Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roma people national football team

Roma people national football team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma people national football team. The objection to the article was the fact that the team hadn't played a single match. The article was recently recreated, after the team's first match. This article was nominated for speedy deletion per G4, recreation of deleted content. I have declined the speedy nom, because the main objection has been addressed and the article is sufficiently different from the deleted article. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sports-related deletions. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In the 1st nomination the deletion of the article was based in the fact that those team had never played a match in their history, that situation isn't true anymore, as you can see in the article, these team played their first match during this week. Calapez 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if they represent "Roma peoples around the world", they cannot be a National Team in the normally accepted sense of the phrase. They've played one game, against another side that doesn't represent a recognised country either. - fchd 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The team they played their first match against Southern Cameroon national football team has a wikipedia article as does the Nouvelle Fédération-Board, to which the Roma team are apparently now affiliated. Not representing a recognised country is surely then no reason therefore for the article to be deleted. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Yes, I'm aware of that. I don't think any of the NF Board teams are notable enough to deserve an article, this one even more so. On whose authority do they represent the Roma people of the world? - fchd 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I have to disagree with fchd. While some of the NFB-teams really have borderline notability others, such as Greenland and Zanzibar were widely portrayed in the media and took part in televised tournaments like the 2006 FIFI Wild Cup. Malc82 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. They're not a FIFA national team, but apparently they are a Nouvelle Fédération-Board team, and most of the NFB teams have articles of their own. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a team which represents an entity and has in fact (now) played a match. The question of whether or not it's a "national team" (which relies on a different definition of "nation" to the one FIFA seems to use) can be hashed out elsewhere, but that's not a reason to delete the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep recognised by Nouvelle Fédération-Board and as teams they recognise have articles this is no different and therefore is notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Borderline notability, as of now they don't seem to have sufficient notability. I'm only supporting Delete because of WP:CRYSTAL, it's very likely they will play more games and become notable in a few months. As of now the NFB's inclusion standards just look too open for them to be enough of an authority. Malc82 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V. There is no independent evidence when/if this match took place (the source has no date for the game) and there are no independent sources per WP:RS. What is the organisation of this team? How do we know they represent the Roma people? Sorry, at the moment there are too many questions and too few answers. BlueValour 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per calapez.IP198 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You're gonna have to find sources for these types of things. (→zelzany - fish) 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know if it qualifies as a reliable source, but the match is mentioned on the forum of the official website of the NF Board: [1]. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - a note on a discussion forum doesn't seem very definitive. The main pages not only doesn't mention the date but neither source says what the competition was nor include any of the basic details such as players to check the teams represent who they say they do. BlueValour 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep They played and there are corroborating sources. Whether the article is 'important' or not is irrelevant and by personal judgement.mercator79 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, but when did they play; the source doesn't say? Why are there no newspaper reports if the game took place? The one source, could be a WP:SPS and certainly isn't a WP:RS. BlueValour 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It does not matter if it is or not a recognized national team, especially for NF-Board team. It is around a world, however it is a national team. For some people it is a national team and I think this is an encyclopedic article for national teams that are not recognized but exist.--KRBN 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry again, but who do they represent? Which spokesperson for the Roma people says they represent them? Who selected them? etc. BlueValour 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep As said above, borderline notability. However I am given the impression that in the coming months/years they will have sufficiently gained enough notability to be included. The Filmaker 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - where is the evidence for this, otherwise it is just Crystal balling? - fchd 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Finance. Note that Merge is a form of Keep, even though some who favored a merge also supported deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial system

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

This article forks from article with identical subject matter (Finance), but its content seems to be based on the point of view of the author(s).Originally proposed for deletion, but template has been removed. --Gavin Collins 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. There's a large overlap (sections 2 through 5) with Finance and probably little of the content from those sections needs to be merged with the main article. However, the first section, Financial system#Payment system, would be more appropriately covered in an article on banking, but based on a quick check, I note that the topic isn't covered in the main article, Bank, nor was I able to locate an article covering the payment system. The payment system is certainly important and needs to be discussed; it should be merged into Bank or a related article. Sanpete Slim 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is essentially unsourced; the two sources cited only tangentially address the information in this article. Financial system#Payment system is simplistic and in some cases confused or wrong. Perhaps a new article should be written on payment systems, which would describe and contrast the role of various systems such as Fedwire, CHIPS, BoJnet, SWIFT, et al. But that would be a new article, with little to salvage from this one. Sections 2-5 are simplistic, and redundant with the Finance article.--Work permit 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see that much information overlap with Finance. The lack of references is not a reason for deletion - the test is far higher, that article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, and/or all attempts to find reliable sources have failed. This article may not (in its current form) be the best of wikipedia, but it presents useful information and can be improved. Deletion is not justified.--Gregalton 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't just lack of references. The problem is it's WP:OR. Worse yet, it's WP:OR and wrong in too many places to just fix with a few edits and citations. A better outline and definition for financial systems is given by the (sourced) article on the Japanese financial system. This article also has many factual errors. For example, in just the first paragraph of the first section, he states The payment system operates to settle transactions. A transaction is settled when the seller has supplied the specific item and received the agreed amount of value. This is the general definition for a clearing and settlement system, not just a payment system. The problems just go on. Even the outline is wrong. --Work permit 03:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per a combination of WP:OR and WP:SOURCE. The lack of sources and the arguments made by Work Permit suggest that it's original research. I don't really know anything about finance or the system, but in terms of the guidelines and the arguments already made, I think deletion is in order.Bwowen 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research is never permitted on Wikipedia. You're gonna need to find reliable sources. Optionally, merge to Finance. (→zelzany - fish) 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article needs to be rewritten to be verifiable and have references though. --Android Mouse 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Original research overlaps with Finance page. The Filmaker 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative price strength

Relative price strength (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Originally {{prod}}ed as a WP:NEO, prod removed by creator and only editor. Even if it's not a neologism, there's nothing more that could be said than what's there, so it should be redirected to a (new) section of Stock valuation or some similar article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A google search for this term returns over twenty-thousand hits as of June 3, 2007. While the term was first penned by William O'Neil of Investors Business Daily, it has since become relatively widespread terminology in market discussions. I do not have a problem with it being merged but I think a valid point could be made to keep it as there are numerous websites that refer to this term outside of bill o'neil. Chantoke 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because its a common stock concept that shouldn't be ignored. Chantoke 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because it is a WP:POV fork from Beta coefficient which is the common stock concept that this unreferenced article is trying to emulate. --Gavin Collins 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Article is a stub, but no compelling reason to delete.--Gregalton 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Counting up Google hits isn't gonna solve anything. Make sure those websites that you might reference here (or better yet, in the article) are reliable. (→zelzany - fish) 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 19:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stack Bundles

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}}

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

NN. seems to be a local rapper at best. --Philip Laurence 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE* With all due respect to the deceased, he does not appear to meet the standards for widespread notoriety that are a key to being posted. plus the article didn't exist befopre he passed. and it is clearly written from a bias standpoint -- like a tribute page. Great for MySpace or the like, NOT WIKIPEDIA.[[user:jtoddthemighty|

• Comment. Article didn't exist before June 11 2007. Thus, he was NOT NOTABLE, prima facie. Enough said.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: He is an artist who has worked with major rappers like Jim Jones,Joe Budden,Fabolous,Dj Clue?,and Jae Millz. He even own his own label "riot Gang". since his passing we should keep his memory forever. please keep this page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.23.75 (talk • contribs)
• Keep: he was associated and worked with platinum selling rappers. no need for wikipedia gestapo here. Thismightbezach 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to both of the above. Working with famous rappers is not a proof of notability. Notability is not inherited. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Stack Bundles was on the come up with some of the most notable rappers in the New York hip hop scene. Lyrically, he was stronger than the vast majority of his contemporaries, and with the correct marketing, may have become one of the more successful hip hop acts of 2007. The article is both relevent and important to the hip hop community and should, without a doubt, stay. SquadUpKid 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Diff)

• • Comment. Without secondary sources to back this up, this is OR and crystal-balling. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Did he do anything to establish notability? Lots of rappers work with more notable rappers but don't/haven't established themselves. Also, there's the speculation factor--he "may have become one of the more successful hip hop acts of 2007". As it stands, article looks like nothing but an obit. --Ispy1981 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable rapper who released an album. Although affillated with rapper Jim Jones, Stack Bundles is not a popular rapper (is more less a local Byrd Gang/Diplomat rapper). Sorry I am with the rest. This article is not notable. LILVOKA 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He's not a famous rapper nor is he a hip-hop artist who made any impact. This guy did NOT have an article yesterday or the day before that. As soon as he dies, a wikipedia article pops up. If he had any REAL fans or was considered "somebody", this article would've been here the minute he started his career. There's no need for this article here. It's just another "gangsta" rapper who's dead now. Nothing too serious here. Delete & Move along. J Anyaoha 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, though he fails WP:MUSIC anyway. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As the article states "he hadn't yet attained widespread popularity", nor did he have a recording contract. WWGB 00:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*Keep I fail to see how a recording contract is the litmus test. Mixtapes are and always have been the lifeblood of hip-hop. Plenty of pages on deceased rappers who have made but a splash in both mainstream and underground hip-hop exist. There is precedence to keep this page. Also, see Rule 11 under 'Musicians' for the Rules of Deletion: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - I'd say Hot97's 6-month love affair with "We Fly High" qualifies. DrobD 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)(Diff)

• Keep Enough said. 71.180.186.33 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Even mixtapers can become notable, there is no evidence given of such in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I don't entirely agree with you Dhartung. Rappers such as Saigon, Tru Life, and Red Cafe (amongst others) have their own wikipedia entries, and all have not, as of yet, released albums. Their pages were written and maintained while they experienced success (equal to that of Stack Bundles) on the mixtape circuit. Perhaps a more close parallel is the persistence of Max B's page. I do not suggest that Max B's page should be deleted, but more reference the fact that sucessive mixtape releases are a reasonable proxy for album releases. DrobD 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)(Diff)

• Keep and cleanup. His death seems to have attracted a reasonable amount of coverage from the media as shown in the sources. [6]. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dying might confer press coverage, but not explicit notability. It's already been said, but bears saying again and again: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete appears to clearly violate WP:BAND; his death does not lend him the noteworthiness he lacked in life. Bigdaddy1981 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable before death, nothing notable except he was '24'. Even birth date missing. Article admits he had not yet 'made it.'

