies will be recognized within in their own industry. For example, if we think about burgers - we think about McDonalds, Burger King or even White Castle. That is what most people will know about burgers. Would people care if there is a guy who is famous for grilling delicious burger? Will people have a difference opinion about burgers if this guy is gone?

- Second, I was thinking through the comments of some users. Would its article add value to the user? Did Pacific Centennial Group founded something? Invented something? Created something unique? Vastly improved the industry? Yes, it did win awards and maybe recognized by the National Library Board. But will that be relevant to someone who want to research about the virtual office industry of Singapore?

- Third, I'm a staff of Pacific Centennial Group. While my reasoning may have its merit, it is simply not wise (recommended) that I should edit this article. Even if I want to achieve neutrality, readers may be skeptic about the accuracy of the article and that defeat the entire purpose. Likewise I know that the article is created by the staffs of that company, I would certainly have some doubt about the accuracy and NPOV.

Eventually after these thoughts, if unless someone could prove otherwise (I would be glad though), I hope that the article to be removed within these few days. Also, while I might not really like the tone of this smartvirtualoffice user, I think some of his comments have certain merits and has successfully challenged my thoughts. But still, I do not condone his methods of vandalizing the article. Sg wiki editor 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I dun think I need to say that much. Peter Tan Jun Long, you are not any where near as noble as you present yourself to be.
1. In Wiki, when we added our links as alternative, you could not stand that could you. 2. We feel you have vandalized WIKI, and would consider putting that up in a police report as well..
3. We feel you are a man with many double standards, especially when it comes to treatment. You think you run the Virtual Office Scene, think again. Regus and Servcorp with many offices worldwide does not have to win awards to be placed here. Signature space with more offices around does not have a 4. ALL ADMINSTRATORS now want your site deleted, do you agree it needs to be?
That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC). You keep stressing how great the company is, we are arguing on very different terms. 2 ADMINISTRATORS have made their case to have your site deleted. This time, it is not ME who says delete and you still do not want to, that says a lot about you. While you took pot shots at us way back in 2006, no one agreed or disagreed with you, this time ADMINSTRATORS are telling you to delete. I may be adding fuel to the fire, but fact stands that you need to be deleted. I am sure you will want the last words on this and you will go into lengthy explaination as to why you are the best and need to be here because you won an award that was voted and INTERVIEWED by students who are naive and took a medal with SR Nathan, so what....

• Please include your name when adding comments. By the way, my name is not Peter Tan Jun Long.

1) You add a link which doesn't relate to the article but just for the purpose of luring readers to your site. Anyway, you mentioned before that the links were from your customers and not from you. Now you said that it was you who added the links. Contradicting.

2) Feel free to put up a police report if you think it's necessary or valid.

3) When you mentioned double standard, in which circumstance did I show that I have such a behavior? Did I mentioned that my article should be placed up and other people's articles shouldn't be place? It seems that to you, deleting away your biased opinion is double-standard. I deleted because it is not factual. That's all. Also, I have never once in Wikipedia dispute your claims on your company, whether your parents shake hands with US President, or whatever.

4) Yes, most administrators feel that the article should be taken off. I never claimed that the company is great. I only present evidences that I believe the article has certain notable values and hopefully that the administrators could evaluate. Also, I never hide behind any other usernames or IP addresses to disguise my relationship with the company. As for Spirit of Enterprise, I think you have no clue on how it works. Companies are nominated for SOE award and are interviewed by tertiary students. SOE has a Board of Governors who determine whether if the company should win the award, and these Board of Governors includes experienced businessmen or professionals. Award winners are also co-determined by public voting too. And whether if we receive an award from Mr. SR Nathan, President of Singapore, it is just a factual statement (just like stating that our office is located in Robinson Road). We didn't spin any stories but I guess that my previous statement of "one of the leading..." may not be proper and feels a little advertorial. That is why I clean-up the article to be more factual and removed statements that I have no concrete evidences.

I'm not here to claim how noble I am. I'm not. All I trying to do is to place an article and present the evidences to show its notability. Throughout these times, I begin to read up on Wikipedia policies and try to figure whether if the article has complied with the given guidelines. The more I read the more it becomes clear that the article has both its merits and demerits. While I still believe that the article is notable and neutral (merits), after careful thoughts I feel that there were two critical issues - I'm the staff of the article's mentioned company (COI) and that the company may yet to become a valuable study in the field of virtual office industry (demerits). That's why even I think the article should be deleted, but in a more civil and analytical way.

