Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 7

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franktitude

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

Unsourced, unnotable, commercial promotion. Notability has been challenged and tag removed with no discussion. PROD also removed with no discussion. SamBC 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Company is not notable, local to Florida. Nothing found on google other than local restaurant review. Article violates npov, and appears to be advertising.Horrorshowj 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: The company is not notable from researching it on Google and the companies own web site. The article does not attempt to indicate any notability, instead it reads like an advert.--Mendors 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This company has minor signs of notability, however the article shouldn't stay in its current form. Corpx 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I cleaned it up a little and notability is established through those articles Corpx 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Corpx.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per above. Bearian 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: nn, badvertisement. The Google hits provided by Corpx above don't appear to establish notability. — mholland (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A search through the google News Archives shows many articles about the chain. Much of them have aged into pay-to-view articles, but I've added references to two articles which are still available for viewing over the web without payment. The article meets notability as there are multiple independent reliable sources in which subject is the primary focus of the article.
  • Even if it is notable, which I don't entirely concede, it still reads like an advertisement. SamBC 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - sounding like an advertisement can be addressed by editing without resorting to deletion (and is explicitly stated as a last resort in WP:CORP). You can ask other editors to help clean it up by tagging it with {{ad}} if you think the article needs improvement. As for notability, I've provided two reliable sources for references, so it would seem to meet the notability criteria so I don't understand why you feel it is still not notable. -- Whpq 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SalaSkan 09:19, 12 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, certainly no clear consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of journalists killed in Russia

List of journalists killed in Russia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only list of it's kind. We don't have List of journalists by places they were killed, so this list clearly has agenda-oriented issues and in so has WP:NPOV and, given many are not that notable, WP:NOT#IINFO issues. Bulldog123 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Wikipedia is not the place to document/index deaths of non-notable people. How is this different than a soldier who died fighting a war or a police officer who died in the line of duty? Corpx 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the listees are notable, but this isn't simply a List of journalists killed 'on duty', which could pass off as ok. This is clearly meant to sport some type of agenda. Especially considering Russia isn't, nor ever was, a war-zone such as Iraq is today. It's bordering on a comment on civil liberties. Bulldog123 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are lots of people killed "on duty" (soldiers, cops, construction workers? and at pretty much any job with risk involved). I dont think journalists should be any different Corpx 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well there is already a space for men killed in action in the forces/Army. I think these guys should be seen too, unless wiki is too snoby... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.8.61 (talk • contribs)

• Where? Corpx 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The killing of journalists in Russia during the Putin regime is actually pretty notable, since it has a chilling effect on freedom of the press. To answer Corpx, the reason why journalists are "different" is because they are targetted specifically, by name, for what they have written. Yes, the deaths of soliders and police officers are no less tragic. Generally, however, an individual policeman or soldier is not singled out for a hit or a premeditated murder. American journalists haven't been the target of murder on their home turf (one exception was Don Bolles, although they're at high risk overseas. Mandsford 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • List of murdered journalists or "killed journalists"...yes that's notable. But this is bordering on social commentary. I really don't think Journalists being killed in Russia would make a good article. Bulldog123 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's no way to know why somebody was killed for unless a group takes responsibility for the action. Very very few of these entries have solid motive listed. I dont think its our place, as an encyclopedia, to infer motives behind these actions.Corpx 04:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Indescriminate list, seems POV-ish. If someone wanted to make a sourced article about notable journalists killed in Russia, that would be good. But, this is just an indiscriminate list that appears biased towards making the Putin government look bad, as Mandsford said. While it may be true that the Putin government targets journalists, a list does nothing to substantiate that claim at all. A seperate article with detailed reliable sources to back up the claim would be worthwhile. This list is neither. -- Kesh 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, 1000000% Bulldog123 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep this list was unanimously kept just three months ago. You don't have a valid reason to delete this, and certainly nothing that was not presented last time. "Overlistification" is an essay that you wrote and of which you are the lone supporter, so please stop citing it as if it's some sort of policy or guideline. --JayHenry 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on the article, not on the nominator. Given it's not being "unanimously kept" right now, it's obvious consensus can change, so let's not resort to WP:POINT reasonings. And it would have taken you less time to conclude that an agenda-oriented list is a violation of policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#IINFO than to write this complaint. To address your other complaints, I responded on the proposal talk page. Thanks. Bulldog123 06:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the nom is correct in that we don't have articles of where journalists are killed, but we do have at least one category about coverage Category:Journalists killed while covering the Vietnam War. I think that a valid article can be sustained about the dangers of journalism in Russia as in various (other) war zones. And a list of those killed can be appropriately sourced. Carlossuarez46 06:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • People are expected to be killed in war. But why should it be noted that people of a certain occupation are being killed in a sovereign nation? It makes me wonder how people would take List of foreign journalists killed in the United States, as certainly, there will be some. Bulldog123 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  In response to that, the killing of journalists isn't something spread uniformly across the world, nor does it go on constantly. In certain places and at certain times, journalists are at a higher risk for being murdered. At the moment, it happens more often in Russia. Back in the 1980s, Lebanon was the place. If foreign journalists were being shot in the United States, it would definitely be notable. Bear in mind also that, unlike soldiers or policemen, the reporters don't wear uniforms that identify their status. Unlike soldiers or policemen, reporters are usually unarmed, and specific individuals are usually selected as targets. Killing journalists is usually done for two reasons... to shut them up, and to deter others from writing somethin unfavorable. Mandsford 12:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Isnt that the motive of any politically motivated homicide? To shut them up and to deter others from doing the same? Also would like to say that motive is not established for most of these cases, and we shouldnt be inferring it. Corpx 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:LIST criteria, not inherently POV and would welcome articles/lists on journalists killed in other countries around the world where a significant number have been killed. change to where it is a problem. Davewild 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, making lists based on "numbers" (in response to comment "where a significant number have been killed") is original research in disguise. There's no difference between that and making a List of African-American criminals. There's a lot so we better make a list. Bulldog123 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies the criteria for WP:LIST. Lugnuts 08:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator's rationale is a non-sequitur. Just because there aren't other lists like it doesn't mean there shouldn't be. After all, articles don't just spontaneously appear in nice neat groups - they're written one by one. --Hemlock Martinis 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as fitting criteria in WP:LIST. If there is any purpose to having an ongoing updatable encyclopedia it is precisely topics like this. Whether the number of journalists killed makes a comment on human rights is obviously in the eye of the beholder. We probably should have more such articles, not just about Russia. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• We dont know if these guys were killed just for their journalistic actions. Motive is not established for the vast majority of this list. Corpx 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. (1) Russia exists for centuries and being journalist and getting killed did not started during 2000s. (2) WP is not memorial. (3) There's nothing special with journalist being killed, why not to have lists of killed children, pregnant women or businessmen? These for sure gathered enough of press coverage. Pavel Vozenilek 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  We don't particularly like journalists in America either, but if 10 or more reporters were getting killed each year, it would be cause for alarm. Maybe killing of journalists is routine over in Russia (I'm surprised if it ever was), but I think this is different than all the newsmen who must have been arrested and executed during the Stalin regime. Mandsford 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • • • " Maybe killing of journalists is routine over in Russia" I think, in those words, you've pretty much proven why this list shouldn't exist. Bulldog123 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Have I really? If murder becomes part of a "routine", I think it's noteworthy. We just have different views. Mandsford 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is not much at all that solidly says these people were killed because they were jounalists. From an encyclopedia standpoint, these are people who were killed, who also happened to be journalists. Corpx 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep My mind boggles at the nominator's reasons: " agenda-oriented issues"? You mean concern/interest in the large number of journalists murdered in Russia just can't be a legitimate interest in a topic important in understanding modern Russia? I don't know if there's an article called "Alcoholism in Russia" but just because it might reflect badly on Russia we shouldn't have it in Wikipedia? Killing journalists happens to be a salient topic in the understanding of Russia today. And where does NPOV enter into it? It's a list, for crying out loud. Also, not every item in a list needs to be notable. By the way, I don't know where to find it in the rules, but somewhere it says that Wikipedia is not, cannot be and does not have to be consistent in everything. Even though a lot of journalists get killed in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, just because there isn't a list or article on it is irrelevant as to whether or not this list should exist. We'd never get an edit in Wikipedia if we had to make sure everything was treated the same way everywhere. Noroton 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • List of Russian alcoholics won't pass notability and neither will Killing of journalists in Russia. And making a list because of someone's "concern" for something IS agenda-oriented, whether positive or negative in nature. Bulldog123 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No one suggested a List of Russian Alcoholics, as you well know. there is not a shadow of a doubt that there have been numerous news articles on the abundance of killings of Russian journalists as you also well know. And that meets WP:Notability standards, as you also well know. There are two agendas in conflict here: the agenda to cover encyclopedic subjects fairly and without bias and the agenda of protecting certain subjects from notice. Noroton 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline allows for intersections of occupation and residence categories such as "Journalists" & "Russian". I don't think intersecting that with the "Murdered" category will make the sub-category non-notable. I can't find a matching example in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. ilgiz 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First, this article has been already discussed and decision was speedy keep. Second, nominator's argument was that "We don't have List of journalists by places they were killed". This argument is not new (see previous AfD discussion). In fact, we should make lists of journalists killed in many countries including Iraq. Nothing in WP official policies prevents that. At least 15 journalists killed in Russia are notable - they have articles in WP. Most important, the killing of journalists in Russia is a notable phenomenon. As such it desrves a WP article. Biophys 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was speedy kept last time because nobody else objected to it. Corpx 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've made numerous additions to the article, adding sources. This article now has references to multiple, independent, reliable sources on the subject of killed Russian journalists, and there are plenty of sources cited with substantial coverage of the subject. There article meets WP:Notability concerns. Noroton 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced article on a topic which has received international press coverage. Nick mallory 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is already an article about media freedom in Russia. Imprisonment of Paris Hilton also received international press coverage, but it doesn't mean it should have its own article. DVoit 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's Wikipedia's whole notability criteria chucked out the window then. Let's delete all the articles which are deemed notable because they're the subject of multiple, credible, independent sources and the start the encyclopedia again on the basis of what you like or don't like shall we? Nice red hammer and sickle map on your 'I was born in the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic' themed user page by the way. Nick mallory 10:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The number of journalists that may have been killed for political reasons justifies an article.--Victor falk 10:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then maybe it should list only those journalists and not everyone who died (e.g. Vlad Kidanov wrote about problems of young people). DVoit 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (1) I dont see any point in an article which states only "journalists who have been recently killed in Russia", but ignores journalists killed 10 years ago. (2) In past 3 years a lot of journalists were killed in Mexico, but there is no aticle about it. (3) I can understand if this article listed journalists who were killed "in the line of duty" (17 since 2000 according to the CPJ), but listing every single death is ridicules. (4) Wikipedia is not the place for original research: this article lists some journalists as killed ,although there is no proof that they actually were (e.g. Ivan Safronov, Vyacheslav Plotnikov). I think the article should be deleted or fully rewritten. DVoit 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1) The killing of journalists is notable within the context of the current political situation in Russia, not per se.
• 2) Non sequitur. See Hemlock Martinis' comment above.
• 3) OK, only journalists that died during working hours may be listed.
• 4) Tag them with ^{[verification needed]} or ^{[citation needed]}.

--Victor falk 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per user:Hemlock MartinisTaprobanus 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, partly on the basis of a new ref .from NY Review of Books, just added, which is a suitably objective source for the concept. [1]
• Keep per Noroton & Biophys. This article was kept in an AFD less than 3 months ago, and nothing has changed since then. The arguments cited in that AFD are just as valid now as they were then. As far as I can see, the only difference is that now there are a number of deletionists with an agenda against list articles. JulesH 07:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Shanowski

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

Delete - This article is completely non-notable, and relies solely on original research with no verifiable facts. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete- full of original research and opinion. Even if it were properly sourced and had no POV issues it still wouldn't be worth an article of its own. Better to have a section in the article for the relevant TV show. Reyk _YO! 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge any useful sourcable content that's not already there to the TV sitcom, character does not seem notable enough for individual article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Bearian 20:46, 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 delete. Anas ^talk? 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimson Editor

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

Fails the basic definition of WP:N: no multiple, third-party, non-trivial sources, which for software programs generally is reviews, or bundling with notable software packages. Out of the three reviews linked to in the article itself, two aren't reviews at all – they're merely lists of technical specs, which doesn't establish notability. The other one (speedguide.net) doesn't seem to pass the non-trivial part of the definition. There are tons of download sites that host this file, but download sites don't establish notability because there are thousands of small programs that are mirrored all over the place. hbdragon88 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, whilst this is a good text editor (I use it most days), it is hard to see how it is notable, both from the article and web research (Google, etc). I am unsure quite how many text editors could ever be counted as notable. There are a huge number of text editors (many listed in Category:Windows text editors) with many having relatively little claim to notability (some are highly notable, like Edit (MS-DOS) and Notepad). If this article is deleted then most of the category should also be AfD candidates (note, I'm not saying that this is an argument to keep this article). --Mendors 00:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as seeming to lack non-trivial reliable indepedent published sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menopause The Musical

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

This is a dupe article for an article that was recently deleted about a NN musical. Previous AFD. —  MusicMaker 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think these media mentions give it notability Corpx 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources Corpx has found. It's not a Broadway thing, but it's achieved some level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and source it, if anyone can be bothered to do so.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, recognise this as it was on in my area not too long ago and seemed to be doing pretty wellMark E 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. It's playing right now at Capital Rep in Albany, New York[2] and is getting good reviews. Bearian 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Whether or not the subject is notable, the article does not assert notability. All of these off-site references are wonderful: they need to be in the article. —  MusicMaker 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely notable but not much in the article itself. I've created a "Reviews" section and added two reviews to get the ball rolling. There is tons of info out there if everybody would like to add a bit more to it. (And speaking as the ONE guy that saw it a while back in Atlanta in a theatre filled with women I can state that it really was a fun show!) Drew30319 18:33, 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. Although I understand deeptrivia's argument, it doesn't apply in this case because this page was nearly a A1 candidate. If someone wants to actually write an article rather than a bunch of empty headings, they're more than welcome to. Daniel 09:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham and Lincoln

Abraham and Lincoln (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't satisfy notability. rohith 22:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless it provides some more content, a lead, explanation of the film, plot, etc. It is a delete.--JForget 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete this does not seem to satisfy any notability requirements. Searching on Google results in about 40 hits but few seem to cast any light on why it should be notable.--Mendors 04:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Seems to feature people who may be notable, but just 40 ghits could suggest hoax, failing WP:V, etc.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I see a lot more than 40 ghits, more like 500, and since it's an Indian film it's inevitably going to have less Internet coverage than, say, an American film of the same importance. Seems like it could be sourcable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Films with notable cast (blue links) are in general notable. To JForget, absence of details points the necessity of expansion not deletion. deeptrivia (talk) 21:55, 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 keep. —Kurykh 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez

Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nom - Fails WP:BIO. "Prominent lawyer" and (possibly) notable relatives are this subject's only claim to fame. The first nomination resulted in a speedy keep only because the nominator was in violation of WP:POINT. Rklawton 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, First off let me state that this person who I did the article on is distantly related to me. I have met with him three times in my life. I just wanted to clear that up before anyone were to accuse me of having a conflict of interest. Mr. Gomez is one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent criminal defense attorney, since Castro took over the government in 1959. He defended General Arnoldo Ochoa and others in 1989 in one of the few trials the Castro government has allowed to be televised. He was allowed into the United States as a refugee and has been on the local TV in South Florida many times. Callelinea 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-published author with enough other possibility for notability so as to make a worthwhile biography. Chris 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Question-Rklawton, I note that you are the proposer of many of the deletion nominations for articles written by user Callelinea. May I ask why there is this pattern? Assuming good faith, this trend is potentially troublesome. Chris 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer - Callelinea has created over a half-dozen articles about his family that have been AfD'd – all featuring his own family, genealogy. Callelinea also has a history of canvassing editors for support in AfDs and refusing to answer questions about his relationship to the subjects of his articles. His own Wikipedia mentor has withdrawn support. Even so, I restored one of his articles from speedy delete and supported his "unblocking." The pattern then, is of a COI editor on Callelinea's part and an admin doing his best to continue assuming good faith. In this particular case, I see an article about a guy who was just one lawyer on a team of lawyers in a notable trial, and the author of just one book published only this year (no awards or reviews provided). It's a long-standing AfD custom to evaluate the article at hand for notability. Maybe the guy is notable, but the article itself needs to demonstrate this point. The AfD lasts five days – so that gives editors plenty of time to improve the article. I've seen many AfD nominators withdraw their nominations after such improvements. I've also seen some articles recreated after AfD when editors have been able to create an article demonstrating sufficient notability. As a result, there's no reason to keep this article unless the article itself can demonstrate the subject's notability. As I've said repeatedly over the last two weeks, Callelinea would do well to focus his energies on improving the article (if at all possible). Rklawton 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Responce: I was asked about my possible COI on the last days of the AfD, at that point I felt the need for disclosure was irrevevlent since by then almost everyone that was going to vote, had already voted, as a matter fact after I was asked not one single person voted either for or against. As a Cuban of a prominant family, my family conections have made me related to by marriage, blood or friendship to almost every President of Cuba, starting from the first President of Cuba to the present Raul Castro. My expertise is in history and geneology, especially as it relates to Cuba. Callelinea 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Additional Comment. I did not canvas other editors to vote in favor of my AfD's. I contacted editors that knew something about the articles or the topic that felt could give Valid, un baised, and educated comments on the articles, not like others who just vote without knowing nothing about the subject matter. Callelinea 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply - yup. And that's what we call canvassing. And it's against the rules. And, it could result in a 3rd AfD nomination on the grounds that this nomination was unduly influenced by your efforts. Rklawton 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Then go ahead and nominate it again, and again, nominate them all. boy your a sore loser and a bad winner.. There is no way to make you happy, now I understand why those two guys voted against you when you won your administrator vote.. You really do have issues, I thought this was problem between us was over but obviously you hold a grudge.Your actions are what is damaging wikipedia, not mine.Callelinea 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The canvassing that I might have done was only to a few indiviuals I asked to look over the articles up for vote give me their feedback and to vote what they felt was best, and according to how I understood the rules what I did was permissable.Callelinea 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can understand Rklawton's nomination, and I would understand if this were deleted. However, I personally find the article very interesting so I am more than happy to see it stay. In terms of notability, Callelinea is correct that the Ochoa trial was perhaps the most important trial in Cuba since 1959 - and still is. And I think its safe to say that if this were a US or British subject, the notability would not be in question.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If I may be bold, can I just state as well that the close-knit nature of the Cuban-American community, and what I gather is Callelinea's standing in the real world (which is of some note itself), it is inevitable that there will be real world connections to certain notable subjects. This could be considered a COI, however I believe it is more constructive to allow an editor such as Callelinea, with an obvious welcome expertise, to continue their work here. Perhaps the geneology elements of the article could be toned down, but I have yet to see an article that has not been of interest. And I haven't felt the need to tinker with them particuarly - which considering my twitchy fingers over the Cuban related articles - is very rare! Which shows that are of quality.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above comments seems to be notable enough. Davewild 07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (but edit!) - The Ochoa trial was kind of a big deal, and his defense attorneys were a part of it. However, I agree with the Zleitzen that the geneaological nature of these articles needs to be toned down. Perhaps this article should start with, "X is a Cuban criminal defense attorney, best known for defending General Ochoa..." Then, if his genealogy is to be discussed, it should be done in a separate section ("X is the brother-in-law of Cuban diplomat Y"). While I find genealogy fascinating and Callelinea's work to be done well & in great depth, I can't really see the relevance in listing every single person to whom someone is related. I am all for inclusion on Wikipedia, but the genealogical stuff is getting to be a bit much. takethemud 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Ok guys, I guess I do get carried away with the geneology aspect of my articles, but I just find it very curious as to how all the mayor players in Cuba in politics, music, law, etc. are all inter-related. Not sure yet if its because they are all the best in their fields or is it because of all their family ties, even though I am in one way related to or my family has connections with all these players in Cuban history, even I question did they get to be big in their fields because of luck, talent, conections or a mixture of the three. In the future I will try to condence the geneology aspect of my articles. Callelinea 18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:39, 8 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. Anas ^talk? 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morbo (band)

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

Non-notable band. They do have one major label release, but their only other album is on an apparently tiny indie label (I could find no references online). The only reference in the article is a short blurb from Rolling Stone Mexico Online about the release of their second album. Fails WP:BAND. Precious Roy 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because, per WP:MUSIC#Albums, if the band is non-notable, the albums are too. Neither album was a hit and neither article has any valid references from reliable sources.:

Morbo (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Electroguitarpop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep, Juan Carlos Lozano (member of Morbo) was a member of Mœnia, which passed WP:BAND and therefore causes Morbo to pass per WP:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #6. Also according to someone's review from Morbo's Amazon page they have a single on MTV, wouldn't that pass WP:BAND #11? or does MTV not count because it isn't radio. (the amazon source itself might not be reliable) Naufana : talk 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mœnia connection wasn't part of the article when I nominated it; since he was only in the band for their first album, I don't know if that would automatically qualify all of his subsequent projects as notable. If Morbo had a video in rotation on MTV, that would definitely pass notability (and knowing how MTV works, if they got in rotation, I would think the single would have also charted; also notable). As I mentioned above, the article only had one borderline trivial/non-trivial reference. If they are notable, surely someone could dig up "multiple non-trivial" verifiable references from reliable sources. Precious Roy 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, To be clear once I found out about the Mœnia connection I added it to the Morbo article. And just because they were on MTV doesn't mean they were on MTV. I mean there is MTV2, MTV rap, MTV latino (the likey place they were aired in my opinion). I still think the Mœnia connection deserves a keep. Naufana : talk 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per User:Naufana, one of the members was in another notable band, good enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #6. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. While a story in Rolling Stone (even in Spanish) or Spin does not guarantee notability, it helps. It needs more sources in Englishm though. Bearian 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:MUSIC. Needs more sources, though they certainly don't have to be in English. Chubbles 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion 6, as it has been stated already. And they do have a major label album. --Nehwyn 07:25, 12 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 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about disasters