• Keep. --Paukrus 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly, a vanity article. Millions of people die every day.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per DrobD. The article does need more sources and a great deal of improvement though. east.718 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I have changed my vote. east.718 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• strong delete-from the article "While he hadn't yet attained widespread popularity..." Indeed. Chris 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Sad that he died, yes, but his notability is lacking at best.    DangerousNerd    talk    contribs    email   16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep-from the article on Mixtapes "The mixtape format is becoming increasingly popular as a way of generating hype for hip hop artists." Having tried unsuccessfully to avoid hip hop since about 1979, I can assure you that mixtapes have been a primary outlet for young artists – and some relatively established artists – since the beginning. Queen Latifah and the Wu Tang Clan's RZA would not be where they are today without them. I'll be patient if anyone denies a bias against real African-American culture in the coverage of Wikipedia articles, but the reality is this is one area still where there is considerable misinformation and omission. Stack Bundles was notable in a small circle of influential people who are influencing pop culture. So was Nick Drake. This quick "delete him" sounds to me just like, "He's not one of ours." Jplatt39 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, this is preposterous, but gee, thanks for getting racism involved. The dispute here is a simple one of WP:BAND and no secondary sources. Almost becoming a notable person doesn't count. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although not many people knew Stack Bundles, I enjoyed listening to his tracks and so did many other people, I know that for a fact. Someone doesn't have to be well known to be a good artist. And if people wanna use the fact of him not being well known, I see a whole lot of people on wikipedia pages that I dont know, although I like the type of music they make. Just because I wouldn't know a person, doesn't make it a valid reason to remove a page. If real fans of Jim Jones don't know this man, they obviously hadn't listened to A Dipset X-Mas, where Stack Bundles featured 5 out of 10 tracks, not to mention the tracks he featured on Jim Jones' The 7 Day Theory mixtape. Carlols 88 12:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "I like it" is generally considered an argument to avoid in AfD debates. Ford MF 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Granted there are two sides to this issue, but I believe the purpose of the entry to be more central. Wikipedia is, by definition, a "free content encyclopedia project". It is a source of information free from much of the bureaucracy a regular encyclopedia is subject to. Stack Bundles was a significant player on the New York mixtape circuit, and Wikipedia should be able to provide accurate and verifiable information about him as the masses demand it. To do otherwise violates the purpose of this project. DrobD 11:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (Diff)

• • Comment "as the masses demand it" is not a cornerstone of this project. Verifiability is. And really all verifiable press on this guy just says "he rapped with some people who actually are notable" and "he's dead now". Also, the masses clearly weren't "demanding", since the guy didn't even have a stub until someone shot him in the neck. Ford MF 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If you delete this article, he will come back from the dead to haunt you all...just kidding. Seriously, though, if you delete this, you show a great disregard to all the rappers who have been murdered (The Notorious B.I.G., 2Pac, Jam Master Jay, Soulja Slim, Proof (rapper)) among others. While not every rapper who has been murdered deserves his own Wikipedia article, this one does, because his murder has been mentioned quite often in hip-hop news (even moreso than Proof, I would bet). Plus, he had collaborated quite frequently with Jim Jones (rapper) and Dipset, whom you do have articles on. This is why I say Strong Keep. Tom Danson 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Again, collaborating with notable people doesn't necessarily make you notable. Notability is not inherited. Ford MF 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I have never heard of him, it is clear he was a notable artist with in his artistic community. Being world wide famous is not the defenition of notability. FancyPants 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons stated above. Zerbey 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but I'm unsure on that. His article isn't harming anyone though. An article on his death is currently on the AP Wire: http://www.mail.com/newsarticle.aspx?catId=1&articleId=1098836. He also was an up-and-coming rapper. My final decision is based on the fact that since we have articles relating to lesser-known minor sports figures, we should keep this too, I figure. Guroadrunner 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete entirely minor, non-notable rapper failing WP:BAND. There was no article (and virtually no coverage in secondary sources) before he got killed, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. There's a reason all of the news coverage of his death begins with "Dipset associate Stack Bundles" or "Jim Jones signee Stack Bundles". Otherwise no one would have a clue who this dude is. Ford MF 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment i doubt anyone commenting on stack has any clue who richard alexander was. you said it - wikipedia is not a memorial. should we delete that too? these entries are less notable than stack's. there is no internal consistency on wikipedia. give it a rest. this entry is important and relevent to many users of both the hip hop and new york communities and should be maintained, cleaned up and verified (just as richard alexander is to you).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.228.11 (talk • contribs)

• Comment sorry but that's a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and thus not a legitimate argument. Bigdaddy1981 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Stack Who?? GoodDay 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT about strike-outs. Those two "keep" arguments, ostensibly from two separate registered users, were both posted by the anon IP 207.162.228.12, while another IP, 207.162.229.10 posted a second comment by the ostensible DrobD (Diff). The diffs are listed next to each strikeout. Ford MF 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT. Oy, a third "DrobD" comment was made by the anon IP 207.162.229.11. (Diff). Ford MF 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Non-notable rapper, and WP:ILIKEIT doesn't count as a guideline. Wildthing61476 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as Homer Simpson once said "If he's so great, why is he dead?". NN rapper when alive. Even less notable now. Lugnuts 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP: Rayquon "STACK BUNDLES" Elliot was a young man with a very bright and promising future. He has gained a significant amount of popularity since he was introduced to the music world. Two hours after his passing he already had over a thousand dedications on myspace, supporting the argument that he had enough notoriety. He has been featured in several music videas as well as main stream songs. Hot 97, at one point, featured him every monday night on the Monday night mix tape. Both VH1 and MTV have featured him on their new updates. Many radio stations across the U.S. have also taken must interest in his passing. He was not a un noted rapper and was signed to a major label. Rayquon was dedicated to positive change and with his success had plans of changing the lives of so many unfortunate people who grew up around him. Please continue to promote that with hard work and dedication even those who come from the "hood" can overcome diversity and be remembered. Please strongly consider his memory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.62.226 (talk • contribs)
• Delete There are barely even listeners on last.fm. I know it isnt a great source, but it should give a general overview of the artist.Buffalodan 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Buffalodan
• Delete Agreed with others, a non-notable rapper. He only got an article in the first place because of his death, which doesn't warrant an article. --RandomOrca2 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it is always sad when a young person's life is cut short, and people want to remember this person, however Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he does not pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC so this is a no brainer to delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Might have become notable, could have become notable, but died before he could become notable. If he becomes notable posthumously, like Nick Drake, the article can be recreated. But he's not notable at this moment. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, it's very sad that he died young. Yes, he may have had some following on mySpace or similar. But none of this makes him notable. Wikipedia is not a tribute site. And as for the person suggesting that those who want the article deleted are being racist, there is no basis for that claim. The fact is whether he was white, black, Asian or navy blue with pink spots, he is in no way notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.Smurfmeister
• Keep - if the media is covering his death then he must be notable in some way or another. He seems worthy enough for an article in my opinion. Fighting for Justice 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Due respect to the man and consolation to his fans, he is non-notable. A lot of people receive press attention when they die, but that doesn't confirm notability. It's great that he was dedicated to positive change, but this is an issue of encyclopedic content, not a referendum on whether or not he was a good guy or not (see WP:ILIKEIT). Also, despite the fact that he may have become notable had he not been tragically killed, Wikipedia isn't for speculation as to whether or not that would have come to pass (see WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). (Sorry I forgot to sign this.) Bwowen 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You're gonna need lots of reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to establish notability. Otherwise, as others have said, this is original research and speculation. MySpace isn't gonna help. (→zelzany - fish) 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, conditionally -- All this article needs is one *twit* to go out and find two articles to put into references. I know this can be done. (I, however, am not going to do it because I hate this guy's music like Herbert Lom drawing gauntlets across a chalkboard in a bad Pink Panther sequel.)--Mike18xx 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable local rapper (at best), mix-tapes do not appear to be notable enough, notability is not inherited. The Filmaker 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^talk 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merit (band)

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

Non-notable band per WP:BAND on a non-notable local label. One article in a daily college newspaper is the only reference, and even that is questionable as a non-trivial published work (see WP:BAND). Closenplay 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• delete. It is likely that in the future the band may warrant their own article, but as for right now it fails the notability standard for bands. Firestorm 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Article lacks merit. (Sorry) JulesH 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - If you will note it does have an outside source, see here. Second if you read WP:BAND close it says, A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Number one is It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did note the outside source in my nomination (see above). And if you read a little closer, you might notice WP:BAND says "…been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". "Multiple"; not "one". It also says "An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis", which is what I was alluding to in my nomination. Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looks fine to me. Stop trying to delete everything from Wikipedia. Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it. Xanucia 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you going to spam every AfD with keep !votes that offer no rationale for said keep !vote? Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to take this the wrong way, so please clear this up for me—are you saying that I'm "trying to delete everything on Wikipedia" or are you saying "let's all of us stop trying to delete everything"? Closenplay 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It isn't you. he posted a very similar message to four or five AfDs in succession. Resolute 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Phew! I was afraid for a second there that I was gonna have my feelings hurt. Closenplay 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Resolute 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Band and is also crystalballery. We don't do up and comming unless the band has been discovered by a giant of the music scene, signed to a massive label and is certain of future success. A1octopus 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Added 3 Syracuse newspaper references and a web news article to assist in notability. Removed some of the furure-isms to address crystalballery. --Bren ^talk 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wavering a bit on my nom due to the additional info. Still, does local notability cut it? It looks like the new references are two album reviews, a press release-type thing about them playing a hockey game, and an article about them getting their music on purevolume.com. I'm not swayed enough to rescind my nom, but I did want to credit the additional work done since my nom. Closenplay 10:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relisting due to sources being added late. --W.marsh 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, some notability is established through a couple sources but I'm not certain if it's enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BAND Rackabello 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet criteria.--Svetovid 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've decided to come down on the inclusionist side of things. I think that the added references are enough to meet WP:BAND—multiple non-trivial references. Closenplay 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment re the two deletes after the AfD relist: can I get an explaination of why this article fails WP:BAND? Point one states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The article has now been modified to meet this criteria, so I'd just appreciate a little more on your reasoning. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it still doesn't fit the criteria. Seems to me like most of this stuff comes from a primary source, which is the band's website. You're gonna need to get more secondary and tertiary sources. MySpace doesn't count. (→zelzany - fish) 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to WP:BAND, it doesn't need to meet criteria (plural)—only one criterion, which it does: [s]ubject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: Most of the Post-Standard articles are indeed non-trivial, combined with the article from the college newspaper (which WP:BAND says should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis regarding triviality, and that is too long of an article to consider trivial) certainly fits the bill. I also see on the band's website (and it could likely be backed up with old club schedules online) that the band did an East Coast (New York through Georgia) tour in February (which would cover another of the criteria). Closenplay 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The well put-together layout of the article makes me overlook the "soft" notability. Unless we're running out of trees to print the hardcopy Wikipedia, this is way, way down on my list of things that should be chucked.--Mike18xx 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edith Grove