Anyway, don't be that spiteful. If you really care for Wikipedia and wish to police around, do use the time to help clear up the loadful of articles that wait to be clean-up. Don't forget to add you name. Sg wiki editor 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with yours... --202.55.71.12 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:COI. However, that said, well done to Sg wiki editor for being open about potential conflict of interest and to Evilclown93 (sorry for the vanilla sig) for bringing it to AfD - gotta love the transparency all round :) Paxse 13:31, 10 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. Sr13 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of landmarks in Chicago

List of landmarks in Chicago (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article survived a prior AFD when List of Chicago Landmarks was less well developed. Now, that the List of Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL it should be clear that a listing of the official Chicago Landmarks and National Historic Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois is the proper list for this topic. A quick read of WP:WIAFL should help one to understand why this page is not a good list. It constitutes WP:OR. The only source for this list is the editor who has posted his favorite buildings. There is no reason for anyone to post a list of their favorite buildings and pass them off as a list of landmarks. It is not (WP:NOT#OR) encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete nominator as stated above. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment merge is unacceptable as it would cause us to put WP:FL status at risk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete in favor of the more complete List of Chicago Landmarks. This page now has no useful information. Speciate 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for all the same reasons it should have been deleted last time. Otto4711 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the same reasons it was kept last time or merge with List of Chicago Landmarks. --164.107.222.23 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicago Landmarks as likely search term. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Category:Registered Historic Places in Chicago, Illinois and List of Chicago Landmarks are officially-selected and verified lists, whereas List of landmarks in Chicago doesn't have set criteria for listing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect I agree that it might be best to redirect to Chicago Landmarks for searches.--Kranar drogin 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 6 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 06:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richest cities by 2020

Richest cities by 2020 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article that solely consists of speculation about the future wealth of cities is not encyclopedic. If this information belongs anywhere on Wikipedia then it's as a link to an article about the *current* ranking of richest cities. It certainly doesn't deserve its own article, especially when it appears to be lifted from an uncited PricewaterhouseCoopers article. Hux 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as obvious crystal balling. Batmanand | Talk 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is no reference to show the Statistic studies on this subject , It's someone's imagination. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment AND HE HAS INCLUDED MUMBAI EVEN. ! Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment and check this out : Richest cities in the world . WHYYYY MAAAN ? WHHHHYYYYYYY ? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment So I can nominate that article for AfD? Hey, I'm first for the day! Woo hoo! Clarityfiend 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment hehe , yes , it includes the same reasons . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Pure speculation! Corpx 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. Whatever "GDP in 2020 in $US BN" is, it's not based in reality. per everybody else. Okay, the AfD discussion for Richest cities in the world made things clearer. Clarityfiend 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is speculation. Cedars 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per most of the above. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even if it is true that PwC did make such a study, said studies are still speculative. remember the flying cars that were supposed to be common by the year 2000?Balloonman 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Frigo 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• stink! My city didn't make the cut. pure speculation, delete. Kripto 11:07, 5 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 06:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cozy Morley

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

Chanllenged speedy deletion, (notability concerns) Evilclown93_(talk) 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable comedian. Might be famous in one town, but not in the big picture Corpx 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No noteability is established in the article, but I found this article in the NY times that may help. Unfortunately, you need to pay to read the article, and I don't care enough about mr.Morley being kept on Wikipedia to pay to establish his noteability. The abstract claims he has "been South Jersey Shore institution since 1949 and still draws older crowd at Copa Room at Sands in Atlantic City, NJ". Dr bab 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotableBalloonman 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete, non-notable. Kripto 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 6 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 G8. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Security Measures

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

Totally WP:OR TexasAndroid 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OysterGuitarst 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I originally nominated this for speedy, but I do now agree with the fact that it doesn't necessarily fit nicely into any of the speedy criteria. Many things about the article just don't fit with what Wikipedia should be about, though, in my view. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - author request (author tried blanking the article after AfD nomination.) Han-Kwang 21:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• WTF? - why shouldn't I blank the article. No one cares about it anyway. I've had requests from administrators to delete the information. And that is the end of it. Chemical.Reaper 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Author blanked WP:OR Q ^{T C} 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• CSD - DB NONSENSE - That was the funniest page nominated for AFD. Ever. Corpx 21:52, 2 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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ReCAPTCHA

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

on the grounds of not notable and WP:SPAM Sycarr 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into CAPTCHA? -- Senalishia 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep concept has appeared in scholarly literature, and in a recent article in The New York Times. Alansohn 03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with CAPTCHA imo. -- Noam 84.108.243.66 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Novel use that helps with digitizing printed works MeekMark 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Describes a technology using CAPTCHAs to do OCR. Has potential for enough content to be distinct from the CAPTCHA article. Given that the technology got relatively wide news coverage (NY Times article, Wired article, Digg, Slashdot, Reddit) it's pretty clear that it's notable. 64.9.236.172 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article and let the relevant bits be taken out from CAPTCHA. If let stayed in CAPTCHA, it tastes like a certain kind of pork. --Kakurady 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article. It's an implementation of CAPTCHAs from the original inventors of CAPTCHA, and is therefore notable. As an editor above mentioned, it's been covered in many mainstream news sources, including the NY Times and the print version of Wired. As an academic project at Carnegie Mellon University, it is likely that there will eventually be peer-reviewed papers published about reCAPTCHA. Colin M. 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been covered in Wired, NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. It's also very useful for the Web!