List of songs about disasters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another "list of songs about". Trivial overlistification. Bulldog123 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. "Disaster songs" is not a notable genre that reliable sources are discussing. This appears to be overlistification. (As an aside, which disaster is "Monster Mash" supposed to refer to?) --Charlene 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This specific list could be interesting for film makers and the other composers.Ttturbo 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Filmmakers usually don't put songs with lyrics in their films. Bulldog123 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ""You're a mean one Mr. Grinch" From the movie "The Grinch who stole Christmas"" The Grinch Who Stole Christmas? Anyway, I'm inclined to agree that this is an unneccessary list. Calgary 23:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this would be hard to define. Some choices are obvious (e.g. "One Last Time" by Dusty Drake, about a plane crash), but some -- yeah. It's far too interpretive. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to categorize meanings of songs Corpx 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What's worse is this isn't even about meanings. It's just a collection of references, for lack of a better word. Bulldog123 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - loosely connected list. --Haemo 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Not that the idea is bad, but a lot of songs on the list don't belong (and many are based on interpretation). The list of disasters, real and supposed, is too long, and most of these songs seem to be obscure. The "car crash" genre of songs was a strange, but familiar theme during the 1950s and 60s when baby boomers were starting to drive, hence "Last Kiss", "Leader of the Pack", etc. I can't bring myself to vote "keep". Mandsford 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete suffers the same infirmities that most "songs about" articles do: how much "about" the subject (here a rather wide but vague one), and who tells us as much? No sources=OR. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for most of the same reasons as List of songs about homosexuality was deleted. Does not serve a meaningful purpose per WP:LIST.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h}
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — A strange and overly broad topic to write a list of songs about. I struggle to think of any situation where people might use this list. Cedars 07:31, 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 delete. —Kurykh 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple diet

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

Non-notable fad diet; fails notability guidelines, no non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that would enable us to build an encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Recentism that's already almost forgotten. - Richfife 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, with Mariah Carey, it's her diet and belongs on her page. Naufana : talk 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it a notable aspect of Mariah Carey's biography, though? MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Calgary 00:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article but mention the diet somewhere in dieting. --Nehwyn 07:28, 12 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of self-referential songs

List of self-referential songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The first two AFDs ended in "keep" (though the second was speedy keep for immediate renomination) but but the lack of participation and policy-based reasonings instigated a third afd, which ended in " no consensus to delete ". However, ignoring WP:ILIKEIT and complaints that the initial afd ended in keep, this would have met with deletion. First problem is that "self-referential" ends up being extremely subjective in some circumstances, and often totally up to the contributor's discretion. Secondly, the list itself is essentially for music-trivia buffs and lacks any justification as "encyclopedic". See Wikipedia:Overlistification#Trivia proposal. Bulldog123 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - List appears to be verifiable. The criteria is objective: self-referential means that the song talks about the song - that is not subjective as the nom claims, and disputed entries can be individually challenged; there is no need to remove the entire list because some potential entries, someday, might maybe violate inclusion criteria. Finally, the songs all appear to be by notable artists. In short, the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Neither "listcruft" nor "unencyclopedic" are deletion criteria by themselves, and the previous AfDs seem to have taken this into account. Nominator points out that the second AfD discussion was closed because of speedy renomination, but does not mention that the first AfD closed with an essentially unanimous keep. Nothing has changed since that time, and while consensus can change, this looks like a case of "ask the other parent" until it gets removed. I read the overlistification proposal (it's just a proposal at this point), but even there I don't see anything that can apply to this article; it has not been a target of a lot of non-notable, unmaintainable entries. Some people don't seem to like it... and there seems to be something of an anti-list purge in fashion at the moment, but there are no violations here, not with this article. ◄Zahakiel► 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is subjective criteria. For example how come "Another Song About The Rain" by Cracker is self-referential while other songs that mention their title aren't? And most importantly, how is this encyclopedic material? Wikipedia is the collection of all human knowledge but not a random collection of knowledge. Bulldog123 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You say "it is subjective," but then you give an example that meets the criteria, and obviously so. Clearly, "another song" about rain is another song about rain. It references itself. I am not sure why you say "other songs that mention their title are not." We are not talking about songs that merely include their titles in the lyrics, but songs that talk about themselves as songs. That's really clear-cut, and if any particular elements of the list violate this criteria, remove it - that's all. It sounds like you are saying, "Since not every song that references itself is not yet in this list, and since some entries don't fit the criteria, we should delete the list." No, no... Finally, the phrase "encyclopedic material" may itself be subjective, this is why "unencyclopedic" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. It is, in fact, one of the arguments to avoid although you consider it "most important," because, as the essay there points out, it's not a substantial argument. It may be a contributing factor for removing articles; but by itself it is not a reason. This list is not random, according to the previous AfDs, and the policies I mentioned above that are not violated by this article. "Uncyclopedic" is basically an "I don't think it's useful" argument, not anything grounded in the criteria for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • True that "it's unencyclopedic" isn't a good argument. But to cover for that, there's WP:NOT#DIR, and since you nor anyone else has really proven this isn't a random collection of information, it kind of does fall under that blanket. As for the example, the fact that you interpret it as a song that references itself because IT is the song about rain, and I interpret it as just having the title "another song about the rain" in the same way that any other song has the title in the lyrics, shows that this is subjective criteria perfectly. Bulldog123 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT#DIR is an even worse argument. This is not a directory, nor a "loosely associated" collection of data. The word "random" has no bearing here, because the criteria is explicitly designed. You also don't seem to understand how AfD works... the article exists already; the burden of proof that it violates policy is on the nominator... those !voting "keep" do not have the onus to show that it is "not" random, or "not" unencyclopedic. Further, my "interpretation" of the song as refering to itself as a song is simply a matter of reading the title and looking at the list. The fact that there can be unusual interpretations of English words does not mean they are subjective. I am glad, at least, that you now see your major argument "isn't a good" one. That's a step, but I do not want you to fall back on inapplicable policies that you think "kind of" covers it either. WP:NOT#DIR is for articles that are lists of elements that are not connected to each other by rigid criteria. The list of songs that reference themselves (not that reference their topics, but themselves - the songs) is, as I've said already, pretty easy to understand. This is about self-referential songs, not about "songs that contain their titles." Those are two different things, and you are misreading the intent of the list and then claiming, "Because I can misread it, it is subjective." ◄Zahakiel► 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR is for articles that are lists of elements that are not connected to each other by rigid criteria. The list of songs that reference themselves (not that reference their topics, but themselves - the songs). You summed up what I meant right there. Bulldog123 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By pointing out what the rigid criteria was? Let's not grasp at straws here. ◄Zahakiel► 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By highlighting that these songs are connected to each other by a significance-less similarity. Why not List of songs that mention the color blue then? I'm sure it can be easily verified, and there's no doubt plenty of songs rhyme "blue" with something. Note that a list of songs where the title has a day of the week (or some strange title, try to find the afd) was deleted, as were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with personal names: A. So trivial similarities simply don't cut it, even if the material is easily verifiable. Bulldog123 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you are using an "otherstuffwasdeleted" argument, which is not the same as WP:NOT#DIR and maybe editors will respect that more. It is, however, another argument to avoid... "Significance-less" is subjective. Do you actually have a policy-based reason for deleting this list? Some people might think it's trivial, others might think it is an unusual (and notably so) characteristic of some songs. We will just have to see what the other editors who vote here think. ◄Zahakiel► 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't judged by a popularity contest. List of drinking songs would be notable because a drinking song is a cultural phenomena. Exactly how does List of self-referential songs pass in this respect? It doesn't. It's just trivia. And examples of precedent don't hurt. Bulldog123 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary that is. According to you, "list of drinking songs" is notable. I really don't think so. You're doing exactly what I said you were doing, applying your own opinion of what is "trivial" and what is notable, and making an argument for deletion based upon, "I don't think it's encyclopedic." I've never heard drinking songs called a "cultural phenomenon" before... that's a new one to me. ◄Zahakiel► 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Linking you to Drinking song and then challenging you to make self-reference in songwriting in equal quality is enough I think. Bulldog123 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• No. See below on my statement re: breaking the fourth wall. This is a notable criteria for songs, movies, TV shows, art, etc. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Breaking the fourth wall isn't the same thing as self-referencing. See below. Bulldog123 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, list is easily verifiable and has specific criteria so that it doesn't become uncontrollable. As stated above, "listcruft" isn't a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• "listcruft" isn't the argument, and saying it is is pulling a straw man. Bulldog123 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• My bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This is no different than songs that mentioned a personal name. I am looking at this as "List of songs that mention itself". I think making a list of what songs mention is extremely trival thing to do here. Corpx 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think the arguments made against List of songs which refer to other songs still apply here. To quote that nominator, this is "another sprawling ([98]K and counting) unsourced, indiscriminate list, a directory of loosely associated topics. The list brings together songs with no commonality in style, theme or content beyond happening to supposedly refer to [themselves] in a line or two of the lyrics. This list tells us nothing about the listed songs... or music in general." -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a massive, jumbled, indiscriminate collection of information. There is no possibility of a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion. This list does not exist for the purpose of transferring meaningful information to a reader's brain, it exists solely for the sake of listing stuff. Reyk _YO! 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Weak, because a lot of people have worked on this one and here we are voting to get rid of it. IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument, I realize. My problem with this one is that although it's been a popular list, and attracted many contributions, it appears that any song with the word "This" can make the list... which is different from a song about itself. I can think of a few songs about themselves... the themes to Jimmy Neutron and It's Garry Shandling's Show, Sherry and Lambchop's This is the song that never ends and Carly Simon's You're So Vain. On the other hand, is a newspaper story that begins with "This is the story of..." a story about the newspaper itself? Of course not. Mandsford 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mansford's last comment is what I was trying to say but couldn't. That's a very good example. Bulldog123 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And that is why we have rules of etiquette when writing letters and essays. It is generally considered bad form to begin a letter by saying, "I am writing this letter to say/ask..." because it is self-referential. A newspaper article that says "this is a story of" does reference itself, but newspaper articles are not notable, the topics they cover are. Songs, on the other hand, can be notable for a number of reasons, so you're not really comparing apples to apples in terms of what would be included in Wikipedia. ◄Zahakiel► 09:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I am somewhat surprised by what I found in looking at the article; although footnotes to the places one plucked the quotes from would be better by way of WP:V, they can no doubt be found. I appreciate Mandsford's comment and where the actual words provide ambiguity, the reader can judge for himself or herself, unless WP:RSes can be found to show the meaning one way or another. This is done in numerous articles: virtually any exegetical one, those dealing with various any other written document (constitutions, treaties, books, novels), and yes, songs and films. So, that's no barrier to keeping it. But ultimately is this encyclopedic? It's a close call, but I will give it the benefit of that doubt. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. This is even more useless and then List of titles with "Darker" in them. What about a list of songs that reference other songs, or a list of songs that reference songs that reference the first song? List of songs that are are exactly 3min 24s (without opening and closing silence), List of songs that contain the note G, List of songs on that are on this list (I made these links just to show that they are not on Wikipedia, as this one shouldn't be). JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zahakiel. Easily verified. Lugnuts 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean up what exactly? It looks perfectly cleaned up. Bulldog123 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike most of the other List of songs that meet whatever criterion articles that have been deleted lately, I feel that this one is about a topic that could be the subject of an article itself (which would be called something like Self-reference in songwriting). I therefore feel that this list is more encyclopedic than most. JulesH 11:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse, Self-reference in songwriting would be met with immediate AfD from other users as it lacks notability. I can't find any articles/books on the significant of self-reference in songwriting. Why not self-reference in fiction-writing, film-making, and art next? Bulldog123 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There is. It is an element of breaking the fourth wall. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Fourth-wall isn't the same thing. Besides being directly a stage terminology, it just refers to "asides" to the audience. So, for example, Woody Allen breaks the fourth wall all the time, but rarely does he self-reference the story as a "film," which is what this list is doing. Bulldog123 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it was the same thing, please read my comments carefully. I said it was an element of breaking the fourth wall. As you admit, this is done. Woody Allen may employ this method "rarely," but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is a noted element of narrative. Also, if you actually read the "fourth wall" article, you will see that it is NOT confined to stage productions, that's just where it appears to have originated. Quoting from the article: "Although it originated in theatre, where conventional three-walled stage sets provide a more literal "fourth wall", the term has been adopted by other media, such as cinema, television, and literature, to more generally refer to the boundary between the fiction and the audience." The Wikipedia article lists video games, books; even comic books are known to employ this technique, and often with reference to the fact that it is a comic book/play/game, not just as an overall "aside," which is what I said regarding an "element." What I have said is accurate, and properly reflected by the article about this subject. P.S. I just glanced at the "History page" of the Overlistification proposal you mentioned above, and it turns out you are both the originator of and major sole (the other editor just removed links) contributor to that proposal... I think it is relevant to this discussion to mention that. Until it gets some support it really should not be advanced as a position in an AfD, particularly when the nominator and the proposer are the same person. ◄Zahakiel► 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
          • For the record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th nomination). Please comment on the list not on the nominator. As far as I know, Woody Allen doesn't do stage production so "Also, if you actually read the "fourth wall" article, you will see that it is NOT confined to stage productions, that's just where it appears to have originated" is a logical fallacy (discredit the opponent on irrelevant subject matter). As for "Until it gets some support it really should not be advanced as a position in an AfD" WP:AFD is a discussion, and essays, including personal essays (as you may see it), are allowed. However, the policy-based reason for deletion was mentioned about 13 times so we can get off that. List of self-referential songs isn't List of fourth-wall breaks in music. Bulldog123 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
            • If by "policy-based reason" you mean the NOT#DIR thing, I disagree with your application, and I'm not the only one, so I don't think we should "get off" the fact that I think you're advancing an inapplicable policy here. This is a discussion, and I was commenting on the list, not about you... I don't know anything about you except that you wrote the proposal, and I think that this has bearing on your comments here; I do not want readers to get the impression that your position (on the list) is based on anything others have proposed. I didn't make any comments, I just pointed it out. Finally, breaking the fourth wall does have applicability here... regardless of the fact that it is not the name of the list, you yourself admit that the "asides" attending this phenomenon can include self-reference! It is not a "logical fallacy" to point out that your statement about "asides" does not, in fact, eliminate its application to self-referential works. And that is my point; as I said in the first post I made here, there seems to be some anti-list sentiment around Wikipedia these days. That's fine for a lot of what gets removed, but there is a danger of legitimate articles about noted artistic elements being swept out with them. ◄Zahakiel► 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Clearly there's nothing that I could say that will convince you this applies to WP:NOT#DIR, but I think the dozens of AfDs such as list of songs by personal name, list of songs with references to ____, the numerous list of songs about ____, and most importantly the greatly similar Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_which_refer_to_other_songs speak for themselves. As an editor mentioned above, this list is not that special. Bulldog123 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? There are 1,180 google scholar hits for "self-reference in song", and I'm sure there are other search terms that might turn up relevant articles. Unfortunately, most of them are pay-per-view articles, so I can't be certain that the contents are relevant, but many of google's extracts look good. JulesH 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I searched for that and came up with nothing. Categorizing what songs mention or what their lyrics contain is extremely trival for an encyclopedia.Corpx 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • You get 1180 results if you search without the "", like so. Of course, the top hits are about "Song Learning in Birds" and "Self-reference in Arithmetic", and I suspect the vast majority of hits are similarly unrelated to "self-reference in song". -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems encyclopedic enough, and as it only violates the "I don't like lists" guideline clean it up, come up with better criteria for inclusion and argue about real content. --Rocksanddirt 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it violates WP:NOT#DIR directly. Bulldog123 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Really? I'd say "loosely associated" is pretty subjective, so your statement is at best arguably true. It has been successfully argued in the past (although I can't find a link to this assertion, so I'm not sure where) that lists that give examples of a kind of thing about which an article could be created are acceptable, whereas lists that wouldn't support such an article generally aren't. I'd argue that the subject of this list would make an acceptable article. JulesH 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A verifiable list with clearly defined inclusion criteria. Subjective application of WP:NOT's "loosely associated" and "indiscriminate information" clauses has annoyed me for a long time. I like your argument, JulesH - Self reference and Circular reference are worthy inclusions as notable logical constructs, so examples of such should also be acceptable. Also, can we stop with the straw man examples of "What about List of songs about a ridiculously obscure topic?"?--Canley 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is verifiable, but the inclusions criteria really isn't that greatly defined. For example, "Desert Song"... lyrics are:

The desert song, calling,

Its voice enthralling,

Will make you mine.

Now replace the words "Desert Song" with "Star-Spangled Banner." Is the song self-referential now? I could easily see someone saying no, considering it's a song about the Star-Spangled Banner not a song that is the Star-Spangled Banner. So maybe, this is a song about the "desert song" not the desert song. That's just an example, and I don't know if this particular song is the latter. Nonetheless, I don't think being verifiable and having an inclusion criteria should be all that's needed to create a list. If that were the case, then there would be no justification for deleting List of songs about a ridiculously obscure topic. That's why these examples are brought up. WP:NOT#IINFO is there to protect from such lists, and a great way to assess notability is to see if a feature article could be created. Right now, I see no proof self-reference in songwriting would make an article. Bulldog123 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the following sources would probably constitute a base from which such an article could be written: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (probably also with references to origins of self-reference in poetic forms back to the ancient Greeks and Romans [9] [10]). JulesH 16:51, 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 delete. Sr13 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walid Najib Arafat

Walid Najib Arafat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PROF; the article has been tagged for notability for about a month without any improvement. Beit Or 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete just a professor who has published a few papers. No mentions in media Corpx 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can not find anything more. DGG (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I originally tended to agree with you guys but this is a professor that is quoted often by other Muslim scholars, that in itself made me rethink my position on him. I now believe he is very notable in Islamic studies and I personally would love to have someone how knows how to read Arabic to do some more reserch on him. Callelinea 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• non-commital at present Professor emeritus is not a title handed out willy-nilly, one assumes he must have achieved a fair level of notability in his field or his university to have been offered it, however the article as it stands does not establish this. DuncanHill 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting this about emeritus status? Arrow740 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: per Callelinea. The following link mentions the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland". There is also mention of that research paper at the World Sirah Conference in Qatar. There is acknowledgement given to him in a book. 21 ghits on Google Books. 11 ghits on Google Scholar. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

These sources really don't prove notability; the first link is trivial, and google hits do not prove notability.--Sefringle^Talk 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are many apologists for Islam. This one seems to be one of the more forgettable. Notability has not been established. Arrow740 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no evidence in the article that he is in any way notable. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 11 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. Daniel 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Lodge

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

Does not meet WP:Notability BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You might want to state which part of WP:NOT it violates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "vice-chairman (1992-1996) of the Cricket Society .. edited the successful "ACS Famous Cricketers" seriesDGG (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Correction. Apologies, I thought WP:NOT was shorthand for WP:Notability. The Cricket Society itself is marginally notable because of its charitable status; individual members are not notable per se unless their activities outside the society meet the criteria. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, This one is easier to vote for then the other Cricket entries. As I have stated in other responces Cricket is big in England, do lots of charity work, and this guy has an annual award named after him. Callelinea 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; I agree with Jack that officers of the Cricket Society are not thereby notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - his publications may be enough to make him notable. A Bibliography section would strengthen the article. JH (talk page) 09:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Which of these is the claim to notability? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 12 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 06:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Byrne (accountant)

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

subject is non-notable per WP:Notability BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You might want to state which part of WP:NOT it violates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Correction. Apologies for confusing WP:NOT with WP:Notability. The Cricket Society is marginally notable re its charitable status but individual members per se are not notable unless in their own right. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep, Cricket is big in England, and their charity work is wellknown and in the Cricket world Mr. Byrne is well known. Callelinea 17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. No, sorry, Mr Byrne is not well known at all. Cricket is certainly big and it is generally known that the Cricket Society is a charitable institution but otherwise you are wide of the target. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Random officer of a society, not notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, based on the iinformation given in the article. JH (talk page) 09:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no indication that hes done anything beyond his official post. --Salix alba (talk) 09:09, 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Allen (dentist)

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

subject is not notable per WP:Notability BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You might want to state which part of WP:NOT it violates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "President of the British Dental Association" and OBE. he also happens to be Chairman of The Cricket Society which presumably is the basis for this nomination. DGG (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Correction. Apologies for confusing WP:NOT with WP:Notability. The Cricket Society is marginally notable re its charitable status but individual members per se are not notable unless in their own right. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, No references, an OBE (Order of the British Empire) is limited to 856 members (I think) that in itself I feel would confire notability. But with out not even one reference I lean to delete. If someone could verify the article then my vote would be a strong keep. Callelinea 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Here's a reference to his presidency, which mentions his OBE in passing.[11] Clarityfiend 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable in the world of dentistry if not in the world of cricket. JH (talk page) 09:01, 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 no consensus. JulesH makes a very good argument which wasn't countered sufficiently to even consider deleting this article as a result of this discussion. Daniel 09:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2028 Summer Olympics