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE. Seemingly a local band, with no real press coverage outside of Albuquerque[7] CA387 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. New Mexico media coverage passes the "reliable sources" test, and hence the band passes WP:BAND. There is an allmusic.com listing at http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=EDITH|GROVE&sql=11:wxfwxqqgldde~T2 The article doesn't menbtion which label the albums are on, though, suggesting that they may be self-released. --Eastmain 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the link I gave doesn't really justify a keep vote, per WP:SPS. A Google news search returns zero results,[8] while a Google search returns a mere 350—none of which merit inclusion under WP:MUSIC.[9] --CA387 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. I'd like to note that the article is not about a band, it's about a woman. This woman appears to have been mentioned in the albuquerque press somewhat and thus seems to meet one of the criteria for inclusion set forth in WP:MUSIC, unless local newspapers don't count. --Leon Sword 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Says who? The only source I can find is her webpage: something we can't bring into the AfD per WP:SPS. --CA387 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seemingly local only, plus there's only one real source, which is primary. MySpace doesn't count as a source. It's gonna need nationwide coverage of reliable sources, in which that will establish its notability. (→zelzany - fish) 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to a new name and Cleanup -- Creator of article needs to look at Merit (band) for good pointers. (I suggest he create a new article named Edith Grove (band), and move the work so far over, then turn this one into a redirect.)--Mike18xx 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails notability by lack of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, and I don't see any redeeming factor. Only two wikilinks to the article, and one refers to a different subject. If it's kept it really ought to be moved to Edith Grove (band), since Edith Grove is apparently a place in London. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete. If local town press is all you need for notability we'll have 1,000,000 band articles at Wikipedia. Local press coverage doesn't prove that she is notable for anything, unless it asserts that she is notable for something. So as is, I think this article fails the spirit of WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun Trivia

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

Delete - Article looks like spam. All information (and there's a ton of it) is taken direct from the website. There is no independent source for any of the information, no indication that it meets any of the WP:WEB notability guidelines, and tags pointing out that the info reads like an ad and lacks sources have been ignored by active editors, who appear to be affiliated with the site. I don't think this meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and the tags haven't led to any improvement, so now putting up for deletion. DreamGuy 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails W:WEB. I'd have said give the editors more time but if they've ignored tags I guess they've had their chance. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I did a search for news coverage and the like, but nothing came up. Unless someone comes up with some reliable sources... this is a delete for lacking notability. Polenth 02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep based on the age (websites from 1994 are pretty much the foundation of the internet). Assuming that factlet can be verified, that is. The article is highly advertorial in tone, and way too long, and contains too much trivia. >Radiant< 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure how age gives it any sort of notability. In fact, in this case that might be a stronger argument that it's not notable. It's been around since at least 1996 (according to archive.org -- though I don't know if it's the same site or just one that was there at the time under a different owner) and never managed to get any reliable third party sources etc. (per WP:WEB to acknowledge its existence? Wow. And the Wikipedia article itself only sprung up a few months ago. DreamGuy 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say that it's age is fairly notable, if true, because most sites die only after a few years. Eleven years is a long time, especially on the internet. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC) -- now that I look back on this comment, I wonder where I got the number 11 from. Maybe I misread it as from 1996, or my poor math skills are shining through :p --Android Mouse 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot of sites in the 10ish years age bracket. It really isn't that rare. We'd have thousands of articles on minor personal homepages if age made a site notable. Polenth 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• More to the point, we have a thing here called WP:WEB we have to follow. This article pretty clearly doesn't meet it as it stands now, as it has no reliable outside references, etc. If the age of a site made something notable, that'd be in WP:WEB, wouldn't it? Why do we have two people here just kind of making up their own reasons off the top of their heads what makes something notable when we have criteria to determine that? DreamGuy 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here are two non-trivial reviews, both from magazines: [11] [12]. The traffic ranking of ~5k isn't that bad either [13] --Android Mouse 20:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Those two links are exactly the definition of trivial reviews as listed on WP:WEB "Trivial coverage, such as [...] 3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site" -- those aren't real articles, they are just extremely brief summaries, a paragraph or less. In order to meet WP:WEB you need to find "newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" that aren't short clips. DreamGuy 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site", it's also a review. --Android Mouse 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not claim that we should have articles on all websites over a certain age. Rather, I claim that being (one of) the first major sites to do something in particular is probably a sign of notability. >Radiant< 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Slight keep. per radiant. --Android Mouse 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, spam, bacon, eggs and spam. Groupthink 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the only source there is in the article shouldn't even be a source, which is the website itself. There needs to be reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Furthermore, it's written like an ad, which isn't allowed. (→zelzany - fish) 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Deklete - unsourced spam. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Pink as the canned spam, but possibly the subject is notable regardless of how crappy the article is -- anybody voting Keep should scrounge around and just fix it. (Note: I've been on the internet almost every day since 1994, and I've never heard of this site until now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike18xx (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of companies working in Technopark

List of companies working in Technopark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is a simple directory of 108 companies, only 8 of which have their own articles. There is only one article that links to it.  Ronz  18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory of businesses. The Technopark, Kerala article can link to an external site if somebody desires such a directory. FrozenPurpleCube 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. The list of companies can be found on the official website -- include a link to it in the article on Technopark, if you wish. utcursch | talk 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this linkfarm. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK prohibit this sort of list. (Requestion 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
• Delete, it's a directory. --Tone 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Use of the term 'Technopark' is not limited to a location in Kerala, too. Pavel Vozenilek 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with other Technoparks or Delete- Technopark is not limited to Kerala. R 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Technopark, Kerala Standalone article is cruftesque.--Blueboy96 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not suitable for merging. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. (→zelzany - fish) 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge then delete: --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, it also filled with what appears to be non-notable companies. The Filmaker 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, on the strength of arguments. I will rename the article, but that's me acting on my own, not a result of the debate. A category may be a good idea, but "categorize" is a bit much to ask in a debate. If someone thinks a category would be worthwhile, make one, and then you can try to argue that this list duplicates the category. Mangojuice^talk 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports lists

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

Contested prod. It's a list of lists. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Most of these "lists" don't even have separate entries in Wikipedia. Too many redlinks for my taste.--Ispy1981 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - red linkfarm. Otto4711 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Adds valuable information for those looking for information on sports lists players are placed on-- --Josh 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a red-link farm is, in this case, not useful; furthermore, the blue-link lists do not even point to lists, but to articles. --Iamunknown 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a useful article that just needs a better title, such as "Lists in sports". Every sports league has a "list" or lists. I think it's useful. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh... WP:USEFUL isn't really valid you know. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And you are quoting an essay not a guideline. An essay that makes it clear that "useful" can be valid in some circumstances. In this case, it's a widely used term that has many applications in the sports world. I just think it has a poor, misleading title. Doesn't necessarily mean that the information should be nuked. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - "List of lists" is a misnomer. It is a list of different classifications for players in various sports. The fact that the sports all classify the players as on the xyz list does not make this article a list of lists, in the way that the term is normally bandied about here at AFD. The designations implicit in each of these lists is verifiable, and not original research. Is it good to lump all the sport lists together like this? Probably not. Is it a deletable offense? I doubt it. A better way to write the article would be to mention how each league maintains different classifications/lists of players for teams, and (possibly split into new article) go on to explain those lists. Expanding to cover similar lists in non-US leagues would be good as well. Neier 09:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Personally, this could do better as a category, but that's just me. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Neier. This article badly needs a lead and maybe a rename to explain what it is about: Official player designations in team sports where there are often different rules regarding players with different designations. This topic is probably notable. I don't know the most common name for it. The "lists" in the title has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Lists. Some of the redlinks should probably be changed to unlinked bold text. PrimeHunter 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added a short lead [16]. PrimeHunter 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the point that this is not a list of lists in the Wikipedia sense (which would be an article listing articles which are lists), it is simply an article which is a list. No clear policy-based case for deletion has been made, and although not much has been put into this article, I think it is a valid stub and should be kept. I would say the ideal progression of this article would be to have fully developed sections for each sport, of a paragraph or so per sports list. From there it can be split into a separate article per sport, and if and when a specific sports list entry grows considerably, it can be replaced with a summary and have the typical canned "main article" link to the full article. I concede that red links should be removed from this list except where good judgment suggests that there are enough sources available to develop more than a stub article. BigNate37_(T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: it should be noted that the main contributor to this article, Josh (SportsMasterESPN), has asked the following users to contribute to this AfD discussion: Vikreykja [17], Ebryns427 [18], Phoenixrod [19], Woohookitty [20], BigNate37 (me) [21], Kelly_Martin [22], Kfrogers [23], Burntsauce [24], Sebastiankessel [25]. This could be construed to be canvassing... I'm a little rusty on policy, so could someone please see if there's anything to this? BigNate37_(T) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, you could read Wikipedia:Canvassing, where it says that limited posting with neutral tone to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing and, considering that his or her messages certainly qualify as such, it could not be construed as canvassing. --Iamunknown 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Err... dunno. I'll admit, they are neutral thankfully. But it's borderline as to being "limited" from my point of view. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • add-on er... looking at the people, it is actually. Kfrogers hasn't edited in all of 2007, sebastian since the end of may. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Canvassing says an arbitrator wrote "... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." None of the 9 people have edited it and they were all asked to comment. The identical messages said "I was hoping you would take part in this, and voice your opinion on this issue". PrimeHunter 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Incidentally, was that "I was hoping ... you would voice your opinion on the issue" a call to arms for deletions or for inclusionists? No. Please, spare us the grief. It wasn't canvassing. --Iamunknown 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll admit, it's sort of borderline. I do think that should be cleared up though, what's an "acceptable" number of people to ask for their opinion. (please, no more comments after this, I'm moving this particular discussion to the WP:CANVAS talk page) Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• They have not edited the article because it was up for deletion right when I created it. They did edit articles about the Disabled-list and ect. which is included in the article.--Josh 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, that makes sense. In that case, I think the solicitation was warranted, and I hope my raising the concern didn't distract the debate from its main subject. BigNate37_(T) 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Turn to Category - I don't think we should lose valuable info, but maybe a category is a better way of grouping those articles. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now. At the moment, there are only a few of those that actually exist. Once more are created, categorify. --Rory096 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this was intended to be a list of articles, and I don't think it should be. It is the start of an article by itself and only has "lists" in the name because it is about real-world lists. The creator chose a list-like structure and made too many redlinks so it looks like a Wikipedia article list. Some of the mentioned real-world lists (and the connection betweem them) seem worth mentioning in this article but not suitable for their own article, so categorization could not collect this information. PrimeHunter 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an indiscriminate list of information. (→zelzany - fish) 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: While this article's subject(s)' notability may be questionable, I don't think any of the criteria at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information match the article being discussed here. The statment that it is an "indiscriminante collection of information" is false because there is a discriminating quality for inclusion in this article. Even if the quoted statement were true, it is too generic to qualify under this policy's specific list of consensus-based descriptions of what an article should not be. BigNate37_(T) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Convert to category -- the phrase "Sports lists" is highly generic and likely to be typed into the search-box by a lot of readers. I haven't even looked at the article -- it could be total garbage -- but something should be done with these two words. (In fact, "sport lists" and "sports list" should all merge together.)---Mike18xx 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But I'm going to just redirect instead; no harm in the redirect itself, and no harm in allowing people to work on more merging to the Cumberland School of Law page, although it does already talk about the center in what I think is approximately appropriate detail. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland Law School's Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics

Cumberland Law School's Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable academic center at university; most of article is trivialities, what is notable could be easily merged with the law school's article. Brianyoumans 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Editing, rather than deletion would solve the "trivia" issue. Also the above comments are conclusory statements that are not supported by any reasons or facts. The center is notable according to Wikipedia standards for several reasons that are easily verifiable: 1) its academic production in law journals easily exceeds the recognition required by Wikipedia, 2) the center is unique in the U.S., particularly amongst law schools for its emphasis on researching methodology 3) in approximately 5 years the center has effectively attracted a numerous experts in a variety of fields to write upon and meet about national issues, 4) it is not an academic center, it is a research center, therefore its sphere of influence will generally be limited to the academic and research community. Sweetmoose6

• • In general, academic or research centers associated with universities are covered in the main article, unless they have significant notability on their own. This center is less than 4 years old. There is a list of graduates, but none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or indeed any information on their notability. No associated faculty is mentioned other than Smolin, the director, who has his own article. The accomplishments of the center seem to consist of holding a series of conferences, and I don't think that good claims of notability are made for the conferences. I don't see any claims that the center has been influential - had its curriculum copied by other institutions, produced scholars who have started similar programs, etc - and indeed it would be surprising if such a new program was influential. Brianyoumans 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Weak keep but aggressively edit, especially section 2 onwards - these symposiums (symposia?) can be summarised very briefly without giving full details, and we really don't need the lists of individuals or of courses unless there is anything remarkable about them. Alternatively, merge into Cumberland School of Law per suggestion of Brianyoumans. Barnabypage 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • The notability has little to do with the conferences but rather with the volume and quality of scholarship produced by the Center. The reason it is notable is because there has been a lot of it and hardly anyone is doing it. If the conference information reflected that then maybe there could be a compromise here. Sweetmoose6 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is always difficult for one not in the field to measure an organization or individual's prominence within it. However it is notable that there is no mention of this Center in the National Institute of Health's listing of bioethics resources, including their list of academic centers and educational sites. The Georgetown University law library has a short listing of bioethics research centers; this center is not one of them. The Hastings Center, which seems to be rather prominent in the field, has a more extensive list of links, but Cumberland is still not included. The University of Pittsburgh has a rather extensive list of bioethics resources, but does not list Cumberland anywhere that I can see. Etc. In fact, searching on "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" gives you around 80 unique Google hits, most of them directory entries, Wikipedia mirrors, and mentions in the CVs of presenters at the conferences. By random comparison, "Cleveland State University" and "bioethics" gives you over 18000 ghits, 576 unique. Brianyoumans 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • COMMENT: The center studies the ethical and legal implications of biotechnology, not just a broad application of bioethics like all of these other places you mention. That is, in part, what makes the Center unique because it is devoted to biotechnology research and not general bioethics, which could mean just about anything. I also think 80 unique google hits is more than enough to satisfy Wiki notability, but it seems obvious that a state school would have many more hits related to bioethics than a law school would. Cleveland has about 10,000 undergraduates and the Cumberland has about 500 students. Sweetmoose6 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • And because CLS's Center consists of one faculty member and his students, and the Cleveland State center has 5 faculty? And I don't think it is particularly notable for a bioethics program; it isn't mentioned in the Cleveland State University article, for instance. Brianyoumans 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • The point wasn't about the size of the center but that the terms of the search were much more likely to produce innumberable random references. Sweetmoose6 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • And my understanding is that the question is whether this Center is notable by Wikipedia's own standards and not how notable it is in comparison with something else, however closely related.[28] Sweetmoose6 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way this you seem to allege that this falls into questionable notability is under Wikipedia's "Significant coverage." You noted at least 80 independent websites in a google search. Isn't this enough? And this also reaches only purely online resources. What about off-line journal citations? Sweetmoose6 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are presently no secondary sources concerning the Center listed in the article, except for two articles in the college newspaper (Cumberland Law School being part of Samford University). There may be 80 unique google hits for "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology", but as I pointed out, the quality of the pages is very poor - 5 of the first 10 listings are either Wikipedia or mirrors of Wikipedia, for instance. Many of the listings which are not Wiki mirrors or directory listings are in fact pages where "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" simply happen to occur in the same page, and are not references to the Center. I was not able to find ANY news articles or even blogs that discussed the Center or its work, even briefly. Brianyoumans 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because they are not in the article does not mean that they do not exist at all. As for news articles, many newspapers do not keep articles online because of natural limitations, and articles are only available in print.

I'm also not certain a biotechnology research center would be a highly referenced source in your typical "blog." I'm not sure the "blog" audience is the targeted audience here.Sweetmoose6 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete on the basis of the information in the article--

1/N is claimed merely on account of "only one of its kind in the United States, focusing on the ethics and legal implications of biotechnology, rather than an emphasis on general bioethics. " which is really straining after a distinction. 2/It consists of an "office and library at the law school. Two fellows, and several assistant researchers serve for one year terms." (see #4--they are just law students, not distinguished scholars) 3/ It makes a big deal out of its speakers at the conferences but " Center for Biotechnology, Law, and Ethics, Cumberland Law School, Samford University, the Cumberland Law Review, and Cumberland Law School's Chapter of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA)'--various parts of the same university. Later ones had additionally U Alabama Birmingham. 4/to make up enough content for an article, it reprints the program for the conferences and the name of the individual law students who were the fellows. 5/ their notable scholarly output is published only in their own journal. 6/A consistent pattern of very distinguished speakers makes for notability . One or 2 a year for 5 years doesn't quite qualify. The only one always present is the director. He's listed once or twice each year DGG 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, `'юзырь:mikka 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No evidence has been produced that it is a/notable by the standards of anyone not at the School, b/ has a particularly high production ain terms of either quantity or quality c/has published anything at all of particular notability or held a single separately notable conference. This is a mere attempt to get a second article for a throughly undistinguished law school. This sort of article is what merge is for. DGG 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While these are fine opinions, I don't see any reference to Wikipedia's standards in them at all. I think it has been established by the critical evidence offered that this center fits with Wikipedia's standard for notability if not maybe individual user's personal standards. This is a purely technical issue about standards. If the article needs editing that is a different matter. User:Sweetmoose617:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • quote: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

User:Sweetmoose6]]17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

notability means having attracted notice, and we usually ask for it to be more than local. That larger organizations will attract more notice is part of the nature of things, not bias. In general, separate research units are kept only for the most important organizations in the most important universities, for the others are--well, just not noticed all that much except on their own campus. DGG 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge a small portion into Cumberland School of Law. Samford University is notable; the law school is notable; sub-units of the law school are not notable. If it was an arm of Harvard or Yale law schools or something, maybe; but Samford U and Cumberland are relatively obscure entities. The entity has two fellows, which I guess means it has two employees, basically. I've never heard of the any of the people who have spoken there, which may say more about me than about the article, but it's not like they're getting UN General Secretaries and so forth. There is a limit and this is under it. Herostratus 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are multiple secondary and tertiary sources to establish the notability. (→zelzany - fish) 00:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esteem

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

Dicdef which isn't even close to being a proper article, if one could even be written. PC78 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with, or re-direct to, self-esteem. Bearian 20:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. DicDef. Herostratus 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This was created in 2003 and nobody noticed? How interesting. But to get to the point, it's a dictionary definition and should belong at the proper entry on Wiktionary. (→zelzany - fish) 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, why cant this become a useful article? It is linked from a number of articles, so I think calls to delete this dictdef would need to consider how to fix all of those. I dont think self-esteem is an appropriate merge/redirect target as that meaning isnt what is meant on dignity. John Vandenberg 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are actually only seven articles that link to this one. That's not a lot, and those links can easily be removed if necessary. PC78 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I dont have a problem with a delete outcome, but my original question still remains: why cant esteem be an encyclopedic topic? if it is an encyclopedic topic, yet the current article is just a dictdef, then the current article should be expanded rather than deleted. John Vandenberg 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it could be expanded into a useful article, but after four years it's not like it hasn't had its chance. At present it's a redundant dicdef, and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. PC78 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed it could become an encyclopedic article. A vast opus on differences in esteem among cultures of the ages. But without any interest, I agree it may as well be deleted for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A redirect to self-esteem seems pointless since it is an off-shoot of esteem, but we're still looking for esteem. Wikipedia is not dictionary. The Filmaker 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Walton

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

No evidence of subjects notability, looks a lot like a vanity page. ornis 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, Fails WP:BIO --ROASTYTOAST 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, other than as a footnote--Ispy1981 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "one of the first 100" to have paid for a trip into space. Definition of non-notabilityDGG 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sometimes we have to look beyond the article. This man is notable as a businessman in biotechnology and there are many ghits for him. I'm going there now to try and sustain the article. JodyB _talk 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jody is right, and there is absolutely enough. The material she's been adding is certainly quite sufficient.. Professor of macromolecular science at Case Western Reserve, honorary degree, member of US advisory committees, Chairman or President of several companies, etc. Ref from NY Times. I'll add some of the academic stuff. I'm glad she knew about him, and I wish the guy who started the article had thought to use even Google. People have been putting on and off tags for almost a year, but nobody tried to improve it until Jody did. I congratulate her on the rescue! DGG 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. Uh, I guess I should say that I am a man -- and a pretty ugly one at that! JodyB _talk 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per above two keeps. --Android Mouse 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep After some edits, the article has sources to establish the notability. (→zelzany - fish) 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep - notability seems proven now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. (without prejudice, if further sources are found). Mangojuice^talk 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Hodgson Liddell

Thomas Hodgson Liddell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability in the article and no sources. Sparse GHits with no distinctions, awards, or honors. Clarityfiend 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Clarityfiend; also unsourced. --ROASTYTOAST 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. JJL 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Member of Royal Society of British Artists, which seems important--Whistler was a member, and certainly is a assertion of notability. We need some more time on this one.DGG 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix I have no problem with obsure articles on obscure artists from way back in the misty days of yore when some talent (rather than grants for "phart" hacks) was actually necessary to sell one's work. The mere fact that you can still buy this man's book 98 years after its first publication ought to account for SOME notability.--Mike18xx 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Filmaker 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete keep - I added one ref. There is very little on him outside of a couple ghits, some of which seem to be genealogy-related. I can't tell if it could ever pass WP:BIO, especially as I don't expect much of substance about him has been published in reliable independent secondary sources. I could be wrong though. However, he's a deceased painter, his stuff being for sale sort of passes a test-of-time test for me personally, and I think it's perhaps part of Wikipedia's mandate to have at least a little information on very obscure artists of the past. I've looked up very minor painters myself, and was disappointed to not find anything on them here. I admit my argument is weak, but I feel better advocating a keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gohar Shahi

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

This page has been deleted several times, usually as a copyright violation from this religious leader's web page. It seems the followers of Gohar Shahi are determined to add a page on him to Wikipedia (article creator, Iamsaa (talk · contribs), is apparently "the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet"[31]). An AfD may sort this out further as to whether this is a topic to be covered (perhaps by editors with far less of a conflict-of-interest) or deleted and salted.