These two comments were on the talk page, and should probably be counted as votes:

• Keep Why on earth would this article be deleted? It describes a real tool used by thousands (maybe millions) of people. The article should very much remain. --Thorwald 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Neither can I see a reason for deleting this article. And before deleting it completely, I'd merge it into Captcha. Glaubigern 11:41, 6 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 and protect as recreation of multiply-deleted article. Daniel Case 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francesca Ortolani

Like Kenny McCormack, this article has been deleted and keeps coming back lots of times and deleted again and needs to be stopped from recreation. Dr Tobias Funke 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and not a single reference for WP:MUSIC criteria. Shalom ^Hello 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the page till this person gains notability Corpx 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Shalom. Oregongirl0407 01:54, 3 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. NawlinWiki 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Shanley

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

Does not take any clear hint why this person is notable and originally researchd. Dr Tobias Funke 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As I surmised from the tone of the article, we have a clear WP:COI from Jaapmeeuwsen (talk · contribs), who has no unrelated edits. Shalom ^Hello 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. There is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the original editor, but the subject of the article does meet WP:N, in her own right and as a member of De Dannan (and in the non-wiki sense of her records being readily available in my not-very-big local record shop :O)) If deleted, at least delete without prejudice to recreation. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment, but the page states her as a guest performer and not as a main performer as this is what I am getting the impression of. Dr Tobias Funke 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable solo performer in her own right. I just cleaned and de-POVd it slightly. It's a stub, but could easily be augmented. If the AfD goes keep, I'll re-visit it - Alison ☺ 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Relatively well-known artist who in addition has collaborated with a number of notable acts and entertainers, including the aforementioned De Dannan and Ronnie Drew, with whom she has recorded two albums. Article is now a stable stub. Cromag ^{talk to me} 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 6 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carole Coleman

There is more news journalist that is more famous and she is famous for this Bush thing, henceforth not notable at all. Dr Tobias Funke 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough to me.. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm not into the Irish media, but if the affair warranted an article in the UK Sunday Times it seems to meet the notability threshold. Han-Kwang 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, seems notable enough to Keep --Rocksanddirt 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Hankwang. JJL 22:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep, but rewrite, and maybe try a little harder with the POV. Kripto 11:13, 5 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, I don't mind recreation, though. The subject is notable, but the article is unsourced so it's better to start again. Sr13 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declan Maxwell

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

As I have seen the original nomination, I had to remoninate this as the person who originall ynominated it has a good reason to only he is stupid to call himself a sockpuppet, I mean why not have a user call himself a wikipedia vandal

The reason is, not notable, vanity article, originally sourced and only 763 ghits. Also anybody can write an Autobiography these days and get it published. Dr Tobias Funke 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete reads like a vanity page. JJL 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but without prejudice to recreation. The subject of the article does exist and GAA players playing at that level tend to be notable in their own right, but this article is unsalvagable. Better to start again, if necesssary. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete :: as well as the questionable style, there is also the issue of the potential defamatory nature of the "personal life" section. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yup. I have edited out the silly (or sillier?) stuff. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The current edit still looks like fancruft to me, I still say delete it all as all that appears to be unsourced and that autobiography where all that is cited does not even exist on Amazon, therefore it means non existent source. Dr Tobias Funke 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I deliberately left much of the article in place, despite obvious reservations about the tone and removed only the material that was clearly made-up or were of BLP concerns (or both). There is a sports journalist called Kevin McStay, who sometimes contributes to the The Sunday Game programme, who may or may not have made that comment; I can't find an online reference, but he quite possibly did. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because this is an unsourced BLP. However this person is notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.". Notability should not be used as a reason for the deletion of this article so that people feel free to create a new better article. -- Patleahy 17:43, 6 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 due to unanimous consensus as unverifiable. Daniel Case 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Richards (football)

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

Not notable; can't find any independent sources Cordless Larry 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, sounds like a possible autobiography of a non-notable individual. Useight 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly not meeting WP:BIO -- BanRay 10:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing links to the article either. Govvy 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - probable autobiography created by an SPA. Nothing to suggest this bloke is notable in any field..... ChrisTheDude 12:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of notability in the article. Jogurney 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear to have played professionally, and I personally can't find any information elsewhere about the player (or his subsequent non-football career for that matter). Robotforaday 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete probably a candidate for speedy deletion. ArtVandelay13 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Comes across as a hoax, and even if not so, it is clearly still not notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:56, 3 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, insufficient notability with a lack of references. Sr13 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just another illusion