2028 Summer Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Will ^(talk) 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Pure speculation at this point Corpx 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and article is not talk about the actual Olympics, but about the nomination process. The nomination process deserves its own article, but when the time comes. Otherwise we could speculate on Olympics is the far future. tdmg 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL only one reliable source just does not provide enough reliable information and cannot see that there will be for many years. Changing to Keep per the expansion that has taken place there on the article since nomination, there is now enough verfiable information in the article for it to be valid. Davewild 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. The page only really includes information about the bid which might possibly happen from one country. If the article was named for the potential Dutch big and directly discussed it then it would have a slightly stronger claim to be retained but even that would no doubt not satisfy WP:CRYSTAL.--Mendors 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing to a Keep as a result of the substantial changes made to the article as a result of the AfD process. It now contains notable and referenced material.--Mendors 21:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep strong. Such articles strenghthen olimpic movement and understanding among nations. Very usefull information and this is KNOWLEDGE(wiki). Maybe single project is necessary and fullfilment during timeTtturbo 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• How does this article help "understanding among nations" ? Corpx 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is exaggerated, the 2012 Games are still five years away, and there is already an article for 2028? Fails WP:CRYSTAL.JForget 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the author of the 2028 Summer Olympics page, and have added additional information, such as the proposed Seattle/Vancouver bid. Since this would be the first multi-national bid, this is a significant event in the Olympic movement, even if the bid doesn't succeed or is abandoned. I would claim that the 2028 Olympics page has far more relevance then the 2024 and 2016 pages, because of the 100 year anniversary for Amsterdam and the prospect of the Seattle/Vancouver joint bid. Although it may seem far away, cities really do start exploring these things this early. TruckOttr

• Not trying to be sarcastic, but wouldnt the 2138 Summer Olympics be even more important because it'll be the 200th year anniversary and so on? Corpx 00:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Not trying to be sarcastic either, but there is no published verifiable information about any city considering 2138 Summer Olympics however as noted on the page, there are multiple instances of verifiable information about cities and even individuals spending money to plan for the 2028 Summer Olympics. There are many other Wikipedia pages that have less verifiable information on them. TruckOttr

• Delete as way too premature, but possible merge the Vancouver/Seattle proposal with either the main Olympic Games article or the 2010 Olympics article. 23skidoo 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment shouldn't 2026 Winter Olympics exist before this article does? 70.51.11.252 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Only if reliable sources are discussing it. JulesH 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to verifiable speculation that has been discussed in reliable sources. In fact, quoting from WP:CRYSTAL: "[...] and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." This is a well-sourced article that is verifiable and does not contain original research. JulesH 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - reliable sources seem to exist referring to the 2028 Olympics. WP:CRYSTAL only applies if it's unverifiable OR. -Halo 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - although there is a question about how far into the future these articles should be created that needs to be answered.Traditional unionist 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Reliable information already exists, and we can be certain that additional information will be added to this topic as time goes on. See, for example, the 2024 article, which already lists almost a dozen cities that are exploring bidding for those Games. In response to Traditional unionist's question about how far into the future articles like this should be created, I'd say that 20 to 25 years is about the right time horizon for a major global event like the Olympics. Cities around the world are definitely thinking about the 2024 and 2028 Games, and probably 2032 also, but going out to 2036 and 2040 would probably be premature at this point. Jpo 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, wiki is not a crystal ball but it doesnt need to be as this article provides details of what will actually happen.--Vintagekits 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We're going to want this article eventually, so why delete it? JelloSheriffBob
  • we don't have articles on future congresses, or the yet to be born babies of presidents (the analogy fails a bit here because the bady could die before birth), even if we will have articles on them in the future. tdmg 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above comments to do so, esp. as way too in the future. Bearian 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See the already detailed and well-referenced 2024 article. Is this also "way too in the future"? Lots of cities are thinking ahead to these Olympics already. There's not too much of a distinction between the detailed 2024 plans and the preliminary 2028 plans. As I said earlier, I think 2036 and 2040 are premature at this point, but there's no harm in having articles for 2028 (and also 2032) that we know are going to be created at some point anyway. 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is reliably sourced. WP:CRYSTAL is clearly abided. --SmokeyJoe 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No way to make an article about this without it being original research in some way. Bulldog123 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's just speculation at this point. No decisions have been made. daviddurdent 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, what exactly is speculation? The location is speculation little else.--Vintagekits 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JulesH and Halo. I looked through the facts which might be OR, such as Vancoucer-Seattle potentially being the first multi-national bid and the travel time between cities being similar to Vancouver-Whistler, and it checks out. These are facts and speculation reported in reliable sources, all discussing it in the context of the 2028 bids and therefore not OR. MeekSaffron 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even with sources it's still pretty wild speculation, so unless we're reporting wild speculations then it seems wrong to keep it. SamBC 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems fine to me. —Xezbeth 13:58, 13 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. Daniel 09:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Garrett

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

Procedural nom after article undeleted as a contested prod. Reason given from the prod was " Character voiced is not important enough to be listed in IMDB entry on this tv show. No other evidence of notability offered". Also note was previously deleted as an A7 nn bio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete His IMDB lists 1 video game and 2 episodes each for two cartoons. Searching elsewhere turns up about 3 other bit parts. Not seeing any articles, reviews of his work etc that could be used to establish not.Horrorshowj 00:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable at all. Jauerback 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Performed in multiple episodes of popular annimated TV shows. --Oakshade 03:47, 11 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 06:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punktastic Unscene 4

Punktastic Unscene 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (see WP:MUSIC) compilation album of non-notable bands on a non-notable (article deleted) label; no references AND it hasn't even been released yet (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL). Precious Roy 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - per nom. Jauerback 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment My word you people are sad—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.93.158 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 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. Sr13 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina Coeli School Hyde Park NY

Regina Coeli School Hyde Park NY (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn elementary school, which has little content, then the location of it. Delete as it failsWP:SCHOOL and there is no mention of the school board of this one either, so probably if necessary a merge to Dutchess County, New York--JForget 19:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Elementary schools are not inherently notable Corpx 19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of any kind (per my own view) of school notability. Note to nom: the WP:SCHOOL page is not policy; it reflects the ongoing lack of consensus about schools. Eusebeus 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, and that it's not even locally notable in the Albany, New York, Poughkeepsie, New York or Mid-Hudson areas. Bearian 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Eusebeus. MetsFan76 17:01, 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 keep, with no consensus to merge. Any further merge discussions which try to develop a consensus can be done editorially. Daniel 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chibi

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

Contested prod, the article is pure original research and no there are no indications that this is how the term is actually defined. --Farix (Talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't see how this is original research, considering it is a Japanese word that means "shorty" and I have heard it applied before to anime children characters. The article is couth and well-written, though it could use more sources to make it sound less like as anime junkie talking. --David Andréas 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only accurate section is the brief sidebar on the word's useage in Japanese. Even if a few Western otaku use the word in this sense, they're using it wrong. Doceirias 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That sidebar appears to have been removed. Fg2 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep impoartant concept in anime and manga, referring to more stylised, "cuter" versions of characters that appear even in "serious" works for purposes of exposition or comic relief. Does look like it could stand a little cleanup, but it's far from unsalvagable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I removed all the neologisms from that article Corpx 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Marginal Keep a quick search [12] of Amazon gets me several books that reference drawing in Chibi style. As such, I am comfortable with accepting that this concept is capable of being appropriately sourced. So tag for clean-up. FrozenPurpleCube 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Merge should be major section in Cuteness in Japanese culture. Article needs more references, but it should be cleaned up and merged, not deleted. tdmg 20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge sources shouldn't be to hard to find. -- Ned Scott 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs sourcing, and is already tagged for cleanup, but is a commonly used term with a history that takes it beyond just dicdef. ◄Zahakiel► 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. --ざくら木 23:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain your vote -- this isn't just a voting process, you need to give a reason why, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. User:Corpx cleaned up the article some but it still needs more work. Chibi is a very popular term in anime, and this page definitely has the potential to be more than just a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this a "very popular" term in anime? Do you mean when it's mistranslated as cute and assumed to mean the same thing as super deformed? There are three references to valid Chibi characters on that page, and those aren't the definition from that page. The definition on the page is the definition of a confused fanbase and it only leads to more confusion. Delete, redirect to super deformed and make a reference to the common mistranslation on super deformed. JohnnyMrNinja 08:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Merge any useful information to super deformed, which is basically the same as delete. JohnnyMrNinja 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with super deformed. Wikipedia should cover it, but with the article in its current state, I cannot foresee an article on chibi right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant material to super deformed, then redirect to the same. Most of the article is bunk as it stands right now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can I point out to anyone still confused that the term they thinking of when they are talking about anime and manga is super deformed. Chibi is an English fanfiction usage based on someone's mistranslation. This deletion proposal was started by this conversation, which I started because I was mislead by the misinformation in the Chibi article, and just wanted to close out the merger proposal. JohnnyMrNinja 09:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely want to agree with this. The correct term is super deformed; chibi should redirect to that term. A sidebar on how some fans use the word wrong might be worth adding, but an entire article on a mistake just serves to prolong the confusion. Doceirias 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant material to super deformed. I'm not fully clear on the differences between these two, but if there are any, it might be best explained within the context of a single article. LordAmeth 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to super deformed. I fail to see the difference between the two - I read through the talk pages on both articles, and while there are some vague pointers, few really go beyond "OMG their different and if u can't see that u suck lol". If someone makes a crystal clear description of the differences between the two (i.e. one that will be understandable to interested but fairly manga/anime ignorant bystanders, such as myself) then I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Until then, I really see no reason for two articles. TomorrowTime 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to super deformed. I was originally going to say delete, since it's not clear why this is notable to begin with. But if there's any usable materials it might as well be put in super deformed. -Amake 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Super deformed and redirect It's the correct term. A mention of the use of "chibi" in the article would be enough. Bnynms 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Super deformed or Cuteness in Japanese culture. I'd lean more towards the former based on the existence of Super Deformed Gundam. I have no understanding of why this has even been bought up for consideration of deletion, see also WP:SNOWBALL. Snarfies 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — They are different concepts. Chibi is a widely-used general concept (in Japanese) which usually means "child version", "younger version", "smaller version", or "miniature version" as opposed to it's counterpart, which would be a "full grown" or "regular version". Super deformed is merely a caricature style, which does not necessarily have any counterpart "full grown" or "larger version" as Chibi does.--Endroit 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Both of your explanations mean the same thing. "A caricature is either a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness, or in literature, a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others." The definition of caricature means it is based on a "full grown" or "regular version". Here is a caricature of Gustave Eiffel, but that is not what he really looked like. You might call this Chibi Eiffel. JohnnyMrNinja 23:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, a caricature would tend to describe a permanently dwarfed version (never grows in size), whereas a chibi tends to be an immature person/child which will grow up in due time. There is a clear difference. Besides, Super deformed is a style of drawing, and does NOT describe personal characteristics like Chibi does.--Endroit 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, I see what you're going for here, but I don't think that's what most people are believing chibi means. As far as widely-used, I can only believe that is true when referring to fan-fiction and fan-art. In actual Japanese media there are not that many characters that are literally younger versions of themselves at any given time (save maybe chibiusa or chibichibi). But this is not what our Wiki page says. In general the article is very inconsistent and claims to have a lot of overlap with super deformed. Also, a Google definition search basically says chibi is used the same as super deformed.[13][14] The Anime News Network does not appear to have a chibi entry, but mentions it on super deformed, noting "(also called "Big Head", SD Mode, CB or Chibi Body or Chibis for the plural)".[15] Remember that eventually these articles have to sourced, and as it is, the sources point to merger. JohnnyMrNinja 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia's Chibi article has had a bogus and unsourced definition, until I fixed it today. In real life, Chibi is a word of Japanese origin with a specific meaning in Japanese, which I will supply a definitive source for shortly. (No, it does NOT mean super deformed). We all agree that the word Chibi is used primarily in manga and anime. Unless one of you can provide a definitive source declaring that the meaning of the word Chibi has shifted in the English language, the original Japanese definition I will supply shall take precedence. Please don't use Wikipedia to redefine the word Chibi without any authoritative sources. Thank you.--Endroit 08:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple of of looking at the difference: An SD is proportioned, usually with a head the size of the rest of the body. Look at something like Pocket Fighter for instance. Chibi refers to smaller/younger, but /still normal proportions/. A flashback to where the main character is 5 years old would show the "chibi" version of the character (a good example is in the Ranma 1/2 manga, where Ranma and Ryoga eat age regressing mushrooms. Their bodies revert to five year olds, yet they still look normal within the context of the drawing style). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Starblind. Notable drawing style, and a concept which can be gound in books about manga. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Super deformed. Chibi and Super-Deformed are basically used --StalkerAT 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge Super deformed into Chibi, as in my experience, Chibi is the more common term than Super Deformed (3,000,000 google hits on Chibi versus 209,000 for "Super Deformed" in quotes).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuronue (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 July 2007
• Merge to Super deformed: Chibi is a type of super deformed drawing. Specifically, one where features are all reduced to a child-like form. A non-chibi super deformed example would be the classic huge, bulging eyes cartoon characters used to get when surprised (I'm pretty should I can find a cite of the term used in this specific regard). However, since chibi not a big enough departure from normal "super deformation", it should just be a section in the super deformed article.--SeizureDog 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and differentiate from super deformed per Endriot, based on the corresponding Japanese wiki article. However, if merged to Super deformed, do not redirect but make an disambiguation page instead. _dk 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above.MightyAtom 04:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I want to express that from my knowledge as well Super deformed != Chibi, although I don't 100% agree with how the Chibi article defines Chibi, it's still mostly accurate. I considered chibi to just be another Japanese word (typically insulting) of the same notability of "Boya" or "Baka". Wikipedia probably isn't in the general business of making articles for every Japanese word, but if someone wanted to make the case that it's significant in a larger sense to be able to understand the cultural impact of some Japanese media, I would give it to them. But then again, I don't see an article for "Baka" right now, which is troubling for the existence of this article. Still on the basis of WP:ALLORNOTHING, I would have to say that my decision would be a fairly week keep.
• Keep per Endroit. Article may lack clean-up, but I think that "chibi" and "super deformed" are not equal. Chibi is the general terms to characters drawn temporarily in a comical, cute way, with changed emotions or exaggerated feelings, whereas super deformed is a more general term describing any character with a specific caricature-like apperance, and without personality traits. Like signs and ads in most Japanese cities. --Rev-san 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm not enough of an authority to parse the definitions, but there is a definite difference between "chibi" and "super deformed." I think the major confusion here is that it is common practice to draw characters that fit *both* styles. Many early 20th century art pieces qualify as both "dada" and "surrealism," but that doesn't mean that the topics should be merged. I would like to see an editor try and describe the differences between those two art styles in one clean sentence. Similar concept here with "chibi" and "super deformed." Fishamaphone 19:47, 13 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 06:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Street Charter School

Howard Street Charter School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable school. No famous alumni, nor anything else of special note. Unless we would like WP to turn into an indiscriminate collection of schools all over the world, it would seem this page does not add much to the encyclopedia. xC | ☎ 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Middle schools are not inherently notable! Corpx 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no multiple non-trivial, published sources asserted. Spellcast 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Deleteas per above, and that, if an article must assert it is "really" a separate school, then it is, ipso facto non-notable. Bearian 21:03, 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 delete. Sr13 06:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mott Road Elementary School

Mott Road Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Same as my previous nomination below. It does not have any references and does not appear to meet WP:SCHOOL. As per below it can be merged if necessary to the school district related to this school. Otherwise, delete--JForget 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to be published in multiple non-trivial, published works whose source is independent of the school itself. Spellcast 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Middle schools are not inherently notable! Corpx 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:50, 8 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 deleted by User:Sr13. John Vandenberg 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fayetteville Elementary School

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

In addition of having no sources, this article is about a less then notable elementary school and does not look to meet WP:SCHOOL. Maybe it can be merged with Fayetteville-Manlius Central School District, otherwise Delete--JForget 18:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Certainly not notable, and any information worth merging is already listed in Fayetteville-Manlius Central School District. Calgary 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Same as my reasons for Mott Road Elementary School: No multiple non-trivial, published works asserted. Spellcast 19:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Middle/Elementary schools are not inherently notable! Corpx 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MetsFan76 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Comment: it's in a fairly big and prominent middle-class suburban school district in Upstate Syracuse, New York area. Bearian 21:05, 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 delete. Sr13 06:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Bell

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

Many people with this name - unref'd so impossible to update further. Notability cannot thus be assertained Kernel Saunters 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete based on that he didn't do anything except hold that post. Couldn't find much from google either. Corpx 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete based on information in article and lack of sources, since searching on Google and in other areas didn't bring up many relevant links, possibly because his name is so common. I'm wondering, though, why someone called "General" is referred to as a lieutenant colonel and not as, say, a general. I'm also wondering why he was knighted; sometimes individuals are knighted for notable acts. But since the article doesn't even say what century he flourished in, there's no way to know. --Charlene 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from the article content we do not know which John Bell the page is about. Whilst researching this I found a few references via Google to John Bell(s), like the one on the List_of_Lord_Provosts_of_Glasgow page and a painting of one on the Charles_Davidson_Bell page. However, with the extremely limited details we have we can not be certain that they are the same person. This means that it is hard to be certain of the notability of the John Bell referenced in this page.--Mendors 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no argument (there are many enough...) beside those above.--Victor falk 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, He must be notable, the British crown ennobled him, but no idea which John Bell. No sources not even a birth or death date to help in the search. Callelinea 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - common name. And how can he have become "sir" or "general"? Neither of these are noted, in fact, it more or less says that he didn't reach the level of colonel.--MacRusgail 13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per being unsourced, making notability not assertained. ♠TomasBat 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While there was a Gen. Sir John Bell who was lieutenant-governor of Guernsey and, at the time of his death, senior general on the Army List, it's impossible to tell if this was the same one, given the lack of sourcing or presentation of notability. Delete it and let someone else write about the more verifiable Sir John if they wish. Choess 01:05, 11 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. Needs work to improve it though. Tyrenius 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick McMullan

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

Ignoring the fact that there are no reliable sources, the only claim to notability is the photographer having photos published in magazines and having written some books. Spellcast 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Spellcast 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A career photographer writing on his career... what next? Perhaps anyone with a career. --David Andréas 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete by using the criteria in WP:PROF, which is about academics, however applying the principles to this photographer. Whilst he has had photos published, there appears to be no awards, notable exhibitions or similar.--Mendors 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Sorry boys I must disagree with you. I did google and yahoo search and plenty of stuff on him. All the article needs is some references attached. He is a notable photographer. Callelinea 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have to agree with Callelinea. The article needs some work, though. Jauerback 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above and Ghits [16]. Bearian 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per books etc Johnbod 01:35, 11 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 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Comer

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

Unsourced article that doesn't demonstrate any inherent notability. Local political leaders are not notable in themselves unless they have done something noteworthy. This doesn't appear to have been the case here. Its hard to see how we can verify any of the biographical information without multiple independent sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As leader of the largest group on one of the larger councils in England he is much more notable than the usual local politician. The multiple BBC articles [17] and Guardian article [18] in which he is quoted further establish his notability. Davewild 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Multiple sources really need to be about the subject. The only real reported fact about this person is that they are leader of the lib-dem group on the council and that they were unsuccessful in getting him elected to lead the council. That doesn't make a biography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete unless non-trivial sources specifically about the individual and not merely mentioning him are added. --Charlene 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We seem to have decided recently that city councillors of large cities were intrinsically notable--because they would get national coverage in media sources, and so he has. DGG (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a diff for that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Davewild reasons. Callelinea 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm very surprised to see this marked for deletion. I'm even more surprised to see the reason "Local political leaders are not notable in themselves", which is a bizarre thing to say. Is the suggestion that local things are not notable - which is very much against the spirit of wikipedia; or that only local politicians are not notable, which seems a strange singling out of politicians as irrelevent over other thing local. Bristol City Council is one of the largest councils in the UK, and Cllr Comer is the leader of the largest group on that council (and would expect to be leader of Council, but for the rather bizarre politics going on in Bristol at the moment (Lab-Con alliance)). The article has now been sourced and is concise and factual. Deletion would be unhelpful to the Bristol project, and unjustified. Fig 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Even as just a council member in a city the size of Bristol would make this person notable, but this is a major party leader on it no less. The nom's "Local political leaders are not notable in themselves..." is purley personal opinion and not based on policy nor guideline. --Oakshade 03:28, 11 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 06:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kcvds

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

Non-notable Flash game based on Yu-Gi-Oh!. There are no reliable sources about this game and it fails the notability guideline WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability asserted Corpx 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jauerback 16:26, 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 keep rewritten version. Sr13 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro

Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a new version of Francesco Dionigi, which was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi (and see the closely related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). The present article is different enough from Francesco Dionigi that I don't think this qualifies as reposting of deleted content, but it's clear that the creator of this article (who was also the creator of Francesco Dionigi) is determined to have an article on Dionigi. I still don't think he meets our notability guidelines. History has noted Dionigi only in relation to Petrarch and Boccaccio--he is basically a footnote in those men's careers, and to the extent that he needs to be covered in Wikipedia, it can be done in Petrarch and Boccaccio. The sources that are cited in the article are difficult to verify, given the abominable citation style, but they give only trivial coverage to Dionigi--i.e., a paragraph or two in much longer articles or books. A possible exception is the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (inaccesible to me at the moment).