The article (completely copied at User:Iamsaa) fails to have any semblance of sourcing beyond the groups own websites. There's 170 unique Google hits for "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi", and a cursory look at some of them indicate that it may be difficult to find any source from which to base a neutral article. The current article is most certainly not neutral. I'd argue that this article should be deleted based on failing verifiability policy, lacking independent reliable sources, and may be an unsalvagable case of POV (spam-ish, even). — Scientizzle 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

comment "In 1994, in Manchester England, some people pointed out the image of Gohar Shahi on the Moon. Thereafter many eyewitness accounts were reported from different countries. Photographs were taken of the Moon by using video equipment. Photographs of the Moon were then obtained from different countries and the Space agency NASA. In the beginning the facial images on these photographs were light. For the last two years the images on the Moon have become so clear that they can be seen without the use of binoculars or computer equipment" I was going to suggest rewriting this from a factual viewpoint, I realise now that might be tricky. Nick mallory 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite... — Scientizzle 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and lock page so no new article can be recreated - if the article has already been deleted in the past, especially several time, and a new article created ignoring previous deletes, then this thing can be speedily deleted and the earth salted. DreamGuy 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I with you all the way, but I avoided speedy deleting it myself because it is plausible that this man is a subject worth covering...certainly not in the way the article currently stands, of course. Additionally, I'd prefer to have a gauged consensus to justify any future deletion/salting rather than act unilaterally in opposition to an editor determined to promote his guru. Of course, if someone does speedily delete and salt this article, I won't lose a wink of sleep. — Scientizzle 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It should not be salted if there is still the possibility of creating a legitimate encyclopedia aritcle. If that possibility exists, the present article should be replaced by a better and more encyclopedic one. This therefore comes down to a question of notability -- first off, is this guy notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? If so, then there should be one even if this ain't it. Otherwise, then yes, it would probably be a good idea to both delete and salt the page so it can't be used for all this biased tar. mike4ty4 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

May I take this opportunity to thank all guys on Wikipedia, yes, I have tried many times on Wikipedia to add article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi with no success. Let me tell you though we are Muslims but extremist and anti-sufi groups are after us in Pakistan. Strong lobbies are working against His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi even the Government of Sindh itself involve against His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Getting justice through Pakistani courts is nearly impossible. Media in Pakistan is producing wrong picture of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in public as a result the public in Pakistan consider us as a new sect or religion due to yellow journalism and negative propaganda by extremists Muslim groups. The teaching of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is based on spiritualism without any discrimination of cast, creed or religion. That’s the reason people of all sect and religion attracted towards His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and enlightened their hearts with his blessings. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi says "In order to recognize, and to be able to approach the essence of Allah (God), learn spirituality (Ruhaniyat), no matter what religion or sect you belong to"

Let me tell you that I don’t know much about computing nor about English. English is not my mother tongue and its very difficult for me to read in English. However, I am an office bearer of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and whatever text I have copies is from our own website and I can take full responsibility of its content.

May I request you guys to kindly add this article of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi into Wikipedia and help me to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. I have add resources section in this column and try to provide you as much as I can.

Thank for your help & support.

Regards,

--سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (Iamsaa (talk · contribs))

• To User:Iamsaa: Trust me, you will not want Wikipedia to have an article on your beloved imam. Why, all I can find of him from newspapers on Factiva is that anything he writes is of late banned by the Pakistani government and to be destroyed immediately. Beyond that I cannot find any information on the imam himself. I take that as a good sign that we should not have an article on this religious teacher. Resurgent insurgent 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • However if he is notable enough he still should have an article -- that's what an encyclopedia is for, no? mike4ty4 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to warn the supporters of keeping this article that if their wish to keep it is granted, they will not be able to keep any reliably sourced negative information about this person and his followers out of the article. Tidbits such as:

  "Sindh Government has imposed ban on circular of Urdu Poster "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi - Imam Mehdi Al-Muntazir" purported to have been issued by Anjuman-i-Sarfroshan-i-Islam found pasted in some parts of Karachi. According to an official handout released here Saturday, the poster calls upon people to recognize Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as Imam Mehdi and contains material causing resentment among Muslims. The government has therefore declared that all copies of the poster are liable to be forfeited to the government with immediate effect, the handout said."

  So think very carefully, according to WP:COI. As far as the rest of the world goes this person appears to be some sort of Islamic crackpot. Resurgent insurgent 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Iamsaa (talk · contribs) has added some sources. — Scientizzle 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Attn: All,

I have added the article on Wikipedia because in my view the Wikipedia should have an article on world famous spiritual personality His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. I am still working on this article as this article is not complete yet, I am trying my level best to make it as an appropriate article for Wikipedia but it will take some time as you all can see that developments are coming in for this article and I am sure that once when this article is completed you will surely find it a source of information about His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

Meanwhile, may I request the administration of Wikipedia to kindly remove this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, so that I could work with concentration.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Kind regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 05:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as for all verifiable religious leaders. There are published sources for some of this, and from the discussion it looks like there should be more. Iamsaa could usefully find sources, but based on the present article he has COI that will prevent NPOV editing. I will however help him out by some very large deletions once the AfD is concluded.

It would of course be almost equally easy to start over again. But it would be totally incorrect and intolerant to salt, for the subject is notable. There seems to be some animus against his view, but WP does not base an article on agreement with the subjects theology. An attempt to show why he should not be covered because banned in some countries shows rather why he should, for it highlights the opposition some of his teaching has received. DGG 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but stubify. I suppose this guy has some followers therefore he probably rates an article. The current article is an insult. Cut it back to two declarative sentences (or one) and let someone write a short neutral article as befitting the person's likely marginal notability. If keeping the article in line proves too difficult, the stub can be protected and other protective measures taken. Herostratus 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this idea and will volunteer to stubify it myself upon close, if nobody objects...— Scientizzle 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There appears to be an effort by one user[32] to make sure there is Wikipedia coverage of this individual by the repetitive creation of new articles on him, using marginally different variations of the name. This user created five such articles so far, all now speedily deleted. There is a "profession of faith" from the same user also appearing on the talk page of the subject article, and similar statements by others. Given the persistence of the followers, enforcement of policies requiring encyclopaeic content will require some effort. Kablammo 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Soak the wood with gas, but wait a few days before tossing the match. If this article is still a glass-eyed proselytization rant on the 20th, char-broil it.--Mike18xx 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep per DGG. But note there is no shortage of SPAs promoting this imam and his foundation - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehdi Foundation International and the MfD for its creator's user page. Resurgent insurgent 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I suppose that, if the opposition from the Pakistani government that he has faced is well sourced, we could have an article on him; surely such sources would state that he was a religious leader of a non-standard religious group. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the article remains NPOV, and that any related articles are as well. Nyttend 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have drastically stubbified the article...I'm not too familiar with many of the ins, outs and what-have-yous of Islamic law, so I hope I've made a fair stub. I trimmed links and cats as well. — Scientizzle 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I consider the article much improved--it is now appropriate, & I urge re-visitng it to see the improvement. I note that the article on his group was deleted primarily as a hoax, because of their truly extraordinary belief that there is his image on the moon and the Black Stone--but it seems they do actually believe that. DGG 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite okay although I suppose first-timers to the article will be surprised why this guy is so disliked by the Pakistani govt. Resurgent insurgent 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, personally, that seems a good reason to keep, too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

comment Lose the gold border around the pic, and it looks good.--Mike18xx 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't do anything about the yellow border without actually modifying the picture (something I'm uninterested in doing). I suppose a little more information about the alleged crimes would be appropriate--I'll dig up something.

I've noticed there seems to be a broad edit war between two separate factions of Shahi disciples, each promoting a different website. Anyone have more info? — Scientizzle 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep: DGG has already offered to clean up the article. I'd say if he's banned in Pakistan, that makes him notable by virtue of the fact the government cares enough to ban him. However, I'd suggest DGG locks the page against new users - this page might need to be on a watch list to ensure followers don't re-introduce a COI problem. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable per numerous sources.--Sefringle^Talk 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I take this opportunity to thank all WP members who had been very helpful for me. My article has been drastically stubbified, however, I am of the view that this article should contain complete information about His Holiness Gohar Shahi. The current version of the article doesn’t state much about him, however, I would like to request the administration of WP to kindly allow me to provide you a complete profile of His Holiness Gohar Shahi, I will leave decision at you whether you will ad that into this article or not as I don’t want to violate the policies of WP.

Moreover, the present article depicts negative image of His Holiness Gohar Shahi for its readers. Let me tell you that His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is our Imam and we are proud to be his followers. As you must be aware the religious situation in Pakistan, fundamentalist and extremists have a very strong lobby and the Pakistani blasphemy Law is one of the instrument which can easily used against innocent and hundreds of people of different sects and religion have been brutally ruined and thousands of families have been suffered because of misuse of blasbhymy law, same was done with His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. So many false cases were filed against His Holiness Gohar Shahi and his followers as an attempt to stop the holy mission of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi has hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and around the globe. If you want I can provide you the evidence of the fact. Because of the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, which is for all humanity without any discrimination of cast, creed or religion, he was invited by almost all Muslim sects and non-Muslim religion to deliver speech and bless them with the divine love of God. But the Pakistani religious extremists targeted him because of the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi because people of all sects and religion have started to become the followers of His Holiness and the so-called Islamic clergy was afraid that His Holiness Gohar Shahi’s follower will become uncountable soon because the teachings of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi were attracting everyone we speedily. Regarding the images of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in the Moon, Sun, Black Stone and many other sacred places, please be informed that these sacred signs show that the God is with Gohar Shahi. The images are very clearly visible and everybody can see the images of Gohar Shahi especially in the Moon and the black stone of Kaa’aba. In fact we have appealed to Government of Pakistan as well to investigate this matter and bring the truth before the public.