Just another illusion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't find any coverage of this band in reliable sources, at least not in English. Their notability is not really asserted (or barely asserted)--it's not even clear if they actually cut an album. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete notability not firmly stated. Unless quality sources can be provided during the AfD it should probably go. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSIC, no references. Precious Roy 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 6 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, neologism created by article author the day before he posted the article. NawlinWiki 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanjaya effect

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

Non notable neologism. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:NFT. The term cannot be notable because it was just invented yesterday. Shalom ^Hello 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have a heart. This concept is relevant and is going somewhere I assure you. It has been under discussion, by members of the political/technical community for sometime but lacked a name. Try and see past black and white orthodoxy and consider the relevancy and necessity of the principle itself. Thank you very much for your consideration hamilsizzle

Be serious hamil. This is a name that was created YESTERDAY and I suspect it is simply a way for the guy credited with coming up with the name to get his name on the net. If you believe that the concept is important, then the idea can be discussed on Sanjaya's page, if he has one (I have no desire to read about him so I don't know if he has one or not) and/or the American Idol page. Postcard Cathy 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OOPS Hamil, you are the guy mentioned in the article! And might I add that the community you talk about is also the name of a section of your website?? Perhaps the political technical community you talk about are your friends and not the community at large? Postcard Cathy 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, thank you everyone for your input on this. This is my very first wikipedia entry, so it's a great learning experience about the community and the platform.

Postcard Cathy: the idea cannot be discussed on Sajaya's page because it is not about Sanjaya, we just use his name. The wisdom of crowds principle, which is what makes wikipedia work, and is the same principle behind what makes google work, says that large groups of people with a diverse body of opinions are predisposed to make the wisest decisions. Which is how a site like wikipedia can be opened to anyone to add content and committed wikipedians like you an others add their thoughts and opinions to help shape the final product.

But sometimes people game the system. With google, the practice is called a google bomb. There has been no definition for gaming another crowd-wise system like online voting.

I work for a member of congress and I and a group of people in the democratic political community are working on ways to use crowd wisdom technologies for things like developing public policy or voting on which questions to answer in an online town hall. This is where what I'm calling the sanjaya effect comes in. This would be like google bombing, but not on google...an attempt to artificially affect the outcome for humorous purposes through the crowd voting for the worst option as opposed to the best option.

So If I had my boss the congressman doing an online townhall, and the crowd voted to ask him a question on a salacious topic instead of a relevant one (much like a adolescent prank call), then that would be the sanjaya effect.

Sanjaya was an american idol contestant who was voted by the audience to stay on the show precisely because he was awful, and not good (and so many people found it funny that they continued to vote him on to stay).

I don't care about getting my name on the net and have removed the part of the definition that referred to me. I do believe that this is a relevant definition and an easy an important way for people in politics to describe a phenomenon they should be wary of when introducing web 2.0 technologies into politics.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this page.

Thanks for being civil, but you are missing the problem with the article. Myself and other have called the term non notable. Notability in the Wikipedia sense, largely refers to WP:N which stems from WP:V. In order for articles to be kept they must be sourced from reliable sources. As the subject of your article is a neologism that you invented a couple of days ago it is unlikely that sources discussing it exist. In general it is best to make sure that sources exist before creating an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, understood. I will return with more references. Thank you for your assistance and your advice. --Hamilsizzle 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'll grant that the phenomenon exists (cf Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf , for instance), but this is not what people call it. What do they call it? I dunno; find out. DS 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - since the article does not even claim that the term is notable. It is important not to confuse the term with the concept. The article is about a neologism being applied to a phenomenon that may or may not have been discussed under other names (and thus may or may not itself be notable under a more common designation). Online searches, which are not a hard and fast rule, do give some idea that the term, while it has been used at times in entertainment news, identifies the effect that one particular contestant had on one particular show, not a phenomenon that has any real relevance apart from American Idol. In other words, a casual Google search (for example) might return a number of hits, but they aren't about the subject being addressed by this article. ◄Zahakiel► 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another name for this is market manipulation, but this is a very particular kind of manipulation (humor/nefarious) to a very particular kind of market (information). You guys are missing the forest for the trees here. I understand the need for references and will return.--Hamilsizzle 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, "market manipulation" might warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and the various types can probably work as sub-headings to describe particular factors and effects. Perhaps, since you have an interest there, you can spearhead this entry; it doesn't currently exist under that name. The "Sanjaya effect," on the other hand, does not seem to be a notable term for any phenomenon related to this kind of manipulation, and I will probably be surprised if you can find references (independent of yourself or internet blogs) that use it in the manner described by the current entry. ◄Zahakiel► 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete. I don't disagree with the concept, but I do dispute the notability. It just sounds like the kind of thing that gets made up over a few beers. Kripto 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• 'merge to Sanjaya Malakar if refs provided show some notability, delete otherwise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:30, 7 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 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Druids: Animalkin