Some of the more interesting claims in this article ("he was reputed to have psychic powers") are unsourced, others are sourced but mistaken--e.g. "In 1339 Robert the Wise received from scholar Dionigi the bishopric of Monopoli." should be "In 1339 Robert the Wise obtained the bishopric of Monopoli for Dionigi." And what, exactly, is "He [Petrarch] consulted much with Dionigi about his quilt feelings" supposed to mean? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll try to answer these which I believe most are referenced:
  • that of the reference that he was known to have "psychic powers" can be found in #1 footnote. In this reference it says that Dionigi received his doctorate circa 1324 and that in addition to his theological studies, he was also greatly interested in classical learning, judical astrology, and he was even "reputed to possess psychic powers."
  • that of the bishopric of Monopoli seemed to me also should have been for, however that can be found in footnote # 15 on page 106 and 107 where it says "The new year (1342) brought him yet a third bereavement by the death of Dionigi, for whom King Robert had three years previously obtained the bishopric of Monopoli." That wording was confusing to me and logically should be that Dionigi received the title. In this case I would have to agree with you that logically it should be "for", however I was just following the reference wording. It is likely that I misread the wording and it really meant to say that Dionigi received the title from King Robert - showing that King Robert had much respect for Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro and he was in his employ.
  • In Petrarch: His Life and Times by Henry Calthorp it says on page 313 "Dionigi was a man of deep piety and unusual learning, a theologian of scholarly sympathies, and a friend that Petrarch could confide all the troubles of his heart. Probably he took him for his confessor; certainly he sought his advice about his love for Laura. Dionigi showed keen insight into the character of his penitent."

The sources are easy to verify as most are linked and the others are obtainable in most large libraries, especially university libraries.--Doug ^talk 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Dionigi is notable and worthy of an encyclopedic article because he was a mentor to both Petrarch and Giovanni Boccaccio. Dionigi was a scholar and lectured at Sorbonne in philosophy and theology. Dionigi was Boccaccio's personal tutor and influenced Boccaccio's writing and art considerably. Dionigi was also employed by Robert the Wise and taught him theology and astrology. Dionigi influenced many of Boccaccio's famous works including Esposizioni and Genealogia deorum gentilium. Dionigi was a unique writer himself. Dionigi organized the coronation of Petrarch's crowning as poet laureate in 1341 for Petrarch's work Africa. Dionigi is an influential figure in a literary time and activity known as trecento humanistic studies - which influenced Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. Petrarch wrote many letters to Dionigi, including Ascent to Mont Ventoux.--Doug ^talk 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as before. I must suppose "quilt feelings" to be a psychological interpretation of auricular confession, but it smacks of OR, as does the claim that Dionigi "organized" Petrarch's coronation as laureate. Since Africa was not yet published, and indeed never finished, it is doubtful that Petrarch was crowned for it, and responsible biographies say so. I will look for the Dizionario, but it is a tertiary source; articles on genuinely notable people would not need to use sources like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A tertiary source indeed, but perhaps it would indicate some suitable secondary sources. It's (allegedly) the source for the claim that Dionigi organized Petrarch's crowing as poet laureate, but I'll reserve judgment until I get a look at it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is referenced as footnote # 16.--Doug ^talk 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the "quilt feelings" quote is a somewhat garbled reproduction of a paragraph from Henry Calthrop Hollway-Calthrop's Petrarch: His Life and Times: "Dionigi was...a friend to whom Petrarch could confide all the troubles of his heart. Probably he took him for his confessor; certainly he sought his advice about his love for Laura." Hollway-Calthrop's book is from 1907, in an age whether authors did not hesitate to invent a full-blown biography from a few scattered scraps of information; when such an author says "certainly", you may read that as code for "I have no evidence, but I think that..." We don't need to follow his example. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just going with the references - in this case Henry Calthrop Hollway-Calthrop's Petrarch: His Life and Times.--Doug ^talk 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I came to this AfD based on this post on my talk page. Since the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic appears to be Wikipedia notable. In any event, appears to be enough reliable sources that are independent of the subject to form neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. In addition to what already is in the article, here are some references that I found that mention Dionigi (some of which may already be in the article):
  • Took, John. (March 22, 2003) Medium Aevum. Zygmunt Baranski, Chiosar con altro testo: leggere Dante nel Trecento. Volume 72; Issue 1; Page 160.
  • Didier, Peron. (May 23, 2003) Libération Voyages Mont Ventoux Pic épique Etape mythique du Tour de France, le mont Ventoux a autant fasciné les écrivains que les grimpeurs. Randonnée méditativesur les traces de Pétrarque. Issue 6850, Section: Guide.
  • Comadira, Narcis. (April 1, 2004) Diario El Pais (Spain). Unica: L'ascenció al mont Ventós. Section: Unica; Page 7.
  • Velli, Giuseppe. (December 22, 2005) Italica. Petrarch's Epystole ** Volume 82; Issue 3-4, Page 366.
  • Cannarsa, Aurelia. (June 22, 2006) Italica. Versum efficit ipsa relatio contrariorum: il modello agostiniano del dissidio in Petrarca. Volume 83; Issue 2; Page 147.
  • Winkler, von Willi. (December 30, 2006) Süddeutsche Zeitung Es war einmal: Petrarca und die Entdeckung des Ich. Section: SZ Wochenende; Page 6.

Also, I posted a note on the article talk page on how the article might be improved. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"mentions Dionigi" is not the same as non-trivial coverage. Most of the references cited in the article mention him in passing while covering other subjects. E.g. this reference mentions Dionigi on 2 pages; the book is over 371 pages long. This reference mentions him on 5 pages, including the index; the book is over 311 pages. This one mentions him on 5 pages; the book is at least 309 pp. long. This article, which is about a letter addressed to Dionigi, mentions him by name on 2 pages; more importantly, it provides no biographical information about Dionigi. Given my reading of these sources and my previous experience with the article's creator, I don't think any of these sources provide non-trivial coverage of Dionigi, which is an important part of the notability guideline. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• What Libération says is "En 1336, Pétrarque, poète, moraliste, diplomate, exilé depuis l'enfance d'Italie à Vaucluse, rédige un texte splendide (1), une lettre à un ami, le père Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro, professeur de théologie, qu'il insère dans un vaste recueil épistolaire en latin, les Familiares." That is to say, Petrarch wrote a letter to him, once. Most of the rest of these say the same thing, in other languages. We have an article on the letter. There's no need for this content fork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has been reworked and improved as a biography.--Doug ^talk 22:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been changed but not improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's known, he's talked about more than 700 years later--the non-notables of that age have all left already. The article is very poorly written. I've fixed some and removed all the remarks that belong in an article about Petrarch, not in an article about Dionigi. He'll be remembered long after some of the drivel from the 21st century who have articles on Wikipedia have been forgotten by everyone on the planet. KP Botany 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And I provided a source with non-trivial coverage of Dionigi--there's plenty of coverage of him, but folks who study Early Italian Renaissance Classical Latin scholars are not as well represented on Wikipedia or the web as folks who write articles about every single Pokiman card in the deck--go to a library, rather than google, just to see what's available. KP Botany 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Charles Stinger's Humanism and the Church Fathers, that work mentions Dionigi on 2 pages (well, three, counting the index entry). I think this is also trivial coverage. If you want to argue that any modern coverage of a person who died 700 years ago is non-trivial, then do so. But what's known about this man fits into a short paragraph, and the only reason he's known in a modern context is because of his relationship with Petrarch.

By the way, I'm not sure if your Pokemon remarks are directed at anyone in particular, but I'd note that several of the people involved in this AfD, including myself, are proficient at using research libraries. I just don't think Wikipedia should be spammed with articles about every single person who's connected with Petrarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you've researched Dionigi in an academic library and you still think he's not notable enough for Wikipedia? Well, there's not really much I can respond to that.

However, he we go to basic definitions, which I'm still stuck with on Wikipedia, because I think it's about Wikipedia policy not my feelings about friends of Petrarch's.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."

"Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992 January 6. ) is plainly trivial."

I can't seem to find your definition of "trivial" that being mentioned on two pages (actually about one) in an academic work is still trivial--you see, there's no definition of volume of mention on the AfD guidelines, and, in fact, this is not a trivial mention of Diogini in the book.

The source is reliable, there are multiple sources on the man, and, again, there is no requirement that sources contain more information than there is about the person.

This AfD appears to be a vendetta, or so I thought at first, but dismissed the idea assuming good faith, until you come back with the argument that you failed to use initially, that you have researched him in an academic library, then tell me that you consider mentioning friends of Petrarch to be spamming. I can't find that definition of spamming. Please reconsider whether or not an AfD is the appropriate place for your personal disagreements with discussions of Petrarch--I don't think it is. And, when you've researched something in an academic library and found it wanting, discuss the results of your search up front rather than holding it back as a weapon. I disagree with your conclusion. KP Botany 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Useful copyedits, in particular the deletions. The article looks much better. KP Botany 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • What I mean by "trivial" is that Dionigi is never a subject of interest by himself. He is not the main subject of academic monographs, nor of a peer-reviewed article. He is only mentioned very briefly in works about something else, usually Petrarch (either his entire career or the letter usually called the "Ascent of Mont Ventoux"). So far I haven't seen that anyone writing in English thinks he's important except through his involvement with Petrarch. If there's no interest in Dionigi as a figure on his own, I call that trivial coverage. In the language of WP:NOTABILITY, the sources that people have brought up so far do not "address the subject directly in detail."
    • Further evidence that Dionigi is not considered notable is his absence from the Cambridge History of Italian Literature--oh, wait, he's mentioned briefly as an influence on Petrarch. If you know of a comparable history of medieval Latin literature I'll be happy to look there.
    • As for "spamming", I consider the creation of multiple articles on non-notable concepts or people, including a nice dose of content forking, to be spamming. It doesn't help that the articles in question are often poorly written. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep That someone who lived in the 14th century to be discussed in numerous reliable sources seems to define notable; will nearly any of Category:Living people be written about in AD 2700? Deletion here would be merely WP:RECENTism run amok. Further, I would say anyone mentioned in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani from that vintage is per se notable. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I have left a message about this new AfD on the talk pages of the editors who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Much improved since it first incarnation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CarlosS & others above. Never having seen earlier versions, the notability concerns seem misplaced, and the apparent dismissal by nom of sources not in English odd. Oh, the disinfo-box and Victorian "artist's impression" should go. Johnbod 10:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a "dismissal"--I just haven't been able to obtain the non-English sources yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although one suspects that the article has been created in order to create a notable "shell" in which to insert a non-notable "kernal" (the Petrarch letter), we have enough here to keep. As for quality, that can be addressed by editing. Bucketsofg 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The content is sufficient, the life & work of an important figure in his day. The references are a reliable standard national biographical encyclopedia, a standard academic work on the general subject, a recent specific and relevant article in a good journal, and numerous contemporary references to show the notability as viewed in his day. The nomination nonetheless was a perfectly good faith nom based on what could reasonably be seen as an attempt to evade AfD. I noticed this in part because I was notified by the nominator as he says above, which further demonstrates the integrity--because I defended the original article as strongly as I could based on the sources then available. DGG (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I seldom have concerns about notability of folks who lived seven centuries ago. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. When trying to cover a person from so long ago, I would be concerned about notability mostly if it meant you'd never be able to find sources. Since some reliable sources have been found, I think that's enough. The line about 'quilt' in the article deserves to be fixed. EdJohnston 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if he's good enough for the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, he's good enough for us. I like to think that WP:ENC + WP:V = "Wikipedia coverage should be the union of all reliable scholarly specialist encyclopedias". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is the kind of article that raises serious questions. Comments like if he's good enough for the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, he's good enough for us and The references are a reliable standard national biographical encyclopedia, a standard academic work on the general subject, a recent specific and relevant article in a good journal, and numerous contemporary references are misleading. The references are cleverly seeded to suggest scholarly support for the claims made in the article, particularly the claim that he was a mentor to Petrarch and Boccaccio. On close inspection of the sources, however, that's not the case. The article's only real reference for these huge claims about Dionigi is the Moschella article.The fact that there is not a single credible source backing any of the extraordinary claims made here (and as iterated by several others above) is to me highly suspicious. Surely, surely! if he was the mentor to Petrarch and Boccaccio, more reasonable evidence can be adduced than a single article in Dizionario Biografico. A quick search on Google Scholar [19] shows he exists and was active in early humanist circles, so there is no doubt this could be kept. But this needs to be much better sourced to retain the specific claims about his relationship with Petrarch and Boccaccio. As it is, this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia stumble when scholars examine the veracity of the information and substance of the material included. Eusebeus 11:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a strong consensus to keep, but the article as currently written has serious plagiarism problems, including some reproduction of copyrighted text without attribution. Because of this I wonder if the best course is to delete and then rewrite, so that the copyvios aren't in the page history. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Having commented above in favour of keeping, but being aware of related copvio issues in another article, I'd support that. Johnbod 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have said: the plagiarism is detailed at Talk:Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro#Plagiarism?. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have, for now, replaced the content with {{copyvio}}, since much of the plagiarism is from a source published in 2004. I intend to rewrite from scratch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 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. W.marsh 15:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trilogy (song)

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

Inaccurate, crystal ball-gazing article about what it claims is a forthcoming Kelis single but isn't, created by a user who has a history of adding speculation and inaccurate information to Wikipedia. Also nominating (and created by the same user):

What's That Right There (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Till the Wheels Fall Off (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Extraordinary Machine 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete songs dont make any of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:55, 8 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 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beirut IRC

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

No sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Videmus Omnia 18:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is the #141 biggest IRC server out there per searcirc with just over 500 users. Corpx 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that the size of the server (measured by users) is a valid criteria for deciding to delete an article about it. Well, except maybe to ensure we aren't deleting one of the largest and most popular servers. Mrand ^T-C 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — agree with nom. It would appear that about 50% of the articles pointed to by Template:IRC_networks should be deleted as well. Several already have advertisement or notability warnings, and most have no real content. Mrand ^T-C 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only one source, and a weak one at that. All other inline links are simply malformatted ELs. No strong case for note. MrZaius^talk 00:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:56, 8 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. —Kurykh 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-pedophile activism

Pro-pedophile activism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a POV fork started by a now banned user now banned for engaing in activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia and for the prurpose of promoting pro [pedophile activism to a wider audience. Whil;e we have articles on the mainstream animal rights activism there are many other notable activisms that do not have articles such as peace activism, earth activism, cannabis activism etc and I see no reason why the much less notable pedophile activism should have an article. We already ahve articles on specific groups and individuals within the movement and that, along with a brief mention in the pedophile article, is sufficienet for the notability of this tiny, extremeist organisation. SqueakBox 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While I'm going to read more in detail to check for possible POV, as far as I can tell this is not a POV fork in any way. It is a history of an international movement by well-known individuals and lobbying groups, not simply an article detailing arguments for pedophilia. However repulsive the actions of this predatory subculture may be, it is a very high-profile and well-documented history of their attempts to be legitimized. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• The sections on "Other significant views" and "Ethics" need to be swiftly removed, as they are basically either improperly sourced, irrelevant, possibly OR, and most of all, totally POV. The early history section needs to be cleaned up as well, and for a subject with so many opponents (basically, everyone) the criticism section should be expanded. I am also concerned about the statement that a Dutch gay-rights group publicly supported pedophile activists. It is my understanding, from sourced information in the main homosexuality history articles and personal experience, that the international gay rights movement has always been extremely strident in their criticism of pedohilia in order to deflate accusations that homosexuality is linked to child abuse. But these issues irregardless, I still think it's a notable encyclopedic topic that should be covered. Who else but Wikipedia is better equipped to keep this neutral? We have a whole Wikiproject to watchdog this type of article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the POVness of the ethics and views sections, articles that document activist groups are obviously going to document their POV. We can objectively document what a group's POV is without endorsing it. The pro-choice article, likewise, would document the POV of the pro-choice movement without endorsing it. Let's not let the controversial subject matter of this article influence us to edit it with unreasonable standards.

The statements of the Dutch gay rights movement supporting pedophile activists are documented, as are the movement's shifts toward disassociating itself from pedophiles and pederasts. Phenomenons such as pederasty are very much related to homosexuality, especially if you look at things from an historical standpoint. Mike D78 22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying the source was false, I was saying that I didn't want a single group's statement used to make it look as if the gay rights movement in general has ever supported pro-pedohile activists. Because, if you look at the numbers of gay lobbies for/against pedophile groups, you'll see that that is overwhelmingly not the case. As to the archaically close relationship between homosexuality/pederasty, I think it goes without saying that it's pretty well documented. And I really object to the ethics section in that it seems pretty obvious that part of the agenda is changing ethical standards when info about their intention to change perceptions about them and their activities is both outlined in their goals, and more importantly, something that goes without saying. That's what a lobby/activist group does, is change perceptions on issues. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; most modern homosexual activism distances itself from pedophiles and pederasts, if not condemning them completely. But the history of the relationship between homosexual and pedophile activism, not just in Holland but in the U.S. as well, to an extent, cannot be objectively ignored. I know people hate that, because fundies love to derisively associate gays with pedophiles, but the facts are the facts.

I feel the conclusion of the history section, detailing the actions of the ILGA, etc., pretty well establishes the distance between these two camps at this point. Mike D78 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the reasons for deletion stated. If the article is not deleted, it should, at the very least, be merged with the Anti-pedophile activism article, and probably both should then be merged into the pedophile article. DPeterson^talk 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article however much we may not like the subject. It has far too much verified information to be merged into another article. It is not an inherently POV article and can be kept to NPOV as VanTucky says. Davewild 20:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning keep On one hand, it would be egregiously POV to delete this article while leaving up anti-pedophile activism. But on the other hand, the article as written needs some work. If it's improved, I'll change to keep. Blueboy96 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The original creator of the article is irrelevant; this article has been edited by many people over the years who have worked to keep it NPOV. As for the other claims of the person who proposed this idea, they are simply incorrect. We do have articles for various other forms of activism such as the Peace movement, the Ecology movement, and activism related to cannabis. Clearly this movement is well-documented enough to warrant its own article, and the alleged "extremist" nature of the movement is irrelevant in determining whether an encyclopedic entry should be maintained or not. Mike D78 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)— Mike D78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy keep per Mike D78 --ざくら木 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This proposal is the latest in a rapid succession of merge and delete snowballs. This subject understandably shocks most people (hence the veiled moral protectionism), but as the sources show, the article is noteworthy and represent a lot of good work on the part of many editors. SqueakBox's fallacious guilt-by-association argument about banned editors is also embarrasingly grubby and unwarrented for an informational resource with no single author, such as Wikipedia. Samantha Pignez 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether Samantha Pignez is a SPA account or not. Folks may if they choose check his edit history here: [[20]]. -Jmh123 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I vigorously disagree with the approach described, but I just as vigorously sympathize with the motivation behind it. Keeping the entry NPOV is not as simple as some folks are making it sound. It is zealousy guarded against any changes. Would be happy to have the future participation of the editors voting here to keep, especially those that see a need for improvement. -Jmh123 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If there's some a group of users who think they own this article, you've got my full support and attentions in debunking that notion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the problem with this article as of late is that people are jumping in and making significant changes without properly discussing them first. What little discussion has been had has consisted of a lot of hostile comments, unrelated discussion, and frequent distracting procedural votes concerning merges, etc. I think this article can be improved, but everyone involved must make a greater effort to cooperate. Additionally, people must not let the controversial subject matter keep them from making objective judgements. Mike D78 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What you just said sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation about a lack of inclusiveness to me. Users are directly instructed to be bold in updating articles, especially in cases of clear violation of policies. Distracting procedure on merges? Merges happen because of a clear procedure establishing a majority consensus. Unless major changes were made without any explanation or discussion at all (which I don't see happening consistently) then it looks to me like users are just fighting edits by "outsiders" in order to preserve their version of things. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply agreeing with Samantha that it seems like there has been a snowballing of proposals concerning merges, deletions, etc. lately. These proposals have been considered unnecessary in the past, and there has been blanking, redirecting, and attempted merging as of late that was carried out against consensus. These things are against the rules, distracting, and only cause increased resentment. Mike D78 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps overly detailed, somewhat in need of fixing, and definitely in need of careful watching -- but none of those come close to reasons for deletion in the face of the actual referenced notability and impact of the subject. WP:AFD ain't for clean-up, and certainly not as a tool in someone's personal crusade. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reading this talk page makes me realize how few people actually read this articles and check them out in-depth before commenting. 90%+ of this article was created and added by now banned pedophile SPA accounts. Check the history of the article, don't just take my word for it. The vast majority of references to the article are from IPCE.info, a source that only a moron could claim meets Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Many of the sources now link to websites that have been knocked off of the internet in general. Simply because people have added a ton of sources to an article doesn't mean an article is "well-sourced." That's ridiculous. LOOK at the sources themselves. A majority of them source one website, a poorly-coded HTML page which is kept up by one guy... whose claims are taken as gospel when you read this article. Ridiculous.

Both this article and the anti-pedophile activism article fail notability as well, I can count on one hand the amount of actual news stories done on both the pro- and anti- pedophile movements. This article is openly referenced by those who created and populated it with content as being little more than their own propaganda that they can use to recruit and steer pedophiles towards their organizations as the article itself comes up as one of the top google searches regarding this topic... again, due to the non-notability of the topic itself.