I would like to further inform you that www.goharshahi.com doesn’t belong to His Holiness Gohar Shahi, which is being operated by Mehdi Foundation a self-made platform of anti-gohar elements. In the light of aforesaid facts may I request you to kindly limited the rights to amend the article on His Holiness Gohar Shahi.

In last thank you all for continuous help and support and look forward to an affirmative reply on above.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement--including religious beliefs--so I am skeptical of attempts to provide a "complete profile" of Shahi. In fact, if the profile is anything like the previous version of this article, I can guarantee that it will only end up looking like my stub version in short order. This is an encyclopedia that seeks neutral coverage of notable subjects, not propaganda (for or against). Inclusion of small, cited (from reliable sources, please), biographical facts may be appropriate, but any attempt by any editor to turn this article into sycophantic flattery or malicious disparagement will be reverted. Please understand this: the dedication of editors to maintaining a neutral point-of-view may be preventing you from painting the most favorable picture of your Imam, but it will also prevent his apparently numerous enemies from creating a more negative image... — Scientizzle 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability and context are asserted.Bakaman 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep. On raw numbers, the keepers have an edge, but not a great one.

As to the policy issues, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE was repeatedly cited as a reason to delete, with varying sections referred to. That policy is clear that consensus only exists about the ten numerically listed points. It's not clear from this discussion that it fails any of those points. My own opinion is that a plausible argument could be made it fails 7: plot summaries, but there was almost no discussion here of that point, so I won't delete on those grounds. The argument based on the directory section of the same policy is not persuasive. There were also several guideline-based arguments, mostly regarding WP:TRIVIA. TRIVIA doesn't apply because it is about trivia sections in articles, and (as indicated at the end of the intro) not whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. What's more, the guideline was meant to address unorganized lists of facts (trivia sections), which this list is not, since it has clear criteria for inclusion. Besides those issues, the debate is mostly about whether deaths are important enough to the Sopranos to justify having this list. That is a question of opinion that policy doesn't, or hasn't yet, clearly addressed, so the numbers carry the day.

I'll leave the derivative work issue to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--Chaser - T 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of deaths in The Sopranos series

List of deaths in The Sopranos series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I am aware that death scenes are notable within the fan community of The Sopranos and that they are noticeably grim and realistic. I fail to see how this list contains useful information. At this point, nearly every character who has had more than two lines on the show has been profiled on Wikipedia. So if reader seriously needed to know when and where a character died, than they could search the corresponding article. It also contains information on non-notable deaths and trivial statistics that are unsourced (and would be difficult to cite). These inclusions of trivial characters should be removed per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, pointless. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment That is not a valid reason for a delete --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is. An article that poses no useful information (or "no point") should not be kept on Wikipedia. The Filmaker 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. You can't just say "pointless" and think that will cut the mustard. Maybe you should read up on what to NOT say when voting on a deletion. It's a discussion. Discussions aren't based on 1 word. ELABORATE, and EXPLAIN why you THINK it's pointless. In that case, I can just vote on every single AfD with "pointless". C'mon now... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, maybe the act of simply stating "pointless" was not the correct route for the voter to take to state his opinion. However the point (no pun intended) of the article being pointless (i.e. lacking useful information"). The Filmaker 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Information about who died and how is available in the various character and episode articles. An exhaustive list of deaths is something more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or Merge I agree with sumnjim; this list makes it easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died, thus making it easier to find such information since it's all on one page. Also, what if a reader does not know the name of the dead character for whom they are searching? They could find their answer much quickly here with the images provided. Cliff smith 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, well first, sumnjim never actually stated his opinion on the deletion, just his opinion how the use of the single word "pointless". So there's nothing to agree with him with. If the reader does not know the name of the character, than it is most likely that the character is non-notable. Thus the information is trivial and should not be included per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Finally, it appears that images will soon be removed per the free-image policy be enacted on the article. The Filmaker 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you say about agreeing with sumnjim. As far as the pictures go, perhaps they should be moved to their respective characters if they will be removed from this list. Cliff smith 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Given how notable Sopranos is and how important the deaths are to the show, I vote for a keep. Obviously a 'Deaths on Seinfeld' wouldn't have the same effect.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is notable or true does not warrant an article. The deaths on the show are notable, however the article offers no commentary or reception information for the deaths. Just non-notable statistics and facts that are present in other articles. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps the article should be expanded instead of flatout deleted. Articles should only be deleted if there is no room for improvement.--CyberGhostface 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" thereby stating that the article is no more than a list. If it were to feature any commentary or reception than it would have expanded beyond it's purpose. It should than be titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" at which point it would be realized that a list of every single death is not needed and it would only discuss the notable deaths (such as Big ). The Filmaker 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, the Sopranos has been an incredible show over the years. Deaths have played a major role in this series. --Dodge Dude 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This page is a very great suppliment to the other Sopranos articles out there. Wanting it deleted because it's "pointless" is just silly. If you want to be that way, I vote to delete Fart because I think THAT is pointless --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The "pointless" comment was made by another user. Not by me. Please read my other comments before you vote. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said you said it :) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you replied only to that comment and none of my own, implied that that was what you believed. I meant no offense. The Filmaker 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A very useful navigation device, especially when you don't know the name of the character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft; if the character's death is important it should be in the main article; if not, it's just trivia. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that it's a great navigation tool.--MistaTee 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We are starting to stretch the extent of convenience and navigation. Should also place a List of characters that have appeared to Tony Soprano's dreams? The dreams are a notable element to the series. These are convenient but are they needed when the reader has an easy enough time finding the information in the first place? The Filmaker 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion above. Sfufan2005 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What discussion? It's pretty much me stating why I feel the article should be deleted and one man with one comment refuting one statement. Which I have responded to. What discussion? The Filmaker 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an immensely popular series, and the deaths are an important aspect of it. That this would be even nominated for deletion is absurd. MattHucke^(t) 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the series is popular is not in question, nor is the notability of the deaths in the series. But, how is this list useful? The reason why the deaths are notable is not discussed within the article (and technically should not be as this is merely supposed to be a "list" of deaths) there is not useful information. As for navigation, it is unneeded as well, the deaths can be found in corresponding episode and character articles. The Filmaker 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I come to see this page frequently, this MUST BE KEPT! The Sopranos is a very important television show and the deaths are a very key point of the series, this page cannot be taken away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.60.4 (talk • contribs)

This comment does not seem to refute anything I've stated above. The Filmaker 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have had so much interesting reading on Wikipedia about this series and this list is one of my favorites. I can't see a reason why it should be deleted. cun 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you have not bothered to read any of the my comments above. The Filmaker 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That, or he just doesn't agree with them.--CyberGhostface 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CyberGhostface is right. Keep this lovable and highly interesting list! cun 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Highly interesting" is not a criteria for articles to be kept. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Why not keep articles and lists that people actually do find interesting and useful? cun 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone been reading any of the comments I have posted in reply to any of these oppositions? First, just because an article is somewhat interesting or true does not warrant it to be kept, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, how is the article useful, at most it can be used as a navigation tool. But it is easy enough for readers to find information on the deaths of key characters through corresponding character and episode articles. If you are speaking of trivial characters such as Man #1 than they should not be included for being non-notable and trivial, per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The Filmaker 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information. This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts. The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it. The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story (although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show). cun 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information.

But is not indiscriminate.

This list is not indiscriminate. That's an axiom. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The list contains information every single death in The Sopranos series. Including every character such Man #1, little boy on bike, and even animals. How is that not indiscriminate? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I agree to a certain point that information like that is criticizable, but they do not destroy the overall impression. Animals are dealt with on a separate part of the list and therefore not interfering with the main list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about the article as a whole, animals an element of the list. So you understand that this information is easy to criticize, yet it does not deserve to be deleted.

• "Easy to criticize" does not automatically mean worthy of deletion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase, easy to criticize, meaning there is a problem with the article. The problem needs to be fixed either now or later. The problem cannot be fixed now and it cannot be fixed later. Thus either some reorganizing is in order or we need to get rid of the problem.

This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts.

Interest is not criteria for an article to be kept, it does not contribute a huge source for navigation, trivia is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I never mentioned spam.

Common interest is of course a criteria for an article to be kept. We don't want to read articles about the ordinary Joe, but those phenomenons of art, culture, history, science etc that affect a lot of people. It does contribute a huge source of navigation and greater understanding of the power relationships in the show. Trivia should be allowed on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. As far as I'm concerned, first and foremost spam is the kind of thing we should concentrate on ridding Wikipedia of, not relevant lists like this.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is true or interesting does not mean it is relevant enough for Wikipedia. You believe trivia should be included, which as you said, is a different discussion. So I can't change your opinion on this.

• • • • • I don't understand your animosity towards this list. I think the list is relevant enough for Wikipedia. Seems we are just in a fundamental disagreement.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you believe trivia should be allowed. I along with many others do not. But according to Wikipedia policy, this information should not remain.

• I don't see that clearly through the indiscriminate stuff you linked to.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more WP:TRIVIA.

The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it.

The information is available elsewhere in better and more accessible articles.

No, it's not. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. All of the relevant information within the article is available in corresponding character articles and episode articles, not to mention the main Sopranos article.

• • • • • No article or list sums up the clear cut action that defines the overall story in such a short manner like this death list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the deaths are the overall story? Now we're just getting into philiosophy here. The overall story is not marked by the deaths. Yes, the deaths are a milestone, but they are not the only milestones. The information is available elsewhere.

• The deaths are crucial in defining the overal story arc. Filtered information about something important as this is a great way to understand The Sopranos better.

Where is this defining information coming from? I see a list of characters who died, who killed them, in which episode, and how (nothing about relationships, the actual physical action of how they died). Unless this supposed act of defining the overall story is defined in the prose itself, then the act is not properly, if at all, being defined.

The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story

The fact that the deaths are important to the story has nothing to do with the deletion of this list. The list does not contain any commentary or reception on the "realism" of the deaths in The Sopranos. And if they were added, the article would no longer be a "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" in would now need to be renamed "Deaths in The Sopranos series" which would not require a list and would remove all of the non-notable characters and would discuss only the most notable deaths, such as Big . However, now we're getting into a totally different article. If someone wants to start this new article. Fine. But since it is a complete turn around from this article. This article should be deleted.

The list should shortly explain why the deaths occured in the commentary fields as a means of greater understanding of the power relations, as mentioned above.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This information can be found in the character and episode articles as well.

• • • • • Again, not in the same, clear way as stated above.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, the manner of death is specifically stated any character or episode articles you can find. Perhaps even more in depth then this current death list.