Druids: Animalkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references cited, can't find any hint that this game even exists. Probable hoax. Tim! 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: as hoax. The only Google hits for this game or the alleged company that made it is this article.  RGTraynor  19:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - another nonsense article by MrFijiax. Miremare 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Short of the article's creator having the name wrong, this game doesn't exist. Someguy1221 06:01, 3 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 due to unanimous consensus as hoax. Daniel Case 16:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacterium(Doctor Who)

Bacterium(Doctor Who) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete rubbish, but there is no speedy criterion which covers hoaxes. Tim! 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- Hoax. Doctor Who is currently on its tenth doctor, this article claims to be about the twelfth. -- MisterHand 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - as far as I can see it's a complete fabrication. -- Hux 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - user:MrFijiax only seems to edit Wikipedia in order to create hoax Doctor Who related articles and add made up information to existing articles. BTW Tim!, I think his previous ones were speedied simply as {{db-nonsense}}. Miremare 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Hoax. Complete Rubbish --OZOO (What?) 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I must have missed some episodes. Kripto 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have also speedy-tagged The Street's End, The Bacterium and The Bell Tolls, Doctor as they are also obviously hoax articles. Stephenb (Talk) 08:15, 6 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 spam. Should have been speedied originally, IMO. Daniel Case 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lattimore Records

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

NN record label. Spam/advert, doesn't state notability Lugnuts 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G11, spam. Shalom ^Hello 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - it's clearly spam. -- Hux 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no google news results. John Vandenberg 15:17, 6 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 non-notable television event per Kalathalan. Daniel Case 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disney Channel's Wish Gone Amiss Weekend

Disney Channel's Wish Gone Amiss Weekend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Poorly written article about a 1 night event on Disney Channel. Not Notable enough to have its own article. All it is, is a new episode of 3 of their series with similar plots. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable non-event. Brianyoumans 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Brianyoumans. --Metropolitan90 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Brianyouams. Definitely not notable enough; Wikipedia doesn't cover other television station "events," does it? Kalani ^[talk] 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. Probably made by a die hard Disney channel nerd. OfficerPhil 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You got a problem with Disney channel nerds?! :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; this "episode" is going to happen on July 13; no google news results yet and the article doesnt demonstrate any notability. John Vandenberg 15:21, 6 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 nn and per previous speedy. Daniel Case 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nesto

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

Surely a laudable effort, but no evidence for encyclopedic notability (no reliable independent sources, no hard facts like the number of members or the yearly budget). Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Pelzner. High on a tree 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Content not encyclopedic and no assertion of notability. Han-Kwang 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 6 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 withdrawn by nominator. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six Ages of the World

Six Ages of the World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article asserts significance of this chronological scheme, but doesn't show that it's important outside the work of St. Augustine, and doesn't provide evidence of its importance within Augustine's work. Searches on Google scholar turn up nothing useful, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have an entry on this and doesn't mention it in the article on St. Augustine ([18]). Conte's History of Latin Literature doesn't mention the work this concept supposedly comes from (De catechizandis rudibus). Therefore, I don't think this conecept is notable, and I suspect there's a fair amount of original research in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A systemization of history found in many medieval works. I'm at my job, without access to my books at the moment, but to the best of my recollection this appears in Orosius and Vincent of Beauvais, among others; and it's covered in C. S. Lewis's The Discarded Image and other secondary sources. I'll try to add more when I get home. Deor 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are other sources, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Six Ages of the World doesn't seem like the right title, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 2 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Pelzner

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

No sources, no evidence of notability. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesto. Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago.) High on a tree 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable person. -- Hux 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 6 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 ck lostsword•T•C 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GATS, Inc

GATS, Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. The creator's other contributions are adding links to spectralcalc.com (registered to GATS, Inc.) to dozens of pages, and the creator's name matches the company's COO, i.e. COI. Delete Han-Kwang 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable, plus probable spam. -- Hux 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 6 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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Rosen

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

Non-notable author. Prod tag removed by original author without comment. Delete'. DMG413 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Author does initially appear to be rather non-notable; however, he does seem to have an involved career in the liberal arts which makes him notable in my book. If this article were wikified it could pass, but it is questionable whether this is self-advertisement by the author himself. Since there are some verifiable sources on Google, I think this page could stay if improved. --David Andreas 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Author certainly is notable. He has generated a significant amount of public awareness to the Off-Grid campaign in the UK - including BBC TV news & radio interviews in May 2007 - and he has indeed had a colourful career in the liberal arts. Nick Rosen is an award-winning producer and an esteemed journalist - I believe he wrote several articles on the dawn of the Internet for The Times newspaper in the early nineties. I respectfully suggest that this does indeed makes him notable. One has only to conduct a search for "Nick Rosen" on Google for verifiable sources. This link points to an article for the Daily Telegraph: [19] and an article by the Times Online [20].