I'm certain that this article will be kept and I'm equally as certain that it will continue to be dominated by POV pedophile SPA's that will continue to spam it with propaganda, using Wikipedia as a vehicle to try to gain credibility. At the end of the day, nothing will change regarding this article or the reality surrounding this article since it's creation. XavierVE 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC) — XavierVE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin: XavierVE is a self-admitted single-purpose account, and the owner of Perverted Justice. See here. While I am just as opposed to pedophilia and feel self-identified pedophiles should not be allowed to edit, NPOV is NPOV. Blueboy96 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Exactly the same can be said for Mike D78 and Samantha Pignez, SPA's with a strong pro pedophile activism agenda and xavier clearly has at least as much right and as little COI here as these 2 zaccounts, SqueakBox 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt I am POV and I've said that a million times, which is why you can count the number of edits I've done in these areas on one hand. Do note that I also believe the anti-pedophile activism article should ALSO be deleted for non-notability, which at the end of the day would remove a good chunk of hits we get from that article. Still, if a SPA sockpuppet like Mike D78 is going to vote then this SPA non-sockpuppet will do the same thing. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, and you have no right to frequently accuse me of such to undermine my comments. I am perhaps still an SPA at this point, but I am also still a new member. I have made contributions to other areas in the past, before I registered, and plan to continue doing so, but I don't have all day to spend on Wikipedia.

You have certainly made more than the number of edits you can count on a hand concerning this topic, unless your hand has, like, 60 fingers. But Samantha is definitely not an SPA, so I will be deleting the disclaimer next to her name. Mike D78 05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The question here Xavier is not "Does this article need wresting from the hands of those who are pro-pedophilia activists?", or even simply, "Does this article need quite a bit of cleanup?" but "Is this a historical topic that is notable and worthy of encyclopedic treatment?" The answer is yes. The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. But how can we delete a pro pedophile activism article and leave up an anti-pedophile activism article, and still claim to be neutral and comprehensive? Doesn't only providing information on groups and individuals on only one side of a contentious issue fundamentally violate a neutral point of view? I despise those who would pervert (how apt a word) Wikipedia to legitimize organizations (such as this Dutch group, who has ever heard of them?) that are not notable. But at the same time, if we can remove the subtle (and not so subtle) language that puts these activists and their crimes in a positive light, then it is obvious to me that the positive role that Wikipedia can play in this arena is to expose the simple, neutral facts about a long history of these predators attempts to have their crimes legalized. For people who hate those who perpetrate violence against children, the crime would be to not make the facts about pro-pedophile activists known. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All I see is more guilt-by-association arguments on the part of Von Erck. Simply the fact that some previous editors are now banned is no reason to discredit all of their contributions. Besides, when I look at the history of this article, I see changes made by many editors of many different perspectives. It is hard to believe the accusation that one camp has succesfully "owned" this article for more than two years now.

As for his accusations about the sources, I would like to know what exact problem he has with them, apart from the fact that he apparently doesn't care for their web design. Mirrors of academic articles and studies seem relevant to me, and the proper procedure is to look for better sources to replace ones you question rather than immediately deleting the sourced info. Mike D78 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mike, you're both right and wrong. It is true that not all of the contributions of banned editors are negligible. But the contributions to pedophile articles by editors banned for POV-pushing on pedophilia are absolutely to be discredited. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all people banned concerning the pedophilia-related articles were banned for POV-pushing. Some were banned for personal attacks and other such conduct, and some were banned simply for their self-identification. Mike D78 05:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read my actual comment, I said that both the anti- and pro- articles should be deleted but check the history, someone vandalized my comment. In short, don't try to throw out random straw men at people, please. Otherwise: The article, in order to preserve NPOV and good verification, needs to chopped down practically to stub size in my opinion. That will never happen and if you try it, you'll end up meeting the same opposition Squeakbox has by those interested in ramming crap sources into this article since it's creation. Good luck though. XavierVE 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did read all of your commentary, but comments or not, your support of Delete would mean that this article would be deleted, and the other would stay. There is no AFD for anti-pedophile activism. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox met opposition because he blanked, redirected, and merged against consensus, and met criticism from many users for his unagreed upon changes.

I also don't believe many people are interested in reducing this article to "practically stub size;" there's too much information for that. And again, I would invite Xavier to mention specific problems he has with specific sources on the talk page, and we can perhaps find better ones. Mike D78 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your point of view on the majority consensus, I was stating what I believe is the work that needs doing. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment was in reponse to Von Erck; sorry, these edit conflicts are making things confusing for me. And I was not stating my view on the majority consensus; and admin claimed a discussion to be "no consensus" before Squeak blanked and redirected regardless. The vote was actually 3-6. Mike D78 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I count over 40 non-web sources. Even discounting the books related to the movement, there are major news sources. and non-movement related academic journals. Individual items thought not to have RSs can be challenged. DGG (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is well-sourced, subject is notable. Also, I suggest everyone read Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Why I am going to put this article up for afd. Several of the nominator's claims have already been debunked there. This AfD is the result of long debates about having its content merged into Pedophilia or back into Anti-pedophile activism to create a single "activism" article again. The original forking was not for POV reasons, but because of constant edit-warring as each side tried to eliminate sources for the other in the joined article. The split occurred to provide individual articles that could neutrally discuss each side of the debate, so it is disingenuous to call this a POV fork. As to the claims the article is "zealously guarded," well, the same could be said about Anti-pedophile activism. Proponents of the two views are, of course, going to be watching both articles, but there are plenty of neutral editors who are keeping things sane at the moment. The problems come when one group tries to insert their own viewpoint into the other article, which leads to revert warring and accusations of bias. This is not a valid reason for deleting either article, it's just typical Wikidrama. -- Kesh 05:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My commemts ghavent been debunked anywhere. Why no peace acticvism article? Why no Earth rights activism article. Why no cannabis activism rights article. All these movements are far more ntoable than pedophile activism and it strikes me as odd that people dont address the notability issue but make silly claims of debunking which simply dont correspond to reality. It seems strange to me that people think pedophile acticvism is more notable than peace activism etc, very strange indeed, SqueakBox 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Ecology movement article is exactly the same subject matter as a "Earth activism" article. But no one would name it "Earth activism", becuase it's an ambiguous and asinine title for a movement that doesn't exist. There are no self-described "Earth activists". There is however, Environmentalism. You're just setting up straw men to defeat by using non-existent terminology for real movements. Same thing with "peace activism". It's called the whole series of articles on Anti war efforts, starting with a long summation and going on to articels for every single war. For "cannabis activism", there is not only the Legal issues of cannabis internationally, but the even more specific Decriminalization of non-medicinal marijuana in the United States. These articles exist SqueakBox. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• That is my whole point, the cannabis articles you mention are not about cannabis activists but about the legal issues of cananbis and involve law enforcement as much as activism. As a cannabis activist (former in practice) I wouldnt have dreamt of creating a cannabis activism article because it would eb a POV fork. I'd happily see an article on pedophilia and the law etc, SqueakBox 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you bring up the articles concerning marijuana, particularly this one. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be any agreed upon model for editing the pro-pedophile activism article. Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is also a controversial topic; not as controversial pedophile activism, granted, but I believe that article may be able to provide an example of how to objectively document a controversial activist movement.

When I look at the article on decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the U.S., most of what I read concerns the activities and claims of activists. The vast majority of studies and articles referenced in that entry support marijuana legalization. I know there are several people, articles, and studies that would oppose marijuana legalization. I mean, I took drug education classes in school; public opinion is generally more against marijuana than is documented in that article. But other articles (such as the main article on marijuana, the article on legal issues, etc.) would more thoroughly cover more of the opinions in the mainstream. When you read an article on an activist movement, you expect to hear the arguments that movement puts forth.

Some people seem to think, concerning the pedophile activism article, that nearly every claim by the activists must be immediately followed by a counter-claim refuting the statement, or that the claims in support must be severely trimmed down, as if editors want to emphasize "Wikipedia doesn't support this, we really don't!!1" That's not the way articles of this nature are supposed to work. People reading articles on a non-mainstream activist movement are interested in reading about their non-mainstream claims. Other articles, such as the one on pedophilia and the one on child sexual abuse, are the place for a more thorough overview of the mainstream views on these topics. Mike D78 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Er try the ELF, SqueakBox 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even though many people disagree with the viewpoints promoted by this movement, pro-pedophile activism is definitely notable, and thus there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic. Although this movement is not as big as it used to be, at least not in the same way (for the internet introduced a new arena for discussion, advocacy, and activism), there is an abundance of legitimate literature detailing the past and present of pro-pedophile activism. Besides, there are still active proponents today, and the movement has received coverage in print, digital, and other media formats. Furthermore, there is a response from various communities and officials that warrants inclusion of this topic on Wikipedia. Since the subject meets the guideline for notability - it passes the Google test and is amply sourced both on the internet and in print form - and the current article is pretty-well written and referenced, my vote is to Keep. Homologeo 12:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep Extremely in-depth, well-sourced article about an inherently notable movement. Any argument for deletion is bound, in the end, to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Understandable, but that isn't a good reason to delete. JulesH 12:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article, dump most of it and start nearly from scratch with actual NPOV wording and methods. As much as I detest these people and know that the nominator has the best intentions as do some of those who call for the articles deletion, this is a notable subject and deserves space on wikipedia. Alterniatively, there seems to be plenty of room in the pedophilia article for the NPOV portions of both pro and anti articles, so merging would be a really good idea if we could draw enough attention for a proper merger vote. We have to remind ourselves, as Jules did, that IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a reason for reletion. If you think the article is POV, edit it, merge it, etc. If you feel that POV editors are becoming a problem, enlist the help of WP:MEDCAB or the arbitration committee. Deleting an article is NOT the solution to editors taking it on a POV parade, no matter how vile or disgusting that POV is. In the end, I think an admin should throw a snowball at this one and encourage the involved parties to try arbitration rather than unproductive bickering. CaveatLector^Talk 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, even if people don't like it. AfD is not a proper methodology for improving an article; the proper methodology is improving it. --Ace of Swords 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the article wasnt afd'd to improve it but to delete it as unnotable, SqueakBox 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If anything, this is a complete blow out for your lobby, SqueakBox. If the media really want to smear wikipedia, they now have the evidence that "13 out of 16 editors approved an article on "pro-pedophile activism"" 86.131.41.244 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any smearing would clearly be unfair; Wikipedia is not censored to remove encyclopedic information others find objectionable. Mike D78 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment while you may be right re the media or other critics I dont think you can conclude from that that this is a complete blow out from my POV, not at all, SqueakBox 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Notable topic. Hitler, natural disasters, and the pro-life and pro-choice movements are all notable, so Wikipedia has articles on all of them. That doesn't say anything about how Wikipedia or Wikipedians actually feel about any of those topics. It doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses any of them. Likewise, having an article on pro-pedophile activism does not endorse it; it only gives information about it. --Alynna 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - As stated by SqueakBox, this article has heavy POV problems (and was written mostly by now-banned users). Also, I don't think this point has been stressed enough yet: this article is over ten times longer than the anti-pedophile activism article! How is that balanced at all? Both of these articles should actually be deleted and/or merged either into a single article or, better yet, into an existing article that Wikipedia already has. --Potato dude42 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The anti article actually has quite a bit of room for expansion; it was created less than two months ago. I may work on expanding it within the next few days, if others would like to help.

We've had the debate over merging into pedophilia a few times; I personally feel an article about a medical topic isn't the place for historical and sociological information about activism. Mike D78 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The authorship of this raises severe WP:COI concerns. If Wikipedia was ideal, I'd say that this needs to be rewritten by someone with no ties to the subject whatsoever. The problem is, this isn't realistically going to happen. Having separate anti- and pro- articles just sets up two big fat punching bags for editors to pummel, revert war over, and raise general hand-waving freakoutery about. Crystallina 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Having just one article on all activism was even worse, so I'm not sure how this is a solution. -- Kesh 11:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:POVFORK is why. The article under discussion has turned into exactly what this page is warning about, and that's even without taking the conflict of interest problems into account. Crystallina 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The pro and anti articles seem to cover essentially different subjects to me: the pro article covers activism for the acceptance of pedophilia, and the anti article covers activism against child sexual abuse. Most of the things mentioned in the anti article so far (online stings, naming and shaming offenders in newspapers, etc.) are unrelated to pro-pedophile activists. The activism described on the "anti" page is more than simply activism that is in reponse to "pro pedophile activism," thus, despite the page titles, this doesn't seem to me to be a POV fork.

In my opinion, a better title for the "anti pedophile activism" page would be "anti child sexual abuse activism," or "public opposition to child sexual exploitation," or something along those lines. Currently the article only covers a few modern "anti pedophile" organizations. The article could and should be expanded to cover the history of public awareness of and opposition to child sexual abuse. A good starting place might be the Victorian Era and the raised age of consent laws that were passed partially in response to child prostitution. Then, an overview could be provided of how public reaction to sexual abuse developed and changed, and the different laws that were lobbied for and passed as a response. The article could cover public opinion toward the subject in the 50s, when homosexuals were conflated with child molestors, to the outcry over child pornography and abuse in the late 70s and early 80s, to the allegations of satanic ritual abuse and the high-profile crimes that have encouraged the passage of sex offender laws, etc. in the recent past. Then a few sections could describe the beliefs and activities of some modern anti-sexual abuse advocates.

In my opinion, the "anti" article has the potential to become a useful overview of the subject and could be just as comprehensive as the "pro" article. But to restrict it simply to covering anti-pro pedophile activism is ridiculous. Mike D78 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I wonder where hypocritical morals will lead us next. As Alejandro Jodorowsky asserts in the commentary for Fando y Lis, "We live in a paedophile society". Behemoth 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Start Over While I do believe this article has some scholarly and encyclopedic value, the article is hopelessly flawed at this point and should be rewritten in its entirety, this isn't to say though that I believe we should throw out all the old sources -- Gudeldar 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Voting keep on this article is not the same as endorsing pedophilia. DGG makes a good point. I have to agree. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per BlueBoy96 and MikeD78, and this is a well-written, informational article about a notable subject. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with MikeD78 and many others that wish to keep the article. SqueakyBox, if you wish to start articles on cannabis activism and peace activism, go right ahead...those articles are worth writing just like this one. Wild One 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: But I think it definitely needs to checked for NPOV. Sion 11:52, 12 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 A7. Any assertion of notability under A7 must be at least "remotely plausible." (The CSD once said this; even if it has been removed, it is a fair operating principle.) An obvious lie is no assertion under A7. Xoloz 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Schmidt

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

Obvious hoax article. Prod was removed, so here we are. Bongwarrior 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete only Wilt Chamberlain made that feat. If he would have done that, the article would have been much longer. Also I doubt NBA players would play for over 40 years.--JForget 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Definitely a hoax. Doesn't really need an AFD discussion. Zagalejo 18:28, 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European exploration of Arabia

European exploration of Arabia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a list that duplicates the category Explorers of Arabia. Anjouli 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per nominator's argument. This "list" is redundant. Corpx 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep have expanded and made into less of a list. The external links I have added provide plenty more room for expansion and show how a good encyclopedic article can be created on this topic. Davewild 20:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Davewild. --ざくら木 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic, just poorly written. --Hemlock Martinis 04:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Even though I nominated it. Now that people are working on it, it deserves a bit more time to see if it can be more than just a list.Anjouli 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, poor quality, suggests that "Europe" is here since 18th century and is pretty much limited to Britain, missing context, unclear title. Pavel Vozenilek 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you joking? We don't delete articles because they need improvement, we improve them! --Hemlock Martinis 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete poorly sourced unencyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Redundant with a category is no reason to delete. A category doesn’t substitute for an article, nor vice versa. --SmokeyJoe 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ddream studio

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

This software fails WP:CORP, since no secondary coverage is known. PROD contested by an anon IP, and maintenance tags removed, without rationale. User:Jyris1, the original author, has afterwards cleaned up the article, but it is only visually more appealing now, it does not establish notability in any way. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of any news coverage Corpx 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment re the concerns of User:Jyris1 on the article's talk page: Coverage in independent reliable sources (news, for example) is the very criterion for inclusion or deletion on Wikipedia; see WP:N and WP:CORP. However, Google hits do not establish notability; also, internet message boards cannot be counted towards notability since they are self-published sources and are not considered reliable. --B. Wolterding 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do I have to "edit this page" in order to discuss this, like I did right now? Jyris1 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's correct. --B. Wolterding 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• What are my options for this article? Furthermore, I also did a reasonable search for StepMania on Google news and got one hit. And the article was not even really about StepMania. Are there other news sources I have overlooked that will show that StepMania is notable? Jyris1 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding options: Unless secondary sources are found, I do not feel that the article can be kept. (That's only my opinion, of course.) You might want to add a section on it in the StepMania article (should certainly be abbreviated, not all the details from the current Ddream studio article), depending on whether Ddream studio is relevant in that context. Maybe you should discuss this on Talk:StepMania first. If you like, the current article can be copied to your userspace before deletion. Regarding notability of the StepMania article (actually that's not the question we are supposed to discuss here, but nevertheless): It seems that this has been discussed before, and sources have been found. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StepMania. For some reason not all of these these sources were added to the article, as it should have been. You might want to fix that if you like. --B. Wolterding 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, B. Wolterding. I'll try my best to follow your advice. Jyris1 17:29, 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 delete. Sr13 05:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Bracegirdle

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

Autobiography. The author has twice removed speedy deletion tags and has not really added much evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - This is Paulbracegirdle writing about himself ! Corpx 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 autobiography Will ^(talk) 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete if not sourced Cannot possibly be a speedy A7, since asserts a DOE award, & says he's a member of multiple ASTM standards committees. . COI is not a speedy reason. I've removed the tag. But of course delete unless there is some information provided. DGG (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, possibly the author of these two works; not held in many libraries. John Vandenberg 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:04, 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 Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenes Empanadas Graciela

Tenes Empanadas Graciela (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). A prod was contested and several {{notability}} tags have been removed, but those notability concerns have not been addressed. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, without going into depth of what constitutes notability in FLOSS apps, this app appears in various Linux distro listings, viz: gentoo, debian, ubuntu as well as appearing in the GTK+ repository - gnomefiles and having a mac port available - Nigosh 08:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  Do you think you could find anything to satisfy the WP:V policy? Marašmusïne_Talk 13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Tenes_Empanadas_Graciela - Nigosh 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Most satisfactory. I withdraw my nomination. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:56, 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 keep. Anas ^talk? 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFO: Alien Invasion

UFO: Alien Invasion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod from 2nd June. Prod reason was: I've looked for independent references, and although there are entries on IGN, Gamespy, Strategyinformer etc these are trivial directory entries; there is nothing to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Prod removed by an anonymous user. A note on the talk page does mention a possible reference from Games for Windows: The Official Magazine, but hasn't surfaced yet, so don't know if this is a trivial mention or not. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, to confirm that reference. While Google searches aren't meaningful, I did notice a significant number of sites referencing that game in particular (outside of wikipedia). --Sigma 7 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Potential source here. Not sure of the reliability of the site, but looks kosher to me: [21] JulesH 12:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  That site came up recently in another AfD. Whilst Cybrid is a staff member for LinuxGames, there doesn't appear to be any 'editorial oversight' per WP:Reliable sources. But still, it's a start. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; I'm pretty sure this was mentioned nontrivially in Pelit a few months back, but I can't find it from the few issues I have at hand right now... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While there are no strong sources, there are a LOT of weak ones. While this in itself doesn't justify it's stay, it is a relatively well known game among the Linux community (one of the few that are always brought up when discussing "good games for Linux"), and the project itself is of a variety that tends to get articles. Again, not that this is a justification in itself, but the article is harmless. Patch86 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  At the moment the article doesn't have any independent references at all. Since WP:V is Wikipedia policy, can some be found to put in there? Marašmusïne_Talk 13:45, 12 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, article basically says "I exist". Sr13 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Museum of Digital Art

Minnesota Museum of Digital Art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic content and their web site has vanished. SEWilco 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete almost an A1 speedy. I get 19 Google hits and their website is now one of those domain-squat sites. Lofty name for something that apparently never really got off the ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - article content almost non-existent. No reliable sources. A google news search comes up completely empty, and as noted by Andrew Lenahan, their website is now a domain squat ad site. -- Whpq 21:18, 11 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 05:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amogh Symphony

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

This band doesn't seem to meet the Notability criteria Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BAND. No refs, no real assertion of notability. --Bongwarrior 18:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not notable Corpx 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as it should have been in the first place. tdmg 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and WP:BAND. Precious Roy 07:30, 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 Delete, no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Alter Group

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

Spam for non-notable company. Repost after expired prod. Author, Hjohnson alter probably has a COI. -- RHaworth 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as the article would need a major cleanup to remain as a wikipedia article. While the article does assert notability, it doesn't directly reference this. --Sigma 7 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:CORP --Jorvik 10:54, 14 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, not notable, no independent sources, WP:COI. NawlinWiki 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Alter

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

Non-notable bio. Repost after expired prod. Author, Hjohnson alter probably has a COI. -- RHaworth 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bearian 21:12, 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 delete unless someone interested in using this information wants to make a more general article that can establish notability as mentioned below. If that is the case, I'll userfy, and then restore as a redirect when the article is ready. — Deckiller 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons

Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Google (predictably) reports only d20 sources for those. Falls entirely outside the scope of notability, and pretty much just indiscriminate fictional info. — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. eaolson 17:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The reason I created these articles is because a friend of mine went looking for information about various weapons that are used in the D&D setting (bastard sword, etc.) and complained that certain ones had no information about them. The reason there was no information about them was because they weren't historical weapons. So I figure it's important to have something to at least establish that fact. Bryan Derksen 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, perhaps redirects from the names of fictional weapons to general d20 articles would be better? I'm not familiar with d20 (and D&D) coverage on the Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are encyclopedic articles that would be a good destination. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I had a look for an existing article that would be a suitable merge target in Category:Dungeons & Dragons but didn't see any that looked appropriate, there's lots of stuff on spells and magic but nothing on the more mundane objects and equipment commonly found in the sourcebooks. If you can find a good one I overlooked I wouldn't be opposed to more merging. Bryan Derksen 17:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ... on second look, I can't seem to find a reasonable article to redirect to. "Fictional weapons of D&D" almost certainly cannot be made into an encyclopedic article, but what about combat in D&D as a topic, or simulated RPG combat? This could tie in nicely to LARPs (which also have coverage) and I'm pretty sure we can find at least some coverage of the concepts in non-d20 sources. A section on fictional mundane weapons would fit nicely in there. — Coren ^(talk) 17:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be fine with that too. Bryan Derksen 17:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wikipedia is NOT a gameguide in WP:NOT Corpx 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Marginal delete Well, the fact that D&D and D20 are sufficient on their own to justify their articles may be interpreted to include covering this material. But the problem is this a rather minor aspect of the game. The best I could suggest would be dropping the fiction part and adding the other weapons in the setting. But I think people would still be validly concerned about the concept of that article. It might well be too much specific detail. FrozenPurpleCube 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per Corpx, and per WP:FICT. If there's anything worth keeping it ought to be in the main article. If kept, it ought to be renamed removing "Fictional" because Dungeons & Dragons is fiction, use of the word is redundant. Carlossuarez46 06:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I threw "fictional" into the title was to exclude real weapons such as various swords that already had their own articles. Bryan Derksen 07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm a big fan of d20 games, but there is no reason to have this article which is due to lack of research. The spiked chain entry historically is called a chain whip. The dire flail is just a modified three section staff. No reason to have a list of non-fictional weapons with fictional names. Turlo Lomon 10:21, 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 delete Health Facilities in Thuringowa city, List of medical facilities in Townsville and List of schools in the City of Thuringowa given lack of notable content and various WP:NOT issues. There is no real content worth merging but the pages could be userfied on request as a basis for creating more general articles about schooling/healthcare in the area in question. There is no consensus to delete List of schools in Townsville, Queensland, which has been renamed to Townsville-Burdekin School District. I note the general principle of upmerging coverage schools not notable enough to have their own article to the relevant school district which seems to justify the presence of that article. Given the lack of discussion of the additional articles proposed by WikiTownsvillian to be deleted, I do not think these can validly be seen as part of this AfD. They should nomianted seperately. WjBscribe 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Facilities in Thuringowa city

Health Facilities in Thuringowa city (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of medical facilities in Townsville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Also enjoining the further following items to this AfD;

List of schools in Townsville, Queensland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of schools in the City of Thuringowa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Per WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. These articles are nothing more than lists, and serve no useful purpose on WP. In the case of the schools, such information would be better provided in a structured list that serves the entire state, not just a single local government area, specially considering the small amount of content being provided. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I won't get into this AfD at the moment except to say that I think at least List of schools in Townsville, Queensland deserves consideration separately from the other three, really all four should be considered separately. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per wikipedia is not a directory. I dont think an encyclopedia should be listing all the public service buildings in a city. A category would be more useful in grouping the notable things on these lists Corpx 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that these articles could form the basis of a useful article if rewritten. For example, an article on the Townsville Health Service District which contains hospitals and other services in the Townsville area would be an encyclopedic topic see [22]. Similarly, an article on the Townsville-Burdekin School District would be a useful article encompassing information on the district as a whole and individual schools within it. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be open to Capitalistroadster's suggestion. WikiTownsvillian 10:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment These Articles are a vital part of the main pages and to delete them would take away that info so i vote that they stay as they have been for a long time. Thuringowacityrep 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the articles should be kept and converted from a list format to a article format. However, I strongly suggest that the articles are merged to reflect a whole of Townsville approach. I am aware there is some history behind the separation both on-wiki and in the real world. However the current status of separate articles on various topics for each LGA is an inappropriate fork given that regardless of LGAs, Townsville is essentially one urban area. Of course, this is implicit in the approach suggested by Capitalistroadster -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the locations individaully pass WP:CORP then I might change my mind. As it is these lists are simply bad directories - eg, looking at Health Facilities in Thuringowa city it includes hospitals which are not actually in th City of Thuringowa.Garrie 05:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm in alignment with comments already made by Capitalistroadster and Mattinbgn, the lists would be much more informative if made into articles, and consideration should be given to merging information of the 2 LGA's as the location and size of major facilities is affected by the existence of each other, as they are in other urban agglomerations --Melburnian 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just for the info of all of you who are not familiar with North Queensland; the Townsville Health Service District (includes Ingham) and the Townsville-Burdekin School District (includes Ayr) referred to by Capitalistroadster cover very large geographical areas and have no relation to either individual LGAs or the urban centre of Townsville/Thuringowa. Therefore this option would for these articles at least resolve the issue of distinguishing between Thuringowa and Townsville/Thuringowa and also would give the articles substance in being about functioning entities which would pass WP:CORP. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this would make much more sense if they were articles about the Townsville Health Service District and the Townsville-Burdekin School District - as it stands, the topics seem rather arbitrary. Rebecca 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content of articles is still usable and should be retained in line with the comments made by Capitalistroadster, Mattinbgn, Melburnian and Rebecca. --VS ^talk 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per thewinchester's initial comments. Michellecrisp 06:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since my suggestions to treat these as separate AfDs has gone unaddressed I respectfully ask that you add the following articles to this AfD to avoid any perception that this is a pick on Thuringowa or Townsville issue.
  • List of schools in Cairns, Queensland
  • List of schools in Perth, Western Australia
  • List of high schools in Melbourne
  • List of hospitals in Omaha, Nebraska

Much appreciated in advance. WikiTownsvillian 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perth and Melbourne should be retained as they are major cities. facilities in Thuringowa could be merged into a North Queensland list in my opinion. Michellecrisp 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • either these articles should be defined by their governmental unit or by their city, 'major cities' is subjective and also not a criteria under notability, people in China or Japan might not consider Perth or Melbourne to be of much difference to Townsville, and they'd be right other than a few sky scrapers in the middle. :) WikiTownsvillian 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Health Facilities in Thuringowa city (again; see old afd) and List of medical facilities in Townsville; they are essentially the same, with only one blue link in both lists. Definitely keep List of schools in Townsville, Queensland as it has enough blue links on it to justify being used as a navigational page. OTOH, list of schools in the City of Thuringowa is not so useful. I have moved List of schools in Townsville, Queensland to Townsville-Burdekin School District in an attempt to get the ball rolling there. John Vandenberg 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jayvdb, blue links (ie notable schools) are probably the only quantitative indicator we have to go on. Michellecrisp 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While the suggestion to turn the lists into articles makes general sense, the themes appear in most cases more than adequately covered already in the existing City of Thuringowa article. Murtoa 06:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Murtoa What "themes appear in most cases more than adequately covered already in the existing City of Thuringowa article" are you talking about? the :Health Facilities in Thuringowa city (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) cover all the medical centres etc for Thuringowa and on the main Thuringowa page there is only a small amount of info about the Kirwan Health Campus etc and :List of medical facilities in Townsville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is for Townsville not Thuringowa and again on the Thuringowa page nothing is said about the Townsville medical centres because that info is for Townsville and has it's own list....next, where on the Thuringowa page does it say anything about  :List of schools in Townsville, Queensland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) mmmm no where...why because this page is about Thuringowa city and as for :List of schools in the City of Thuringowa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) i can't see how this has been covered on the Thuringowa page because there is only one line left about schooling now, after it was edited down yet again, so can you please tell me how the info in these lists are covered on the City of Thuringowa page. We are looking at more than just the Thuringowa list here hey. Thank you Thuringowacityrep 09:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, my view was that the main article largely covers these themes in sufficient notable detail. Sure they don't contain all the detail you would prefer but I was thinking of notability, and you may beg to differ. By themselves I believe they fail per WP:NOT#DIR. Murtoa 14:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all since WP is not a directory. No objection to including a reasonable subset of this information in regular articles. If the info is merged then some health facilities and some schools will probably not be notable enough to be included, but that's as it should be. EdJohnston 22:07, 14 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. Anas ^talk? 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarFighter 2: The Disputed Galaxy

StarFighter 2: The Disputed Galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable upcoming flash game which gets exactly 2 GHits, both to Youtube. Cites no reliable sources which either assert, or support any notability. Sequel to this game, which is also non-notable. Haemo 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable flash game and is pretty much identical to the other AFD Corpx 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A game that can't possibly be important enough to have a page about it... Moo12321
• Delete - not an especially notable flash game, notable only to creator. Game exhibits revolutionary thinking for Ben Olding, but not in browser gaming. Mogzilla 19:58, 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 transwiki. Daniel 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairo Photo Gallery

Cairo Photo Gallery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not an article, but a collection of pictures with no other content except captions. Belongs on Commons, here. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I almost said speedy delete as an A1, but this article's been up since November. Blueboy96 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons or move to user space. Either way it needs to be removed from main space since... well it's not really an article... MartinDK 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki although you can add a gallery in the Cairo article.--JForget 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Moving it to commons without the permission of the uploader's might not be appropriate 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to commons per others. — Zerida 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki the gallery and images to commons. John Vandenberg 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to commons per above. --Meno25 15:46, 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 delete and redirect. Sr13 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R. E. Lee Elementary School

R. E. Lee Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability, and elementary schools are inherently non-notable, no links other than to school itself -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like an advertisement and a directory. WP is not a directory for instance.--JForget 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete based on elementary schools and middle schools are not notable Corpx 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MetsFan76 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Spotsylvania County Public Schools. School district article exists and no reason has been provided to justify not turning this into a redirect. Alansohn 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have any objections to a redirect. Having an AfD on record for it will help prevent the article from being re-created unless it addresses the issues discussed here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JForget. --ForbiddenWord 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Saganaki- 04:03, 12 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arlene Ackerman

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines, unreferenced and orphaned. Contested ProD. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- Futurano 14:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Church pastors are not inherently notable. This person has not done much outside the church Corpx 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Metropolitan Community Church Based on my findings and comments I made below, I've decided to change my vote. Non-notable in the clergy or in LGBT circles.--Ispy1981 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, If any of you bothered to read the article on the Metropolitan Community Church MCC you will find out that it is governed by 9 persons, the top persons and seven Elders, the Rev Ackerman is one of those elders. If you were to compare it to the Roman Catholic Church, her position is the same as a Cardinal. Additionally, she is one of 9 that can become the head of the MCC. So she is not just a Church pastor. Callelinea 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• This church has the reach of 250 congregations, while catholism has 1,114,966,000 followers. I dont think thats a valid comparison. Corpx 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In 23 countries.. If I am correct, in the United Nations all countries are equal be they be Luxemburg, Israel, Russia or USA. MCC is a religion and its head of its religion and its 7 "bishops/cardinals" are intitled to the same respect and treatment as if it was Pope Benedict and any Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. Callelinea 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think we can assert equal coverage to all the religions out there. Anyone can create a religion assuming one can gather enough followers. The # of countries in the world is a fixed number and cant be changed easily. I also disagree that the weight exerted by US is same as Luxemburg. US is in the security council with veto power. Corpx 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you then say that the MCC church is non-notable? And its leaders in its church are non-notable? Callelinea 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning here is well-put, if flawed. This isn't about whether the MCC church is notable or not. This is about whether this particular elder has done anything notable or not. Notability doesn't transfer from church to member. If she were the first lesbian elder of the church or even of the religion or, as I stated, a major contributor to the field of religion or LGBT, this might be different. I have read both articles, as well as offline references to Arlene Ackerman. While they may show she is a beloved figure in this church, she's not notable outside it. However, I will open the floor to the possibility of merging the article with that of the church. It's feasible. We've done it before to members of popular musical groups where the articles don't assert notability outside the band.--Ispy1981 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comment We also might be dealing with COI here. The articles for this and other members of the church were written by Stephen Harte, a prominent member of the Edinburgh chapter. With all this, I'm going to open the floor to this suggestion. This isn't the only article on a pastor of this church that we have that doesn't meet with notability. Either 1) Keep them all and clean up. 2)Delete them all or 3) Delete them all and redirect to the church's article.--Ispy1981 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to get dragged into another discussion, but even if she were to do nothing outside of her position as "Elder/Bishop" of her church, I would consider her notable. Bishops of other religions get articles on them based on their position in their respective churchs. As for the insinuation that there might be a conflict of interest here because the article was written by a active member of the MCC I would also strongly disagree.. I have written many articles about bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church and see no conflict in my doing so.. I am also Cuban and have written many articles about things relating to Cuba.. Just because someone shows an interest in a particular topic does not mean that their is a COI. Yes the article might be better written or edited, but its subject matter is notable in their field. Callelinea 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, Calleinea, but I disagree with you on this one. Being and elder in a congregation is not enough to make you notable. She has to do something significant within the congregation in order to be noteworthy of her own article. I'm also not sure that every bishop in the catholic church or what have you has an article, and if they do, those articles of non-notables should be shot down as well. Let's wait until there is actually significant material to cover in this article.CaveatLector^Talk 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• She is not an Elder in a congregation. She is one of 7 Elders in her Religion. You are confussing what an elder in a congregation in other religions to what the term Elder means in the Metropolitan Community Church. Being an Elder in the MCC is to be a member of the governing body of that religion. The head of that religion is chosen from that group of Elders and as such are the "crown princes" of that religion. In that context she should have an article in wikipedia. As do all "crown princes" in other religions and in royalty. Callelinea 13:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. , I find it funny that I, a product of 12 years of Catholic and Jesuit education am writing about in support about a person who is a member of a religion that the Catholic Church so strongly opposes. LOL. Callelinea 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like stress that MCC is only a Religious denomination, not a "Religion" like Callelinea states. Correct me if I wrong but Protestantism is the Religion here. As for equal attention to all churches in Wikipedia, I would disagree strongly. That would be disruptive because anyone can indeed create a religion, not to mention a denomination of existing religions. Should we research and describe them all? Certainly no. BTW, Callelinea, I find your insisting mentions of your own real-life religious background counterproductive. -- Futurano 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Responce, I only put my religious belief in because I did not want to be accused of COI as others that have been in the past when they have written on MCC articles. As for the religious denomination part, you are correct, I should of reworded it differently but the meaning is still the same just as the Roman Catholic Church is not a religion but a denomination also. My comparrisons are correct though and the rational behind it. Callelinea 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the denomination is sourced, then I see no reason not to include it. 250 congregations is not insignificant. I have seen denominations with articles with far fewer than that. Futurano, are you suggesting that all Protestent denomination articles be deleted since when you get down to it, they are all basically "Protestant"? Trusilver 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I'm not, I was merely discussing terms (religion vs. denomination) in that sentence, not notability of mentioned denominations. As for 250 congregations, I agree and disagree with you at the same time :) If those 250 (or 25) deserved coverage in reliable secondary sources than they are significant for us, like you said in your first sentence; otherwise they are not. And I'm revising my opinion a bit: merge or redirect per Ispy1981. -- Futurano 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if the article can be expanded. Merge per Ispy1981 above otherwise. The subject is one of the principal leaders of the denomination. There are no source issues with the article, and while I am somewhat concerned about a WP:COI issue, I don't feel that it warrants deleting the article. Trusilver 15:24, 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 keep and improve, rename to Virginia v. Cherrix. Sr13 04:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starchild Abraham Cherrix

Starchild Abraham Cherrix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

DRV concludes that there is significant dispute over whether, and how, BLP concerns are present in this article. In keeping with the recommendations of the Arbitration Committee, this article will be protected blank, with history available, for the duration of this AfD. Deletion is on the table, as well as any other options that might make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 14:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is BLP? Don't be obscure, be clear. Hu 15:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP refers to our biographies of living persons policy, one of our core policies. MartinDK 15:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the case itself notable as a matter of precedent? It strikes me that this should actually be about the case, if it is significant, rather than Cherrix, who is only significant if the case itself is. Hiberniantears 15:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: after contemplating WP:BIO, I don't think Cherrix is significant enough at this time to warrant his own article. However, as in my comment above, I think we should consider transferring some of the content into an article on the case, if the case is significant enough. Hiberniantears 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think he pretty clearly meets WP:BIO ("has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject") - but the question of whether his biography violates WP:BLP is a sticking point. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think the biography violates BLP, since the material in the article is readily found in the public domain. Andrew73 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep. I agree that the article should cover the case and not the kid. Based on what was brought forward on DRV, I do believe that the case is notable and there are parts of the article that could be reused unless someone wants to start all over. I changed my !vote. Having thought this through some more I think it would be wrong to delete the article when the first tree Google hits are all reliable sources by our own standards and the family clearly does not object to the attention. There is nothing libel in the article and I don't see how ethics could be used as an argument against keeping it. I still think we need to allow those who favoured deletion to comment here but the main issue seems to me to be a content dispute rather than a deletion dispute. That said, I still believe that this should be about the case and the law in particular rather than focused on the kid himself. MartinDK 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First off, shouldn't the article be restored so that people know what the AFD is about? Several reasons why this individual is notable, or at least more notable than the least notable person on Wikipedia: A Google search shows several news articles about this individual (e.g. [23], and in fact, Abraham's law was passed in Virginia because of this individual [24], and several articles in Wikipedia already link to this article. Andrew73 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any BLP issues here in the version 2 edits before blanking, the article is not derogatory to him, but pretty much neutral in reporting the facts (more neutral than most people would be.) If it's thought that there are BLP issues, then edit the article in a way you think will make it comply, rather than deleting. I don't see a BLP issue, and the case is important.Merkinsmum 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The BLP debate is because of WP:BLP1E which tells us to cover the event and not the person. MartinDK 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to understand this particular application of the policy. As the event (Cherrix's decision to forgo chemo, the resulting court case, implications for medical ethics and decision-making) clearly meets and exceeds notability requirements, is the issue simply that the article should be retitled and focused on the details of the case rather than Cherrix's life story? If so, I think you'll find consensus to do just that, even from people who advocate keeping the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually yes, that is exactly what I believe. However, given the DRV and the problems that these articles have caused before I also think this AfD is important to ensure that everyone agrees on this. Also, we need to figure out how much of the article should be removed and if there is anything in the article that would warrant complete deletion of the article before we start over. These are issues that I think everyone should have the opportunity to comment on - including those who endorsed the deletion on DRV. MartinDK 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I can see the whole "noticeable for one event" angle, it is clear that the event is in this case centered on the person themselves, and it is dubious how we could cover this without having practically the exact same content that would not be a "fake biography," or even what the article's title could be. Circeus 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suppose I don't mind this article moved/renamed. But I think the content should be kept in some form, because it's important and well-known, at least in the sceptical vs. alt-med circles in which I move.Merkinsmum 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as seems to be agreed, the importance is clearly mainly with respect to libertarian views about medical treatment, not the child. the article needs to be re-oriented as MartinDK suggests, there will be material. I think the title will have to stand, but given that the child--and apparently the parents--obviously do not dislike publicity, and that their position is legal, I cant see the point of objecting. DGG (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change the title to something like "Cherrix medical refusal case", with the name as a redirect. We have plenty of material for an article on the event, but not enough for an article which claims (by being titled with the person's name) to be a full biography on the person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Virginia v. Cherrix or something descriptive of the case, with a rewrite in accordance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Seems the best course. Circeus 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Drv comments. Extensive coverage shows notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (as the case is notable) but rename so it's clear that it's not a biographical article, per WP:BLP. Terraxos 22:16, 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 delete. Sr13 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LifeNews.com

LifeNews.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion due to Notability per WP:WEB. Specificly, WP:NOT#INTERNET guides: ...articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance [...] I can find no such items applying to this site. Article has remained an orphan stub with content almost completely unchanged since the original creation. — Mrand ^T-C 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. The main problem here is that the multiple sources establishing notability must contain non-trivial coverage of the web site. Merely citing articles that use the web site as a source or refers to it in any other trivial way isn't enough. Also, I do find it a bit odd to have a link straight to the page that contains instructions on how to advertise on the site..... MartinDK 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Also per WP:SPAM in regards to "Advertisements masquerading as articles". Hiberniantears 15:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Website does not pass the requirements of WP:WEB. --Charlene 16:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree it does not pass WP:WEB. I guess it could also be considered for deletion under WP:SPAM also... --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all of the above. Bearian 21:10, 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 delete. —Kurykh 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio Perez Ayala

Antonio Perez Ayala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of the articles does not seem to pass the biographical notability standard. I was not able to find any other information on the subject of the article (or even on any of his projects) while searching with the exception a small amount of information created by the author of this article on another wiki. This article was created by User:Aacini who created it the day after the subject of the article released a new esoteric programming language compiler based on Brainfuck and many of the edits serve to highlight this or link to data on the compiler. Since the compiler, BrainSub. The current article makes attempts to demonstrate notability (as was noted with the initial speedy was passed over) but does not succeed. As someone tenuously involved in the esolangs community, I do not think that the author of a compiler (even an improved one) necessarily qualifies as notable unless their project is very successful. This is not the case yet with Antonio Perez Ayala or BrainSub (IMHO). —mako๛ 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I had originally proposed this for a speedy deletion due to the notability requirement not being met. Before doing this I'd used Google to look at the areas where he had worked and apart from the BrainSub work which was promoted by this user on a different wiki, I couldn't find anything.--Mendors 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It's poorly worded, but anyone who created all that work has to be notable. Is there anything in Spanish language databases? Bearian 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While there are a lot of then, it's not clear to me that those projects are actually notable. I've looked for a few of them and not been able to find anything on them. They may be significant but they seem slightly esoteric. —mako๛ 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been mentioned on Talk:Brainfuck since the subjects notability seems to be based at least on part on his contributions in this community. —mako๛ 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --IanOsgood 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. I too follow developments in esolang domain and I agree with mako๛ comments re: notability of Antonio or BrainSub. Alex Pankratov 19:53, 12 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 04:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Cook