• We beg to differ ^^ cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is we? The other voters? The majority of which have simply stated that The Sopranos is important and the deaths are important? I don't believe you can honestly speak for everyone here.

"We" as in you and me. We differ from each other in opinion cun 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to paint a picture of the vast realism of the Sopranos compared to other television. We're here to state fact. Realism is not mentioned in the article, if it's going to be mentioned it should be in the manner stated above. The Filmaker 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This list is encyclopedic in nature as it states fact within a fictitious world in a correct and concrete manner.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And? I agree, how is that refuting my statement? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, then I don't understand your animosity towards the list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My "animosity" is that it is filled with information that is available elsewhere, information that is trivial, and serves only as an unneeded navigation point and offers and could not offer any meaningful information without having to rename and totally revitalize the article (at which point a completely different article should be started). The Filmaker 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is unneeded, though. You have some good points, but I think Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where "house-trainism" is the norm. Be bold and make unusual and original lists, although they never would have surfaced in other encyclopedias.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you feel that it is unneeded, then how is it needed. At what point is there a need for this list. Not as a minor convenience. I'm saying, if this went away tomorrow would no one be able to find the relevant information that's stored on it. For that matter, is a reader actually looking for this article? Are they hoping when they are browsing the main Sopranos page that they can find a list of people who died? No, they are going to look for the character and the episode article. This list is only a minor convenience on those happen to find it when the majority of readers will be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sumnjim and CyberGhostface. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is repeatedly cited by the Filmaker but I don't believe any of the examples apply to this article. MrBlondNYC 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While not explicitly stated in the article example #1 is a good representation. Still, these are just examples and not specific criteria. The lines that more deal with the issue are "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It appears to be very specific to me. I don't think #1 (FAQ's) remotely applies and I disagree that the article represents Wikipedia as "an indiscriminate collection of items". May I make a suggestion? Could you please stop with the "No one has bothered to read any of my comments" and the "Has anyone been reading any of my comments?" It's a bit condescending to say people are not reading or comprehending your arguments. People are reading them and...disagreeing with them. Capice?
      • No, actually I won't. Since the majority of people either do not bother to recognize the reasons for deletion or they simply type the relatively same sentence as everyone else "The Sopranos is famous and the deaths are important". Since no one until cun above as bothered to refute my statements, I highly doubt that anyone has bothered to read them. The Filmaker 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Given that the Sopranos has reached such a level of fame then details concerning it become useful to people. People may often want to look up details of a series like this. This happens when a TV show goes from being popular to being regarded as creative and worthy of high esteem. Heliumballoon 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, you believe that this page would be useful for fans............ how? I understand that some fans might like to look it up. But at what point does this page become useful? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For people interested in finding out details of the deaths in the series. And given how popular it is - very useful for them. To question usefulness here is very silly. Why is an article on mice useful? Only if you are interested in finding out mice. Why is an article about Bob the Builder useful? Because people want to know about it. If people deem something worthy of knowing about and reading about, then it is by definition useful. Heliumballoon 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, no, that is not the definition of useful. The definition is "capable of being put to use" at what point can I put the information that Man #1 was killed in episode 13 by Christopher Molasanti, to use? No, this information is trivial. An article on mice can at least feature information on how mice behave and allow the reader to further understand how mice are born, live and die. This only features a list of deaths (information which appears in other, more suitable, places). Yes, there is line between interesting and useful. Purely interesting information is allowed on Wikipedia. However, purely interesting articles are not. Especially when the information is present useful articles. The Filmaker 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting and informing article about one of the most popular television shows in recent history. Salvag 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so it's kinda fun. How is it useful information? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why mark for deletion now? This article has been up for at least a few years (that I can recall) and contains important information on the program. I find the timing of call for deletion . . . interesting. With all of the hype over the show in recent weeks, someone has decided they don't particularly like a certain wikipedia article they found looking for information on the show? All of the 'pros' listed above are valid points whereas the 'cons' seem to be nit-picky and overly concerned about narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. Not trying to rake on anyone with my opinion, it's just how I see it. Danno49 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, first, you haven't bothered to refute any of the deletion rationales other than that they are "nit-picky". Also, timing has nothing to do with it. I found the article and disagreed with it being on Wikipedia. The amount of time an article has been active as nothing to with deletion policy. The Filmaker 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much, is that it includes unusual lists like this. It would be a great shame if such original lists would be banished. cun 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • These unusual lists might be fun, but Wikipedia is not simply supposed to be a fun source of information (that isn't to say that it's not supposed to be fun). This is why many editors have voted into policy the sections that this article violates. The Filmaker 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Has someone told you that Wikipedia is a nightmare to have a discussion in? ^^ I think the seriousness will damage Wikipedia and make it a greyer place, but that's another discussion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I am not saying that the project must be stone-cold serious. But it is referred to as a project, as in something that we want to be a quality source of relevant information. This article does not represent that. The Filmaker 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. --Tone 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ideally this would be part of The Sopranos main article but since including it there would make it very long, it is therefore reasonable to have a separate article. A1octopus 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, that doesn't answer to any of the reasons given for deletion? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in answer to your nom, deletion under WP:UNENC, is not an appropriate argument for this list because this is not an indiscrimate collection of information - the inclusion criteria for the list is very specific (characters who died in a particular television programme). I would argue also that a nomination under WP:TRIVIA is also not appropriate since The Sopranos is an important highly notable TV series (even here in the UK the airing of it's final episode got a mention on national news) and, since it is about gansters, a list of deaths of characters in episodes is in order. As I said it would ideally be in the show's main article, but as that would make the main article very long it is reasonable to have a separate one (in the same sense the discographies for major bands are usually separate articles). A1octopus 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above the article contains information on the deaths of Silvio Dante and Big Pussy, but also on Man #1 and Boy on Bike, even animals. This is the trivial indiscriminate information that I speak of. The Filmaker 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you appear to be arguing for a cleanup rather than a delete, but that is something for the article's discussion page, not a deletion debate. A1octopus 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing just WP:NOT, I'm also arguing that the notable information is available in other articles, in more depth at that. This article serves only as a minor navigation tool. However, what reader is actually looking for this page? When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death, do they look up Wikipedia hoping for a death list? No, they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say it, Filmaker, but the above argument sounds awfully similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A1octopus 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What?! Hello? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for users who arguing an article should be deleted simply because they aren't interested or enjoy the content. In other words, it would be like me arguing that I don't like/care about The Sopranos or the deaths in The Sopranos. Neither of which is true. I've provided a policy page and given my critique of how I believe that the user would react (not in the sense of whether they care or not, but in the sense of where they would look for this information first). The Filmaker 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree with the nom about this as an application of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that this was an important and popular show and that a lot of people died in said show, but that doesn't mean that this list is Encyclopedia-worthy. As mentioned above, the potential exists for merging this information with all of the articles about every character who says more than five words in the series. I don't think that adding a list of deaths in any other mob movie, or important movie where people die would be any more relavent, and that's what I'm using to judge this. bwowen ^T/C 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What part of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE do you feel that this fails? Let's go over all 10 items. 1. FAQ - It's not a FAQ. 2. Travel Guide - Obviously not a travel guide. 3. Memorial - Not a memorial 4. Instruction Manual - Not an instruction manual 5. Internet Guide - Not an internet guide. 6. Textbook and annotated texts - Not any of these either 7. Plot Summary - Not a plot summary 8. Lyrics Database - Nope 9. Statistics - Nope 10. News reports - Nope. So yes, please, elighten all of use where you believe it fails WP:NOT --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You will find this disclaimer at the top of that list "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...." Thus these are only examples that have been, through consensus, decided that are specifically not what Wikipedia repersents. These two sentences represent what the article violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The Filmaker 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it says "..does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Where does it say "...automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" ? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't. To say ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is just ridiculous. What was your point here? The Filmaker 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be a rehashing of List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series. Others have pointed out the other policies and guidelines that this article fails, and here is an example of previous articles that were already deleted. I've seen some "it's useful to navigate". That's why you create a List of The Sopranos characters, and then conform to the out-of-universe guideline when writing that. Also, you have to look at what a death list entails. It's plot points, major ones and nothing else. This means you have created a list that is a derivative work of the original copyrighted source, thus it's a violation of copyrights for that show. There is no encyclopedic information to justify its existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: While I have very little knowledge of this TV show, I can definitely say that a list of deaths can fall under trivia. Alientraveller 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because this does not qualify as encyclopedic content. There is no real-world context to be determined from this kind of list. I would support a Death in The Sopranos prose article if there was media coverage about the level of violence in the series, and perhaps its controversy (if any was to be had), with specific cited examples from the series. This is not the case here, and there is no connection between the bits of information other than an occurrence that is obviously commonplace in such a series. Keeping this is bad precedent to create a list of jokes in comedy series or a list of characters who got betrayed in a soap opera. Like I said before, death in The Sopranos would be much more suitable in prose, especially if it has ties to real-world context. This list is pure trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above, also noting that similar lists about The Simpsons and Star Wars have existed and been deleted in the past. Gran² 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this information should be accessible from the list of Sopranos characters, no need for this extra list. Judgesurreal777 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I Disagree, as many of the characters listed in the article do not have (or need) their own article, hence why this is ever so importatnt to keep track of all deaths --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. What encyclopedic foundation does this have? As a directory to find out who was killed and when? As some nice fan information? As being useful to a reader? Right now, the list is a derivative work of the source material, thus a major copyright violation. Don't care how "useful" something is, when it violates copyrights, and cannot justify fair use, then it must go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge OR Delete per above. — Deckiller 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft and material that lacks encyclopedic value. If information is already not mentioned on various other character/episode articles, then merge info that is noteworthy. María (habla conmigo) 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm in love with this page, and any pages that provide comprehensive cross listing for works of art. Yes, the info here in available on other pages - 86 other pages of episode recaps. But here, we have a body count. It's the same for music used in the episode, or cast lists, or any other cross lists. KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.93 (talk • contribs)