I propose that I edit article is edited for neutrality, to remove any suggestion of self-advertisement. Thank you. Nightfly1 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - agreed with Nightfly1 above: he's notable enough so the article should stay provided its style is significantly improved. -- Hux 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I think its passable, sufficient varied aspects, though perhaps none of them by itself would qualify. DGG 03:20, 3 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 04:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punktastic Recordings

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

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable, plus it looks like a clear case of self-promotion. -- Hux 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - 3-man company with 11 obscure titles looks like non-notable. Han-Kwang 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing indicates notability. Precious Roy 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 6 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 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unmasking St. Minver

Unmasking St. Minver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. A G-search excluding Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages returns only 29 hits.  RGTraynor  20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:42, 4 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 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Times, Late Nights..

Hard Times, Late Nights.. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not even assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 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 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Seat In The House

Best Seat In The House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not assert notability. Han-Kwang 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop McGuinness High School (Oklahoma)

Bishop McGuinness High School (Oklahoma) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete: Non-notable school Kilburnian 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep School has won some 47 state sports championships and two state-wide academic bowl championships. Sources are provided for the overwhelming majority of these achievements, with many more sources to come. The schools boys and girls cross country running teams have won more than 3/4s of the state championships in their class since the early 1990s. Notability is established. Alansohn 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notablity asserted, article development well underway. EagleFan 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: A school with twenty-five cross-country state championships in the last seventeen years must have had numerous newspaper articles about such a notable level of dominance. On that alone the school would pass WP:NN and WP:V, even if it was otherwise wholly unnoted and unremarkable, a stipulation lacking in evidence.  RGTraynor  20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Solid Keep — Nom. didn't even present a case against for deletion. What was the point? — RJH (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that the overwhelming majority of high schools are notable, and this one is no exception. I also wonder about the lack of justification an reasoning of many AfDs, and the fact that this AfD was created by a new user in his first five edits on Wikipedia. However, you may want to take a look at the article as it existed when the AfD was created. Alansohn 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn, certainly notable for the sport section.--JForget 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a remarkable and notable sporting record. TerriersFan 17:59, 4 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 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kneehigh/The Maple State

Kneehigh/The Maple State (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release by non-notable bands on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination and per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:42, 7 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 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punktastic Unscene 1

Punktastic Unscene 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 6 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 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At Least Until We've Settled In

At Least Until We've Settled In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release by a non-notable band on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 6 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 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punktastic Unscene 2

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

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 6 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 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punktastic Unscene 3

Punktastic Unscene 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable release on a non-notable label. Precious Roy 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 6 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 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Maple State

The Maple State (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 6 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 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaser (band)

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

Article does not assert notability and is promotional. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 6 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 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Rising

Day of Rising (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sufficiently notable + spam. -- Hux 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 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 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emad Khorasani

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

My prod was contested since googling the poet gave the contester reason to believe the poet is notable. I disagree with that as a reason. One shouldn't have to google someone to figure out if they are notable or not. One should be able to read the article on the person at hand and see from that info that they are notable. This article has been around for a while and no one, not even the original author, has done anything to let us know that this guy is notable. They simply state he existed which IMHO is not wiki worthy. Unless the article is improved significantly before the time is up on this AFD, I say strong delete as unnotable with no sources. Postcard Cathy 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - likewise unless expanded right away. There's a minimal bio here. Googling his name in Persian finds this BBC Persian article, an obituary I think. But unless anyone bilingual is prepared to translate something pronto, there's not enough to justify keeping the article. I've posted a request for help to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. Gordonofcartoon 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Two years without the slightest improvement to the article's content is long enough for me to think that nobody's ever going to bother, and the article doesn't meet WP standards as-is. Propaniac 18:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 6 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Movielife

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

Article fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. Suspect label using WP as a platform for advertising. aliasd·U·T 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with comment Please explain. I have found multiple non-trivial references to this band, Vinnie Caruana and I Am the Avalanche, two of which come from no less than MTV.--Ispy1981 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added the MTV bio to the article. --Darksun 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Meets several criteria of WP:MUSIC, including two albums released on very notable indie label Drive-Thru Records. Chubbles 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the band passes WP:N and has charted on the Billboard charts in 2003, breaking into the Top 200. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Easily notable. I think the nom got a little (understandably) carried away following a trail of non-notable spam. Precious Roy 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Nom Keep as per Precious Roy. The article when nominated was unreferenced, and I am still of the opinion article was written up here for promotion, however, I am now convinced of WP:N. I guess 90% of my AfDs from that day will be deleted, so not a bad average, and for the record, I am not a deletionist, just dont like WP being used as a platform for marketing. aliasd·U·T 08:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Meets so many of the WP:Band notability criteria. I don't know why anybody would nominate this for deletion. Gekritzl 13:06, 4 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am the Avalanche