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

Article fails WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people: this child actor's only role of any significance (in Thunderpants) took place five years ago. There appears to be little else to say about him, and his appearance in that film is covered by the film's article. Mark H Wilkinson 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no major roles in any movie Corpx 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 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 delete. —Kurykh 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of listings magazines

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

This is a list of products, it has no encyclopedic content, and by its own scope never will. This is an indiscriminant collection of information and seems to be exactly what Wikipedia is not. Until(1 == 2) 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Potentially useful, but I do see the indiscriminate information argument coming into force here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, like Category:Listings magazines, but better. If this is an indiscriminate topic, why is that not up for deletion too? Kappa 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gee, the category makes sense, the article does not. A category simply indexes articles together, this article serves no greater purpose. Until(1 == 2) 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't make sense to know what country a magazine is published in? Kappa 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I imagine that information would be in the article about the magazine. Until(1 == 2) 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well yeah I'm sure you love randomly clicking on obscure article titles until you find something you like, but real people have less time to waste than you seem to. Kappa 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would imagine you could simply search for something you like. OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• How would you imagine I would search for old magazines? Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• As for time periods, you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's" etc. OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um that doesn't seem to work... perhaps you could give me a specific example of what I should be typing and where? Kappa 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a fairly indiscriminate list of information that has little value when isolated from each publication's article. Any reader who wishes to seak out this particular information would simply search for the magazines themselves. A category is one thing, but lists are quite another, and get treated accordingly. Adrian M. H. 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes using a category they would simply search fifteen different articles until they find the one they want. Kappa 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, when you look at a category it shows all the items. While it may be useful, this is an encyclopedia, not an index. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um please try to follow the discussion. When you look at a category it lists all the items without anything to distinguish them, so you have to click through all of them to find whichever is relevant to you. If this is "not an index" why are category lists allowed at all? Kappa 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am following things very well thank you, I think it is more that we disagree than me being confused. This page is in the "article" space, categories are in the "category" space. There are different inclusion standards in article space, than in category space. This contains no information not present in other articles. Until(1 == 2) 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you are going to waste our time and frustrating us to preserve the purity of your "space", which is something we should care about because...? Kappa 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• ....Until(1 == 2) 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, you are wasting our time and frustrating us for a reason you can't explain, or can't be bother to type. Kappa 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Who is "our"? You are the only one complaining, please assume good faith with me. I am not going to bother repeating myself, but I have explained myself clearly. Until(1 == 2) 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Our" is readers looking for articles. Kappa 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets two of the purposes in WP:LIST guidelines. It provides some information beyond the name of the magazine (location, and years of operation), and it serves a navigational purpose. Although there is some overlap with the corresponding category, I would not call it redundant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete and replace it with Category:American Listings Magazines and Category:British Listings Magazines and so on? Corpx 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• StrongWeak Delete assuming list really does not grow to violate WP:NOT#INFO; I'd also like to note to closing admin that the person primarily for the list is the one who created the page. Indiscriminate collection of information. You could simply just add and add and add names and links to it. To complete, it would have to have every single TV Guide, Job list thing, Classified sections, etc. As for the years of operation and location, I don't think we really need an article for that. Corpx has a good idea, perhaps that would work? OSborn^arf 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How the fuck is a category different? You could "could simply just add and add and add" articles to it Kappa 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Because, to be listed in an category, an article has to exist. People can add any non-notable magazine to a list. (and can we remain civil here plz?) Corpx 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• All the entries on the list currently have articles, so you are claiming this is an "indiscriminate collection of information" on the basis that someone "could" more easily add something to it? Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me? For the indiscriminate collection of information bit, yes, that is correct. In current form, the list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only other information on the list page is the locations (could possibly be fixed by Corpx's idea) and the dates. The main problem is the list can balloon indefinitely to be reeeeeally big. Thanks, OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. It appears that Kappa created the article in the first place, and has had a history of profanity. Just a friendly reminder that you don't need to use curse words to get your point across. ;))

• So your "strong delete" is not based on the assertion that this *is* an indiscriminate collection of information, but that someone *might* edit it so that it was. We must pre-emptively delete it in case that happens. Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see you have no intention of recognizing why I am saying Strong Delete; ah well. Anyways: The criterion for inclusion is very thin. This is for the most part rather redundant with the category. The only information is the dates and some basic information about them (most of their names are pretty self-explanatory) and of course location, which could be replaced by Corpx's idea, and could be expanded to "Magazines that ran in the 1950's". Thanks, OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes the current criterion for inclusion is effectively "included in the category". That could be made explicit if you feel it's in imminent danger of ballooning to infinity. You seem to be proposing a lot of different categories... for example, what categories would City Life (1983-2005 based in Manchester, UK) fall into? Kappa 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Presumably Listings Magazines in The United Kingdom? I see what you mean: That would be a lot of categories to do "... in the 1980/1990/2000s"... Still, the problem remains that pretty much every city has their own or two listing magazine for things like classifieds, jobs. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this ... civilly, though) Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK let's assume there are a large number of notable local listing magazines in the world and someone makes articles for all of them. That would certainly overwhelm the current list. The contents of a category like Listings magazines in the United Kingdom would look like this:
• The Crack (magazine)
• City Life (Magazine)
• City Limits
• The Crack (magazine)
• City Life (Magazine)
• Due South Magazine
• etc

You will note that these things don't necessarily have self-explanatory titles. There would be a desperate need for a List of listing magazines in the United Kingdom which looked like this:

• The Crack (Northeast England)
• City Life (1983-2005) based in Manchester
• City Limits (1981-1993) Covering Greater London
• Due South Magazine (1983-1991) based in Southampton
• The List (1985) Covering Edinburgh and Glasgow

...which is what exists now as a subset of the current list. Kappa 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ya Kappa, don't get nasty just because someone disagrees with you, different people have different opinions. Until(1 == 2) 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you are wasting people's time and frustrating them for reasons you can't explain, or can't be bothered to type, you can expect those defending them to feel frustration and anger too. Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• ... Until(1 == 2) 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you are here as a troll, congratulations you are doing a great job. Kappa 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Settle down, this is a content dispute. No need to take it personally. Please try not to resort to name calling. The topic of discussion is the article, not me. Until(1 == 2) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• "..." is not a very helpful contribution to a content dispute. Kappa 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A useful list ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• But the category serves the same purpose, does it not? OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - We could have an article about this subject, but it would need to be comprehensive, include what was being listed and where the magazine sold. As it stands, I do not believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 08:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Instantly making it comprehensive is impossible, but it will become more so as wikipedia grows and more articles are added. Currently it's just as comprehensive as the category, although I supposed I could add some red links to it. It does give what is listed and where they are sold, but I've made that more explicit now. Kappa 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you going to argue with every delete? Until(1 == 2) 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• When a delete vote says "include where the magazine is sold" etc and the article already does that, I will point that out. Kappa 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• With regard to "argue with every delete", open-minded listophobes can normally be talked out of their position, because if you get them to follow their logic they end up saying ridiculous things like 'you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's'. Of course, if a less open-minded listophobe refuses to participate in the discussion because of laziness, an inability to follow it or whatever, that presents a problem. Kappa 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Let's all remain civil here -- Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Kappa was just asked to be civil higher on the page. I am pretty sure he is aware of the policy, but a reminder does seem needed. You think we can do this without name calling? Until(1 == 2) 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "We" aren't doing anything... you have abandoned the discussion in the face of a question you can or won't answer, and your further participation here is entirely devoted to comments about me. Kappa 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO. Suggest replacing with a category attached to relevant magazines wikipages.Saganaki- 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where in WP:NOT does it say we can't have structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles? Kappa 06:15, 12 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John T. Walker

John T. Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) --> John T. Walker was Bishop of Washington from 1977 to 1989 in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator withdraws nomination per comments below begining with Fuhghettaboutit at 19:01 Signed Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, What is wrong with some of you guys that nominate a Bishop of a major Religion for AfD? I found plenty of sources for him and added to his article. Callelinea 14:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep It's well established that major religious leaders are notable. Blueboy96 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is it established? Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not mention it. Jeepday (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Being a bishop (or other major religious leader) of a major religion is inherently notable. Davewild 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Davewild.--JForget 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for the policy Wikipedia:Inherently notable does any one know what it is listed as? I see a lot of people referring to it, would like a chance to read this policy for myself. Jeepday (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not for the reasons stated above. There are either sources verifying and providing information so that an enycyclopedia article can be written, or there aren't. In this case there are, in spades, which I deduce from and need go no further in researching than this. Probably all similarly situated religious leaders are notable as we use that word here, but not inherently; because all of them have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources (we cannot write a tertiary source encyclopedia entry from vapor, sources must exist).--Fuhghettaboutit 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This biography [25] and the other sources I have added to the article should satisfy any concerns regarding his notability. Davewild 19:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you to user Pan Dan, who pointed out to me --> User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket, which reflects Fuhghettaboutit comments above, there is no Inherently notable. Thank you to user Davewild who validated the subject really is notable Diff (2 intermediate revisions not shown.). Appoligies for bring this article to AfD, the article did not look notable as it was History. Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like this nomination is being withdrawn--could someone close it? Blueboy96 22:43, 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 keep, even given the multitude of spurious !votes. —Kurykh 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Hagins

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}}

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

14-year-old director of an independent film. Has sources, but I don't think they establish her notability. NawlinWiki 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteWeak Delete Keep per Appraiser and Ispy. Her first and third references are not from sources that even hint at notability. Her second source is IMDB whose standards of notability pretty much consist of your ability to point a camcorder at someone. And even there her biography was written by an apparent family member which clearly exempts it from being a notable source. Trusilver 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm actually going to go against WP:CRYSTAL for a very good reason here. I think that as it stands right now, the subject does not have suitable notability. HOWEVER...Both Ispy and Appraiser have noted two resources coming in the near future, either of which would change my mind. As such, I'm not going to push a position to delete when it's clear to me that better sources are forthcoming. And since neither one will probably be available during the life of this AfD, I feel that it would be better to err on the side of keeping the article. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm getting closer on being sold. I don't feel that two local newspapers are quite enough to fulfill WP:N, but it's a better claim than there was previous. However, my main argument still lies in the fact that we are declaring her notable based on a film she's making that according to WP:FILM is not notable. I'm open to opposing arguments, but I'm not convinced. Trusilver 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's actually "made" as in 2006. There are a lot of fringe sources out there that hint at notability (aintitcoolnews, for example) and, apparently, a documentary is in post-production about this girl. --Ispy1981 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I just spent a half hour looking for a source on this documentary without much luck. Do you have a link for that? Trusilver 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Would IMDb be useful? The film is called "Zombie Girl:The Movie". Here, also, is a link to the official website, which links to an article on Emily Hagins and the film from Teen Vogue magazine [26]--Ispy1981 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. She won a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund to complete a feature-length film at age 14, and consequently is the guest-of-honor at a major science fiction convention - a feat not accomplished lightly.--Appraiser 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen a lot of false information on this discussion so I will take the opportunity to correct some now (I am Emily's mom, so this will not be a keep or delete pitch). Emily wrote, produced and directed and edited Pathogen between the ages of 11 and 12. She won the Texas Filmmaker's Production Fund grant at the age of 12 and was the youngest recipient in the history of the grant program. Her movie was NEVER shown at Butt-Numb-A-Thon 5 or any other Butt-Numb-A-Thon, although Harry Knowles intended to show the trailer at BNAT 7, the tight schedule would not allow even the trailer to run. Emily is now 14 and speaks to and encourages youth groups interested in filmmaking as well as encourages adults interested in low-budget or indy filmmaking. She has also, since Pathogen was completed, written her second feature script, produced and directed three short films, partipated in the last two 48-hour film competitions in Austin and worked on several other local young filmmakers' projects. She believes in giving back to the community and has given time and money to Katrina relief efforts and The Capital Area Food bank. She is an intensely hard-working and passionate about movies...making and watching them. She is hoping, with the proper funding, that she can start production on her next feature in summer 2008 as she is currently in pre-production.70.253.85.61 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins

• Response Thank you for the information. If you see errors in the article in the future, feel free to point them out on the Talk:Emily Hagins page, as this page will soon be frozen when the AfD discussion is complete. And kudos to you for raising such an exceptional young woman.--Appraiser
• Response Ms. Hagins, thank you for the information and thank you for your level-headed response to the AfD discussion. I feel that we have reached a consensus barring any other issues arising. I do hope that as you see your daughter in internet publications and print media you forward links to the discussion page. While it seems that your daughter does a great many truly remarkable things with her time, they don't become notable unless someone writes about them...I certainly hope to see a lot written about her in the future. Best wishes. Trusilver 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response Besides The Austin American Statesman and several articles in the Austin Chronicle, the two most widely read newspapers in Austin, and the internationally distributed Teen Vogue article from the October 2006 issue, there was an article in Rue Morgue Magazine in (I think it was) the March 2007 issue. Numerous online postings on sites such as The Austin Film Society, Dread Central and Aint It Cool News have also appeared (google Emily Hagins, and you will find how many online references there are). In addition, as I finally figured out (I think I figured out) how to cite a book, Emily was mentioned in Girls Make Media by Mary Celeste Kearney as well as some of Kearney's other academic research. Being a guest at CONvergence was a true delight and an honor, but, I assure you, there is a solid foundation of written material about Emily. I am not trying to make the case, whether or not she should be listed in this "encyclopedia" but only to note that, indeed, in addition to my highly biased opinion that she has earned her laurels and is not sitting on them, there has been a lot written about Emily. According to the rules you have stated, this fact qualifies her as "notable". Because I find your rules and policies rather dense and hard to follow, I'll leave it up to the other folks who enjoy dealing with the rules, posting and editing at WP to do the Citations and to determine if Emily belongs here. 70.253.85.61 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Megan Hagins

Comment. Actually the sci-fi convention she is guest-of-honor at is a terribly minor one and barely notable in itself. I have a tough time declaring someone notable for making a movie that according to WP:NF is not notable. Trusilver 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. CONvergence is the third largest non-profit convention in North America. "Terribly minor" my ass. Iceberg3k 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I just got home from said convention a few hours ago. If that's a "terribly minor" one by your standards (whatever they may be), I'm scared to go to one you might consider important. Shatteredshards 22:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree with the above two here, though not in the same terms as "terribly minor, my ass". This convention has attracted the likes of a Who's Who of sci-fi--Len Wein, Larry Niven, and Marv Wolfman to name a few. Also, Forrest J. Ackerman was a guest of honor at the first one, and you don't get Forry if you're "terribly minor".--Ispy1981 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Trusilver. JJL 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Hows this: as Per Appraiser reasons. Callelinea 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin note that this editor has gone down the list of every article nominated for deletion on this day and left the same message. Better. Trusilver 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wait Weak Keep I don't know her, but expect to meet her (and possibly interview her) at a local sf convention next week. Being GoH for Convergence, a 2000+ convention, is a noteworthy, though possibly minor, dent in the world. Please wait so that some of us can make up our minds. For the most part, I think Wikipedia should be inclusive and be weighed in favor of any accurate listing. Baron Dave Romm 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC) -- further comment: I never got a chance to talk to her (or see her movie) at Convergence, but she was one of the Guests of Honor at a 2500+ convention and I still think Wiki should err on the side of inclusion. Baron Dave Romm 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP The fact that Ms. Hagins has accomplished what she has at such a young age is notable in itself. Her accomplishments are note-worthy enough to have earned her media attention, a state grant for feature film development, and a GoH spot at a convention not in her home state. While CONvergence may not be the largest sci-fi convention, it is one of the largest in the Midwest, and does attract major names in sci-fi and fantasy.--75.72.203.22 04:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  Admin note that the previous user has only made two substantive edits beside this AfD, and both of them occurred more than two months ago. Trusilver 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep marginal, but notable, in my opinion. Convergence is a large and well known sci-fi convention. I've been to it every year (8 years), and it's predecessor, Minicon for 20+ years. While it would be no great loss if the article were deleted, consider the positive impact as a role model for other teenagers that the article could be. Atom 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  Admin note : All of these "admin notes" are a distraction. Why not just state your own opinion, and let others state theirs without trying to rebutt and discount every statement you disagree with. Atom 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well considering the fact that this AfD has been hit by one keep vote from someone who went through EVERY biographical article and blanketed them with cut-and-paste keep entries, and a second person voted keep on this as their only action for months. Combine that with the WP:CANVASS violation (check what links here) and I think it's absolutely important that the reviewing admin knows that this AfD has been seriously skewed. If you have a problem with my doing so, I am more than happy to take that up with you on my talk page, this page is for discussion of the AfD. Thank you! Trusilver 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  I find these sort of comments helpful when closing an afd- as long as they are neutral and factual. Maybe bettest mark them as "comment rather than admin note, but that's just a style thing. Peter 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Subject seems notable enough, but the article itself could use some cleanup. Calgary 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Teen girl makes home movies and shows them at fan conventions like "BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 5". According to IMDB, her most significant movie had a budget of $7,000. Sure, it's cute, but it's not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply And Robert Rodriguez made his first film for roughly four times that (I take that back. Rodriguez made El Mariachi for EXACTLY that amount) and probably went much the same route as this girl. Your point?--Ispy1981 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep/Comment. The Butt-Numb-a-Thon isn't really a "fan convention", but a powerful film fest in its own right (and with its own Wikipedia entry, natch). Among others, films premiered at BNAT include all three "The Lord of the Rings" movies, "Knocked Up", "King Kong (2005)", "The Passion of the Christ", and "V for Vendetta". Attendees include Peter Jackson, Eli Roth, Tim McCanlies, and many others. It's kind of a big deal. 433 10:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It does truly concern me that three of the keep positions here are from people that haven't posted at all or in a long time and seem to have materialized simply for the purpose of trying the prevent the deletion of an absolute non-notable. Trusilver 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Precisely why does that "truly concern" you? I'm sorry that editing and voting on Wikipedia entries isn't a huge part of my life. I use Wikipedia often, and have done some editing in the past, however the snotty attitude of some folks around here doesn't make spending a lot of extra time doing so that appealing. 433 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. To answer your question - What concerns me is when a large number of people who have never edited before or haven't edited in a long time drop 'en masse' onto an AfD, it usually suggests canvassing is going on. And it also usually means people who have an interest in the subject, which means that they are often using thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT arguments and not looking objectively. I'm not saying you are either of these, for all I know you dropped into the middle of this without being prompted to, I'm just saying that when it happens repeatedly in one AfD, it attracts my suspicion. Personally, I would never participate in an AfD I'm passionate about, becuase it would compromise my ability to be objective. This is not a vote, it's a process by which we attempt to form a consensus. Trusilver 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. "According to IMDB, her most significant movie had a budget of $7,000." As we all can probably name at least a couple movies with million dollar budgets that completely sucked and wasted our time, I'm not quite understanding your point. Shatteredshards 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete and comment Weak keep based on CONvergencecon info and fringe sources, as well as upcoming documentary.--Ispy1981 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)without prejudice to recreation as this is obivously someone on the rise. It truly doesn't concern me either that an admin who originally voted delete is going down the list and looking for any reason to nullify others' votes. No, not at all. And, BTW, I'm a veteran user. You can check my contribs, find any flaws you like, but you won't.--Ispy1981 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an admin, just someone who gets upset when I see an AfD that is obviously being manipulated. I have seen regrettably few people who are yelling 'keep' without giving any justification for the original problem - assertation of notability. If she were directing "Mission Impossible 4", I would say 'keep' in a moment. But she's not, she has created a movie that is, in itself, not even close to being notable under WP:FILM. For the sake of curiosity I'd still like an answer to this question - "If this girl's main claim to notability is a movie that she's making, how can she be deemed notable if her movie isn't?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2007

• Response I don't believe that I have violated WP:CANVASS or unduly manipulated the discussion. I posted a short, neutral note on the talk:CONvergence (convention) page (the only article currently linking here), on three personal talk pages of Wikipedians I have prior experience with (but no prior knowledge of their opinion on this topic), and a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, which seems appropriate, given their interest (OK - I did render an opinion on that one - perhaps I shouldn't have). But again, I don't know if Horror Film aficionados would want to keep this or not. I was mainly trying to increase awareness of the discussion. I agree that Pathogen doesn't meet notability guidelines, however I think a relatively brief biography of Hagins is appropriate given the film, several additional short films, her mention in a couple of local newspapers, her invitation to speak at a convention, the documentary currently being produced about her [27], and her mention in Girls Make Media (I hope to find a copy of this for a citation). Her article doesn't deserve the same attention as Nancy Pelosi's, but probably is as important as Arvind, Stephenie Cratz, or Joe Johnson (football), none of which has been targeted for deletion (as of 7/9/07). Humbly,--Appraiser 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any problem at all with dropping a note to people that you know, I'm a little more uneasy about the note on the CONvergence article. I think it's placing a note in a location where you are going to find supporters. I think of it like posting to the White Power article that there's an AfD for Martin Luther King Jr. (okay... I know that was a little over the top, but you get what I'm saying :) ) Overall though, I don't think you violated canvassing either, I would point more toward some tip off that has gone on outside of Wikipedia; especially when it comes to first time users that have come here just to argue against deletion. Trusilver 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Also, see my position comments above. Trusilver 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• People who write listy-type articles (myself included) hate to see red-links in their lists, so I thought the people watching the CONvergence article would want to know that one of their BLUE WL might soon turn RED. Yes, it is a biased audience, but perhaps some of the few here who would care if it went away. As for the deluge of interest from first-time contributers, at CONvergence, Ms. Hagins impressed several audiences of several hundred computer-literate geeky people. I attended three of her events that had people crowded in the doorway, because all the seats were filled. (Unfortunately this original research can't be added to the article.) But I wouldn't be surprised if some of them came home, looked her up, and were surprised to see the AfD, and made their first contribution. It is a sample biased by people with some knowledge of her, which doesn't seem unreasonable.--Appraiser 21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The filmmaker has been covered in the Austin Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, so that appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Also, she has attracted notice from Harry Knowles and is apparently on the radar enough to be invited to a regional science fiction convention, and she was able to get a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund. I doubt the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund gives out money to just any twelve-year-old who asks. That said, I'm not sure that the article is a must-have for Wikipedia. (I didn't get a chance to see the film at CONvergence; I was too busy getting ready to demolish a styrofoam replica of the hotel.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - as previously stated, she has received notable recognition in newspapers, from the Texas Filmakers Fund and was also a Guest of Honor (and compelling speaker) at a regional convention which drew 2700+ attendees. This recognition, coupled with her youth, make her a very interesting subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.--Slindorff 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Slindorff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP - Excuse me? Emily was 12 and 13 when she wrote the screen play, directed and produced it and that is not notable? CONVergence, the third largest non-profit sci-fi convention in North America is a minor convention? Getting a grant from the Texas Filmmakers Production Fund is not notable? Excuse me? Wow. These comments are making my head spin. I wonder what your definition of notable is? Dare I say this, and am I going to get jumped on all over for saying it? - Or is it because she is a woman, a teen woman, that you want to dismiss, diminish and devalue her work and who she is? I find the whole question of her "lack" of notability insulting to her as a person, to teens and to women everywhere. Her inclusion in Wikipedia should not even be a question. How many 13 year olds do YOU know that are capable or driven to create such work? She made a 13-year-old's movie. Take a look at Mozart's first pieces - they show his age. Emily's movie shows hers. And when we look at the quality of the work she has created, we HAVE to take into account that she is 13, no, 14 now, and judge her work on its merits, now, at this point in time, as well as what she is showing us she is capable of. You have to be freaking kidding......and yes, this is my first comment on Wikipedia ever, why is that relevant? That I am taking the time to make this comment in the first place should count for something?*sheesh* Fiona in St Paul— 75.161.255.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• First, they aren't my definitions of notability. They are the definitions of notability outlined under WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:FILM. Second, your suggestion that this has anything to do with her being a woman is baseless. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA before you make any further comments, you are in violation of it. Third, I have twice given my sole stipulation for changing my position and it has been ignored. Finally, if a lack of notability is a reason to be insulted, then 99.9% of the world should feel insulted and send equally unconstructive messages of outrage. There's nothing personal about this, I don't feel she meets notability requirements; and just because she very well may be notable one day, doesn't mean she is now. Trusilver 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP - Emily Hagins has most definitely met the definition of wikipedia for notoriety as well as being a fundamentally wonderful person. I would have to disagree with the notoriety portion if people of various states can actually express a knowledge of who she is and what she has done. A lot of people are mentioned in wikipedia who have notoriety and yet if you mention their name to someone, they don't know who they are. Wally Wingert would be a prime example. He has a wikipedia page, has been in a lot of productions (More than is listed on wikipedia) and yet if you were to walk down the street and ask someone about him, they wouldn't know who he was until a reference has been made. I have to state that Keeping the page would be in the best interest of wikipedia's notable future as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekis (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 July 2007

• KEEP - Her age definitely makes her accomplishments notable. If this is a flash in the pan and she doesn't make anything else worth anybody's time or attention in the next few years, she drops from being notable to being a curiosity worthy of a historical footnote in some other entry. But as of now, and for the next few years, she is definitely notable because of the unusualness of a work of art with such unusual complexity and cohesion springing from the mind and talents of someone so young. Omnifarious 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT - I had heard about this deletion buisness on this page so I wanted to check it out...I was just wondering why Trusilver is so hell-bent on deleting this page? Or at least that's what it seems like. I mean, this is a free online encyclopedia, what harm can it do to recognize an accomplishment that has already recieved some recognition? Oh, and when you said that this article was clearly written by a family member of Emily Hagins...I can tell you that it wasn't because I met the person who wrote it at CONvergence and they had written the article before they had met. However the biography taken from http://www.cheesynuggets.com/ was written by a family member because the site is run by Emily and her mom. Anyway, the point of this is just to clarify some things, I would appreciate it if my questions can be answered as well...but if not, that's cool too, just thought I'd give it a shot and ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GurtrudeSmith (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2007

• Comment While not everyone heeds the instructions (obviously), it is generally accepted that you should read the article and the entire AfD discussion before commenting to it. Had you done so, you would have found out two important facts. The first being that I said it's the IMDB.com biography that was written by a family member. The second fact is that Appraiser and Ispy1981 have provided evidence that enough information to deem the subject notable under WP:N will be forthcoming, even if it's not going to be during the life of this AfD discussion. Trusilver 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment And as for your question. I don't know the subject, I have no interest in the subject. Which is how it should be - I do not participate in AfD's in which I have any prior knowledge of the subject, to do so means that I'm not able to be completely objective. What you are mistaking for a "hell-bent" intent to get rid of this article is really a "hell-bent" intent to see that Wikipedia policy is properly applied. I don't know who it was, but I have no doubt at all that a Wikipedia editor solicited people at CONvergence to come here and oppose the deletion. I don't know or care who it was, but he knows who he is. I'm tremendously dissapointed that a Wikipedia editor is so willing to break the rules to push an AfD dispute into his/her favor. I am aware that you are new here and have no or very little understanding of our policies, but AfD discussions are not votes. An AfD discussion is an attempt to bring all parties to a consensus. The ability to do that is severely hampered when 8 of the 14 keep positions (counting my own) have been registered by either single-purpose accounts who are here ONLY to contest the deletion, or by users that have not made any contribution for extended periods of time and have come back only to contest the deletion. Personally, I think that this entire AfD should be erased and started from scratch (where I would say 'keep' again, incidentally) just for the reason that this entire thing has been corrupted beyond the ability to come to a coherent consensus. I don't particularly like being flamed by every person who has never participated in the project until 24 hours ago, but I will do it 100% of the time to insure that process is being followed. Trusilver 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on whether a Wikipedia editor solicited CONvergence members to oppose the deletion in violation of WP:CANVAS, in a strict sense. I was a 2007 CONvergence attendee and I did witness someone telling others to "go vote on Wikipedia", but I don't know if that person is a Wikipedia editor. And, by my reading of canvassing, it sure seems to lean heavily on matters of cross-posting and talk page editing, which doesn't exactly address the behavior which I witnessed, if that's Trusilver's concern. If the intent is to take WP:PI seriously and ensure the policy is properly applied, let me ask if there are pertinent rules which specifically address that kind of campaigning--unless the canvassing rules were intended to do so, in which case perhaps those can be made more specific.burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• CommentCanvassing also covers the act of soliciting people outside of Wikipedia to come for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of an AfD. (or any other consensus for that matter.) Trusilver 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm changing my mind on the above comment after a discussion on my talk page with Appraiser this morning. Under normal circumstances I would think that a situation like the warrants another AfD minus the dog and pony show. However, I feel that there never would have been an AfD had the article been as it is now when the nomination was first made. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The following Comments were moved from Talk:Emily Hagins by --Appraiser 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (in order to keep them together)

Keep! In the book, Girls Make Media, Author Mary Celeste Kearney states that Emily is the first and youngest American teenage girl to make a feature length movie. I think that qualifies as notable. 12.106.2.2 13:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)MD

Cite it. If you need help, read WP:CITE Trusilver 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The book was added and cited by Emily's mother--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Emily is extraordinary, not only as a teen but as a filmmaker and as a woman, and deserves recognition of that. Fiona in St Paul

Considering the enormous amount of truly useless trivia on Wikipedia, I find it astonishing that this article about a talented young filmmaker would be flagged for deletion. If you delete it now, someone is going to have to write a new one later, because this girl is destined to be really hugely successful. -Phoenixredux

COMMENT - I did read the entire discussion, and all I was saying was that the Wikipedia page wasn't written by a family member. Thanks for answering my questions Trusilver.

Comment on the whole deal It is my hope that whoever the closing admin is on this looks at the true discussion that has taken place and the consensus among editors who have been here longer than two seconds and not the spammy "Ohmigod, she's a teenager, just like me!" "Omigod, you guys are so sexist!" nature of some of the comments here. This is a discussion forum for the article and for its subject, based on policy and on the merits. If you can't discuss an article's merits without frivolous arguments, you don't belong here. IMDb has a whole sandbox for you to play in.--Ispy1981 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the Comment on the whole deal I agree wholeheartedly with Ispy1981. I feel that we have reached a consensus on this if you can dig down and block out the circus this has turned into. Trusilver 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep for two reasons. First her accomplishments as a filmmaker at this age are out of the ordinary and have been recognized in a growing number of public arenas. Second on the basis of earlier comments in this debate indicating new evidence is forthcoming. I think if new sourcing is still pending, it behooves us to pause before moving forward with a delete. burnunit 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per apparent majority consensus above and close. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Being profiled and discussed in an independent publication (such as the above-mentioned book) is strong evidence of notability. Iceberg3k 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- The strength of the sources presented establishes notability. John254 01:05, 12 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. John Vandenberg 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Cheese & Coney Island

Blue Cheese & Coney Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing but speculation, no references. Superior1 07:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jury's_Inn_Birmingham

Jury's_Inn_Birmingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Don't believe this to be notable in any way, not even tallest building on it's street. It's a 3 star hotel with no notable awards. It has nothing of notability. No awards, not tallest, oldest or posessing of anything worthy of inclusion over any other hotel. By that arguement, it's doesn't even measure as the 4th tallest building in Birmingham. I don't think article as it stands is much more than advertising the hotels presence, and offers nothing to Wikipedia.Irishjp 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It is one of the most prominent buildings on the skyline, as well as being the largest hotel in Birmingham city centre. The fact that it isn't the tallest on the street means nothing as the tallest on Broad Street is the third tallest building in the city anyway so it must need to surpass 100 metres. It is also a rare example of Brutalist architecture left in Birmingham with only two other buildings of a similar style remaining; New Street Signal Box and Birmingham Central Library. - Erebus555 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to be notable for its architecture and the fact that it's the largest hotel in Birmingham- a fairly large city. johnpseudo 23:12, 13 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 of Sturtridge as obvious hoax/nonsense (speedy g1), Borobio as not asserting notability (U15 youth footballer) (speedy a7), and Martinez as blanked by author (speedy g7). NawlinWiki 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sturtridge

Michael_Sturtridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable, if person even exists. Google search returns no hits when searching for football players named Michael Sturidge. Mediotiempo.com makes no mention of his signing either. And he's 14. Article links to what seems to be this guy's sites.--DethFromAbove 07:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the following related pages to this nomination because they are the same thing, same hoax, suspiciously similar, same user, same delete:

Jose Joaquin Martinez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Steven Borobio B. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Evb-wiki 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Could find no WP:RS to support claims. --Evb-wiki 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only references supplied are to chat forums. Smells like a windup. Hu 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Delete all: delete the additional pages added to the nomination. Hu 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above and then some. --David Andréas 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dave101→talk  20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not listed on the club's website as a player. Number 57 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a blatantly obvious hoax (lives in Australia and plays in Mexico? That's a heck of a commute, especially for a 14-year old!!! 0h and suggest an AfD also be created for the suspiciously similar Steven Borobio B. from the same creator.... ChrisTheDude 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete obvious hoax, he is 14 years old living in Australia and playing in Mexico. Yeah right. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a hoax. Granted, a rather impressive hoax, but a hoax nontheless. GiantSnowman 20:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Another one to add to the hoax list that the same user has added Jose Joaquin Martinez. Same thing, same hoax, also should be deleted. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious hoax. This should also apply to Steven Borobio B. and Jose Joaquin Martinez. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dont delete - Michael Sturtridge, for sure its an obvious hoax, but i don't understand the situation with Steven Borobio B. and Jose Joaquin Martinez. How are they hoaxes? Infact one of them are actually blank. Literally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco pepino11 (talk • contribs)   05:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - neither article is currently blank, but the Martinez article is virtually identical to the Borobio one, even down to having the player name as Borobio throughout! I know nothing about Club América but they would appear to have three 14 year-olds in their line-up. That looks like a hoax to me. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Martinez one is blank for me. But Martinez actually does play for Club America though. I havent heard about any australian signings though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco pepino11 (talk • contribs)
  • You yourself keep blanking the page, which is considered vandalism, btw. Nevertheless, since you are the author of these "articles," I have added {{db-author}} to Jose Joaquin Martinez. --Evb-wiki 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whether they are hoaxes or not is irrelevant - these players do not play in a professional league so therefore fail WP:BIO. Dave101→talk 

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 10:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Revival

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

Crystal ballery about an album with no release date and no verifiable information; article cites no sources and has been tagged as needing references since April. Closenplay 11:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete: futures and the supposed musician doesn't even have a Wikilink. Hu 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it's supposed to be the new album by Ma$e, whoever wrote the article just didn't link his name in the body of the article. Closenplay 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• If it's just false made up bullshit from editors then delete, but if it is a future album then why to do this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Football97 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the article has no references, and I could find no reliable sources to back any of it up. The article even states that it is "rumored". If does turn out to be true, then the article can easily be re-created when there are solid, verifiable references. Closenplay 03:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Re-list this article when the album comes out, if it comes out. johnpseudo 23:14, 13 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes in Blade Runner

Themes in Blade Runner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork from Blade Runner and excessive WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a film studies course; we don’t need a series of extensive articles. Merge it into Blade Runner’s main article.BlueVelvet86 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is a big collection of original research. Jay32183 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I believe a good encyclopedic article on such an important movie should give details about the symbolism used. But giving all these info would overcrowd the main article. I think we should keep it as a separate article. We can work on referencing more, if people are worrying about the original research. There are several books and countless webpages about BR. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Too large to merge back into main article; one of a few films that merit study at the university level. Mandsford 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Highly notable film that inspired countless imitations, largely because of its thematic richness. If the page contains OR, then the parts which are OR should be deleted, not the entire article. It does, however, have a large number of sources, at least some of which are reliable, and should therefore be kept. JulesH 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The entire article is OR. Jay32183 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So what are the sources about then? JulesH 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK: the following content from the article is directly supported by the source at footnote 4:

The first sentence. The second half of the second paragraph. Most of the content of the fourth paragraph. All of the fifth paragraph. Most of the content of the first section. Some of the content of section 4. Some of the content of section 10.

There are several other sources that appear from their titles to approach the subject in a similarly informative way, although I don't have time to read them in depth and analyse the article for the points they match. My point is that there is clearly referenced content here which is not OR. Yes, there may be some OR between it, and yes, the style of the article is totally inappropriate, but the answer is not to delete it, but to improve it. JulesH 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And just to prevent questions about the reliability of that source, it is one that has apparently been frequently quoted by indisputably reliable sources on the subject of Scott's films, and therefore should be considered reliable. Other sources that I haven't read may or may not be more clearly reliable than this one. One is a book, which I suspect is. JulesH 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus the author of that source is apparently an award-winning film director, so clearly qualifies as an expert in the relevant topic, per WP:V. JulesH 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I (personally) wouldnt proclaim expertship based on an award at the "Catalonian International Film Festival". Corpx 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It is articles such as this one that make Wikipedia useful to a wide segment of net users. The utility of OR material on Wikipedia has obviously been debated by many better writers earlier than this, but still if Wikipedia has a problem with articles containing OR than there could be some tag options that clearly segregates OR material for the reader, rather than the wholesale deletions of useful articles. User:dkholm 12:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wholesale deletion of original research is a good thing, because it never should have been included in the first place. Jay32183 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article is almost entirely Original Research Corpx 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It's an essay. Now, I'm not sure exactly what Wikipedia's policy is regarding the substitution of essays for articles (if there is in fact a policy, I'd be very interested to find out what it is), but the article does seem to violate WP:OR. The problem is that rather than presenting objective information, it presents a perspective on a subject. The perspective is debatable and strongly subject to interpretation, rather than reflecting an academic consensus. Calgary 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think pretty much ever line in the page would have to be cited from somewhere for it not to violate WP:OR Corpx 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question: Have you read all of the sources that are referenced by the article? Because the one I read could be used as a source for somewhere in the region of 10% of the content in there. The rest of them could easily bring the amount covered to 50%. And if an article's half OR, the correct response isn't to delete the article, it's to delete the OR. JulesH 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There are enough sources there to keep it from being rejected out of hand. It does need some work, I'd like to see more footnoting, but it is well written and represents a significant view in film studies. This seems to be the kind of article we want more of. If you want to delete some bad articles about fiction, check out some of the Family Guy or The Venture Bros. articles. Cheers. L0b0t 02:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that most of those sources are from fan sites and from user essays. Corpx 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The one source I examined in detail may have appeared to be from a fan site, but the author is an award winning film director, so I think it qualifies as a reliable source. See my comments above. JulesH 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the themes in Blade Runner have been analysed by many; sources exist, and the article already includes many inline cites. A merge back into Blade Runner is unnecessary as that article has already gone too large. John Vandenberg 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Themes are probably one of the more important things a Wikipedia article can comment on. Keeping a more detailed page on the subject seems fine to me. The "weak" is because this article could still use a lot of improvement as an article. Cedars 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Blade Runner is one of the most influential films the last quarter of century. Themes are by definition subjective, and subjectivity is not the same as NPOV.--Victor falk 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not WP:NPOV that's the problem, it's WP:NOR. Jay32183 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1) npov: Can people agree that themes in Blade Runner are the film noir private eye, genetic cloning and the relation between the eye and the memory? Yes? That's Neutral POV. Do people agree that Blade Runner is an unmistakable metaphor for the relentless struggle of the proletariat (the replicants) against the oppressing superstructure in the form of a giant pyramid? No? What about Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) being a Randian archetype in the pure Nietszchean sense of the type? not either? that's POV.

You may interpret those themes as you wish. For instance, in 'Harry met Sally', one may interpret the theme as a dire warning against the decay of arranged marriage. Nonetheless "boy meets girl" remains a (the main) theme of that film, whatever interpretation one may have of that theme.

2) or: Research, not writing. Original research is claiming to have found something novel or not widely accepted on the subject, ie original. Eg, "A Theme in Blade Runner: hero detective saves his homeland by kidnapping sexy replicant" The article does not do that, neither by claiming somesuch itself nor by using sources to do it.

Original writing, now that's another thing altogether. Check the Sherlock Holmes article (as an aside, study especially 6.1 for "themes"); that's a lot of text. How did such a long article with so much text write itself without violating copyright? The answer is elementary.--Victor falk 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry. Missed that you were arguing or, not npov. My bad. I think wikipedia makes me ripe for the American Asociatiotion for Anonymous Acronym Abusers.--Victor falk 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You may wish to actually read WP:NOR to see all the different thing OR could be. One thing original research can mean is interpreting a primary source. Without a citation to a secondary source, interpretation and analysis are original research. Jay32183 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, original research is normally understood as interpreting a primary source in a way which no reliable sources have done before. Because most of this article contains only statements that others have made previously, it isn't original research. JulesH 18:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This article doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • As I've said repeatedly, yes it does. The following sources (at least) are reliable per the definition at WP:V:
          • Unnecessary Destruction: The Lost Films of Ridley Scott
          • Kerman, Judith. (1991) Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" and Philip K. Dick's "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?
          • Gossman, Jean-Paul. (2001) Blade Runner - A Postmodernist View
          • Newland, Dan. (1997) Christian Symbolism
          • BBC News article about Ridley Scott on Deckard being a replicant
          • BBC1 documentary program, Hollywood Greats
          • Telotte, J.P. (1999). A Distant Technology: Science Fiction Film and the Machine Age. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 165, 180-185. ISBN 0819563463.
          • Menville, Douglas; R. Reginald (1985). Futurevisions: The New Golden Age of the Science Fiction Film. Van Nuys, CA: Newcastle, 8, 15, 128-131, 188. ISBN 0893706817.
        • Unless you can come up with a reason these sources aren't reliable, then de facto they are, because they all meet the requirements of the relevant policy. 22:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • If you think that those are reliable sources, why haven't you already deleted everything else? Don't wait for an AFD to result in keep to cut OR. If you want to save the article then fix the problems now. Jay32183 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Because I haven't read all of them, and therefore do not for certain what is & isn't included in them, so cannot clearly tell what is & isn't OR. I've determined that approximately half of the article isn't OR, but determining what is OR is much harder. JulesH 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
              • If it looks like OR and it's unsourced, assume it's OR. The burden of evidence falls on those wishing to add or retain material, removing portions of an article for being unsourced is allowed. Adding unsourced content is even one of the user warnings. Jay32183 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; Strong, was forked from the article (by me) for good reasons; and is one of the most complex films thematically in cinematic history. While glancing over the article there is undoubtedly plenty of OR there; however I made a conscious effort to stay within themes that were discussed widely. So even though there is not enough ref's, more can be added from existing materials; and plenty can be made from "Future Noir", a reliable secondary source... its just a matter of doing it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Security Council Simulation at Yale

Security Council Simulation at Yale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN Student group. Contested prod. Mystache 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)