I Am the Avalanche (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article written as an advertisement, and fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. aliasd·U·T 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have just added a bio from MTV.com that denotes some notability.--Ispy1981 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the MTV bio and the other sources I listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnie Caruana --Darksun 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep On a notable label, have toured multiple times nationally, and has received significant press coverage. Needs a little cleanup but definitely meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Nominator Keep As this article was quickly referenced after AfD nom, this still requires a cleanup, but am now convinced that the subject matter is notable. aliasd·U·T 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. Precious Roy 07:50, 4 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 speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert_Stan

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

Autobiographical page, should really be a user page VTSPOWER 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Robert Stan as CSD:BIO. This one's a seventeen year old kid. Tagged it. Checking Robert Stanek.--Ispy1981 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Robert Stanek is different than Robert Stan. My vote stands.--Ispy1981 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nonsense. Ganfon 16:40, 2 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)

P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet again another non-notable album track which user:Superior1 refuses to allow to be redirected to the album it comes from. Corvus cornix 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - This album reached #10 on the US charts so that gives slight notability Corpx 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To the album. Not to every track on the album. Corvus cornix 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he meant the single, which hit number 10. Superior1 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thriller--Ispy1981 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And by that, I mean, of course Thriller (album)...d'oh.--Ispy1981 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am opposed to the indiscriminate creation of the various Michael Jackson articles and am probably already on the blacklist of WikiProject Michael Jackson for also trying to stem it. However, this song actually is notable - it wasn't just an album track. It was an international chart hit, U.S. included. GassyGuy 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect To Thriller page. Ganfon 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Top 10 in one or more markets is inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to withdraw this, if it's okay with everybody else, it was a single, though it's only obvious by reading the non-prose headers. Corvus cornix 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep WTF? Album track? More like hit top 10 single. Superior1 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Far from a Michael Jackson fan here, but this was a pretty huge album. All the other songs have their own links, and this was a top ten single. It's noteworthy.--Fightingirish 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A top 10 single from the biggest-selling album of all time. JavaTenor 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Top ten hits are notable in and of themselves. Chubbles 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. And it looks like a concensus to me. The Moving Finger Writes 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Like many others have noted, this was a hit single = Notable. Precious Roy 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it got to number 11 in the UK as well, according to everyhit.com, so it was successful internationally ChrisTheDude 15:23, 5 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 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borisav Knežević

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

Contested Prod (prodded by myself); recreated by Boriswiki (talk · contribs) from Google cache, which I took as a contest to the prod. I restored the history now, which also contains references (in the form of x-links).
The article reads like a resume. It does not establish notability of the subject. Most of numerous "references" do not discuss the subject of the article at all; rather, they serve as kind of "wikilinks". I could not find anything by Google which would indicate the subject's notability and distinguish him from numerous government officials and lecturers. At best, they indicate that the article is true [21], [22], [23]. Which, I'm afraid, is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Duja► 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. He may be a bureaucrat in the Serbian government, but isn't an important enough one to show up on a search on the Serbian government website.  RGTraynor  15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above comment - No notability established for the government worker. Corpx 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor Bigdaddy1981 17:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 6 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 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell Feud

Donald Trump Rosie O'Donnell Feud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

personal feelings about Trump aside, let's just say they are not good, I don't feel this is worthy of a stand alone article and feel it is best covered as a side note (if it is covered at all) in the articles on Trump and Rosie. Postcard Cathy 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We're not a tabloid or a celebrity watch website - a minor blurb on the article for the involved celebs is more than sufficient. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps speedy. This does not provide a unique resource, nor could it, beyond what is already said in the Trump and O'Donnell articles. It is not particularly encyclopedic. Additionally, it currently stands entirely unreferenced, meaning that it does not comport with WP:BLP (though the relevant portions are referenced in the individuals' respective articles). · jersyko talk 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. This is a prime example of recentism, and five years from now, no one will give a damn about any of this, if they remember it at all, which they won't.  RGTraynor  15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This article was already deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy and should probably be mentioned at wikinews and not here. Corpx 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons above. Junk like this doesn't deserve it's own article. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Just add the content to the articles of the people involved.--Fightingirish 21:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this should only be mentionned in Trump's, O'Donnel's and the View's articles.--JForget 00:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as long as the information is covered in the individual articles. No one would search on that awkward title, so there's no reason to repeat the information ina separate article. Tvoz |talk 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom., and all previous comments.--JayJasper 12:02, 5 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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Bratton

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

I have no knowledge of the subject to establish whether or not this is notable. In any case, it's in need of a serious tidy, but that's not why I'm putting this to AfD. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy, assuming the info is accurate. Postcard Cathy 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyvio, with no prejudice against re-creating as a valid article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. I've just removed the material that was a straight copy-and-paste of a St. John's University page bearing an explicit copyright notice, leaving only one sentence in the article. I don't know enough about the consensus on notability of college athletes to register an opinion on this AfD, but if the article is kept, it should at least state what sport the guy competes in (the original article failed to do even this). Deor 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think it ought to have been speedied anyway - when nothing but one sentence is a copy-paste and there's no other article history, the offending version is still lingering in the article history and I don't like that. Anyway, still arging for delete unless someone wants to write a sourced article prior to closure. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - this is virtually speedy A7 - asserts absolutely zero significance. And sorry, "You don't need any knowledge to know this is wiki worthy"? Absolutely incorrect - I have no idea why this article should exist - it has no context, no assertion of notability, no verifiability, so it's got to go. The Rambling Man 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The current single-line stub is POV, but looking back on what was removed, there are claims of notability, and if he was captain of a US team in an international competition, even if he's only a college-level player, that is a weak notability. Corvus cornix 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - for the non-US collegiate aficionado's amongst us, could the article please provide some context? Strikes me playing for a college team and coming second is hardly notable. I'm prepared to accept that the US-college-sports-scene is considered (in the US at least) to be more significant than that of, say, the UK, but this article in its current state is unacceptably weak. The Rambling Man 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - and how does the only external link help me verify any of this? The Rambling Man 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the US, collegiate fencing is about as high as it comes. I don't even know if there are any competitions outside of international competitions. This discusses his international accomplishments. Corvus cornix 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment looks handy with a pointy stick! Well, I find "Recently represented the U.S. as a member of the National Team at the World Championships in Turin, Italy" more notable than college achievements, and would be happy to rethink if someone could make the article verify the notability under WP:BIO. As it stands, it doesn't manage that at all. Thanks for your help explanation Oh Hooded One... The Rambling Man 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I cleaned it up a bit an added info. It appears he was a three time all-american in college and is one of the ebst in the world at using the epee. CraigMonroe 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've cleaned it further, so will be reconsidering... good effort to save this, to all you who contributed... The Rambling Man 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep (although I've spent too much of life on this already!!) - I've found sufficient verifiable sources to validate the notability of this. Just a quick note - if the article has zero sources, it has zero verifiability and is indefensible in my opinion. If y'all want to keep this or similar, I'd suggest being pro-active, like Mr Monroe, grab some sources, bang them in. It doesn't matter how untidy it is, as long as there's some verifiability there, bingo. So, to cut a long story short, keep it! The Rambling Man 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'd rather it was just cleared as a copyvio and rewritten - I don't like seeing that original blatant copyright violation sitting in the article history. But the current version is good and should be kept. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • An admin can remove the copyvio from the history, preserving the rest of the info for GFDL purposes. Corvus cornix 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability is established. Copyvio issues can be addressed separately. Alansohn 03:15, 3 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G12. The page was tagged for speedy deletion, and has been deleted.[24] The deleting administrator has not closed this AfD, so I am closing it, as it no longer needs to be open. Acalamari 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raphael Elig

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

does not appear to assert notability, but I don't know much about this topic so I figured I would not just prod/speedy it. Calliopejen1 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Copyvio of [25]--Ispy1981 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I tagged it. --Evb-wiki 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: per A7, no assertion of notability. In defense of nom, I have to ask, know much about what "topic?" Reading this turgid and airy paragraph, I have no sense of what it is the subject actually does.  RGTraynor  16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete non-notable subject with a copyright-violating article. Acalamari 19:00, 2 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 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media portrayal of homosexuality

Media portrayal of homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While this could be a great article, it's currently nothing more than a list of lists, with a smattering of information that's duplicated in the lists and articles referred to. Should be deleted until someone writes an actual article about the subject. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but do not salt, per SatyrTN's excellent nom. This is a situation where the information would clearly be better handled by a category. Heather 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, numerous books have been written about this very subject and WP is better served by improving the article than deleting it and all the work that has gone into it so far. Was article tagged for sources, expanding? I'm disappointed that we are so ready to throw out good work because it's not in a preferred mode and suggest that numerous methods to improve the article should be addressed before deleting it. Benjiboi 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I'd be disappointed to throw out good work too, but this isn't it. A number of these citations aren't even about general homosexual themes as opposed to (as in the case, for instance, with most of those comics citations) being fictional works that just happen to include homosexual characters. Beyond that, "media portrayal" implies the mainstream news media, and any such article along these lines should more properly be named "Fictional portrayal of homosexuality." Why, look, there are already two: Lesbian literature and LGBT literature.  RGTraynor  16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There may be an encyclopedic article to be had under this title, but this article is not it. It's not even a start. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone wants to go through that list and expand on how gays are portrayed. As it stands now, it is a "List of movies with homosexual elements", which is is a violation of WP:NOT being a list of loosely associated themes. Corpx 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and write a real article instead of this list which contains no text. Corvus cornix 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete encyclopedic topic, terrible article (rather a shame). This is one of the worst list articles I have seen. Usually they are strongly biased to the present day; this one seems to exclude everything but the present day and very recent past. Bigdaddy1981 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)