Last time I checked, "I'm in love with this page" didn't constitute a valid argument to keep an article. BTW, music used in an episode isn't encyclopedic either. What is also not a valid argument is "there are other articles like this as well". Please, point them out...we'll make our way over there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I checked this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Dream Team. --Tone 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete being indiscriminate information and not asserting out-of-universe notability. Like similar lists, this really isn't encyclopedic and indvidual deaths are better noted on individual characters' articles or entry in articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - great navigational tool, important to the show's themes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, more specifically the "not a director" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I thought we covered this already? It does not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and it's not a directory either. Directory is talking about like being a phone book. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, it lists every single death, no matter how minor...that's indiscriminate. It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• We might as well get rid of every one of these Click --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some are of living people, which isn't the same as of fictional people. Something like "List of Oz deaths", I assume that is the TV show, should be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends, every article is subjective. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. The Filmaker 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If this gets deleted it is only fair all of these get deleted: [33] I don't agree with it but it would be fair. MrBlondNYC 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, every article is subjective. I have not read these articles so I do not know for sure that they should most definitely be deleted. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deaths that in occur in the Sopranos are notable and as has been mentioned before there are many other TV show and movie death lists on Wikipedia Bamaman 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: Yes, they are notable and are mentioned in corresponding character and episode articles. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see that other "death lists" is not a valid argument. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As Erik has pointed out, "Death" in The Sopranos maybe notable, but a "list of deaths" is not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then will the other "death lists" be deleted?Bamaman 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a link above to another AfD that has like 4 other similar lists up for deletion, and I listed a link to one that was deleted alread. I think others have listed links to lists that were deleted that carried the same information for other shows/films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I don't think it should have its own article, but I DO think it should be merged inside The Sopranos main article. 76.197.222.162 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename I propose the article be renamed "Death on The Sopranos" and be expanded to more than a list. Other aspects can be listed and I will volunteer to expand the article.--MistaTee 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before (incidentally by me). If you or someone else would like to write an article titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" than that would be more than welcome. It would have contain commentary and reception, but only to the notable deaths. However, this new article is a complete 180 from this article. Thus, if you want to create a "Deaths in The Sopranos series", create new article. And get rid of this non-notable, poorly formatted list that would not be acceptable in said new article. The Filmaker 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I entirely disagree with The Filmaker's assertion that "When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death...they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles." I have consulted this list numerous times, and I find it very useful, in the sense that any information about a fictional world can be "useful." If, for example, I want to determine the order of deaths on the show, I can consult this list, rather than wading through numerous episode-specific articles. Furthermore, The Filmaker has repeatedly said that he objects to the inclusion of "minor" deaths. I would argue, first, that no death is "minor," not even on TV. And, second, who decides which deaths are major and which are minor? The inclusion of statistics by season is useful in understanding the overall arc and direction of the show. For example, Season 4, considered the best by many fans, had the fewest deaths. This is useful information, no more or less useful than any other information about The Sopranos. I don't understand the distinction being made between "interesting" and "useful" in this case. How is a recap of the episodes "useful" but a list of the deaths only "interesting"? You could make the argument that the individual character articles are also unnecessary, since all of the relevant information is included in the episode articles. Why have an article about Christopher Moltisanti when all of the character's development, personality, characteristics, and history occur in episodes of the show? Anyone interested in this character's history needs only to read the articles about the episodes in which he appeared. An article about the specific character is nothing more than an extraneous "navigational tool," or, at best, a digest of information that is all included in other articles. Seriously. I don't understand the hard-on you have for deleting this article. Is there a shortage of space on the internet? Is Wikipedia about to reach its limit? Obviously, some people find this article useful (myself included). Why do you want to take that away from us? Mookabear 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between having an article on an episode recap and having an encyclopedic article on an episode. This is a good example of an encyclopedic article on an episode. Notice the short plot description, and abundant real world content. This is a good example of what not to do. The same goes for characters. This is a good example of what a fictional character page should look like. This is a good example of what one should not look like. It has no relevance to "usefulness" (that isn't a valid argument for keeping something) or being "interesting". It's about encyclopedic content and notability, both of which this article lacks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is completely awesome. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason for keeping an article. WP:ILIKEIT. The Filmaker 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By that same token all the "Delete as fancruft" argumments are invalid per WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "it should be remembered that Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion" MrBlondNYC 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay as well. Essays do hold some weight in the deletion process, however they are not policy. The Filmaker 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. If deaths are significant events on The Sopranos, then this data should be merged into The Sopranos timeline (unfortunately the timeline is currently very wordy (proseliney?), so it would be obscured). If The Sopranos is ultimately a show about killing people in the same way that House is a show about diagnosing illnesses, then the data should be merged into two locations:

1. The episode list, as it is for House.
2. The episode infoboxes, as it can be for House.

Alternately, the data could be combined with a chronology of all characters, showing their first appearance and departure for any means on a timeline (cf Template:Doctorwhocompanions). Vagary 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The deaths of the characters are not nearly as relevant to the show as diagnoses are to House. The Filmaker 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Says who? You? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says not? You? The entire premise of House is built around diagnosing people. The premise of The Sopranos is built around the happenings of Tony Soprano which happens to contain deaths occasionally. The deaths are only notable because they are often of main characters that have been on the show for years and for their realism. Still, it's hard to say or give a reasonable explanation as to why the deaths in The Sopranos are a relevant as diagnoses in House. The Filmaker 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. They are still somewhat relevant. Is there objection to the deaths being merged into one of the resources I mentioned in a prominent way? Vagary 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — This is exactly the type of article we should be encouraging users to create. It's well sourced (to the primary source -- the episode -- which is a perfectly allowed source), it's presented neatly (tabulated) and deaths are a notable part of The Sopranos -- a highly notable television, thus it stands that this type of information would be of interest to our readers. A merge would be inappropriate (per WP:SS), and the list meets the criteria set in WP:LIST#Purpose of lists). Matthew 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This comment completely ignores all of the original a subsequent reasons for deletion. The Filmaker 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What reasons for deletion? I can't see any other than "I don't like it". Matthew 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of out of universe content. No "new" content to establish that his isn't simply some derivative work of the copyrighted source material. It's a list of plot points. To name 3. Bignole 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not seeing a valid reason to delete, other than "I don't like it, so here's some silly reason I invented." Matthew 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you're a silly person (being jovial). Last time I checked WP:WAF wasn't that silly. Nor was WP:NOT, and I believe derivative works aren't considered too silly in a court of law (which, btw, Wikipedia is not above). So, what's silly is the fact that you call any opposing argument silly. Silly Rabbit, that retort is for kids. Bignole 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a non-silly reason (supported by policy) and I'll reconsider my keep. I don't think you can provide such a thing. Oh, you should probably read derivative work ← lolipops. Matthew 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT isn't policy? The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about WP:NOT#PAPER (which supports keeping the article)? I can't for the life of me think of anything there it would fail. Matthew 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The Filmaker 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which don't, of course, support you. Matthew 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think US laws supercede policy. Why does this constitute a copyright infringement, I guess you missed all that stuff at the top. What is this article? It's a list of plot events, those plot events are under the sole rights of HBO (or whoever owns the series). If they wish, they could make Wikipedia remove this list, because there is nothing on this page that says it is being used in an encyclopedic manner. There is no real world content that justifies the use of this copyrighted material. Read this, you can't even use a copyrighted character in a story that has nothing to do with the original material. What you are doing here is making a page that is nothing but a cumulative work of major and minor plot events. What the courts look at are: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and, 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work Guest what, the "potential market" for the show decreases because you are supplying potential customers with a list of every death in the series, for free mind you, and are not providing any critical commentary on that (Wiki even has its own criteria for that). If I were to read this page, it would ruin most of the show for me, because it reveals all the major plot events. I know they are major because any time someone says the deaths are not relevant, people start speaking out that they are. Also, part of what falls under the law: "Your work may be using an element from another work that is not copyrightable, like a story line.." Now, this area isn't as concrete a definition, but this is why Wikipedia created it's own fair use criteria, so pages would not fall on the line. Let's look at the article. What's on this page? Storylines. The story line of Emil Kolar's death at the hands of Christopher Moltisanti, or the 10 other story lines in that first season. This page doesn't even take the time to name the actors. It's entirely in-universe. If you want some in-universe, list of deaths, with no regard for third party sources, go to Sopranos Wikia (if there is one, create it if there isn't). Right now, the page is a walking timebomb of copyrighted material. I got who gets killed, who kills who, how they died, what episode it happened in. Could you call this anything other than a derivative work of the show? It doesn't have to be a word for word translation to be a derivative work, and if you do not have permission to create a derivative work then you are infringing on the copyrights of that studio. Bignole 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well (clearly) you don't understand copyright. A definition for you "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."

Now, feel free to give me a non-"I don't like this article so here's some BS I made up." argument, actually supported by policy. As it stands the closing admin would be well correct to close this as keep, as quite frankly the deletes haven't given any rationale to delete with any substance. Matthew 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If killing people is the key element in the series, maybe you can incorporate it into the episode list. Something similar is done at Lost episodes, where it is stated whose are the flashbaks. Just an option, I don't follow the series. --Tone 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been suggested before. However, the deaths are not as relevant as the flashbacks are to Lost. The deaths are important in the long run of things on the Sopranos, however the flashbacks are a "key element" to the series of Lost. The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Keep votes above I'd like any administrator who comes by attempting to understand the discussion that is taking place, to keep in mind that these Afds are not a majority vote (although the Delete votes are not far behind), you may notice that the majority Keep votes are simply users stating that they either just plain like the article (WP:ILIKEIT), or simply state that "The Sopranos TV series is notable and the deaths in the series are important to the plot). Both of these statements, and any other Keep votes for that matter, have been refuted by myself and Bignole numerous times. Few of them have bothered to try to refute those statements (or even reply at all for that matter). At this point, I'd like to ask the administrator that is reading this Afd to carefully look at each comment and disregard any of the comments that are either unfounded or have been refuted. Most, if not all, of the above, have been. The Filmaker 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think you are making the case that the deaths in the Sopranos are not an integral part of the series, such as flash backs in Lost or a diagnosis in House, many of the keep comments have refuted your points very well.Bamaman 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And we have refuted the points made by them. In the end, either I or Bignole have refuted most, if not all, of the comments made by the keep votes. For one thing, every single episode of House or Lost respectively features a diagnosis and a flashback. The entire format behind Lost is based around the flashbacks. House's entire premise is centered around the Department of Diagnostic Medcine. The Sopranos however is not a show about death or killing people. Yes, it is an element of the show, and it does occur often, but the does every week begin with an episode where Tony is wondering "Well, who am I gonna kill this week?". The Filmaker 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on the comment The article was nominated for deletion per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, however, that reason is invalid because it lists EVERY death in the series. If some deaths were included, and some left out, that would make the list indiscriminate, however, since ALL deaths are accounted for, then this list is discriminate, and therefore, the nomination is invalid. If you also take into account a point brought up post-nomination, that wikipedia is not a directory, this too, is invalid, as this list is, in no way, trying to act as a directory. A directory, for lack of a better word, is like a telephone book. You look up something you need, and it tells you where to get the information. (ie: go to THIS location to find what you are looking for). This list has what you are looking for inside the same article, it is not telling you to go anywhere else to find the information. Of course, there are links to the episode where they died, but the list does not say "here is the episode, to find out who died, click here to find out". Because of this reasoning, that, too, is an invalid reason to delete. EVERY single list on Wikipedia, is going to have a blue link to somewhere else. That does not mean it is acting like a directory. True, there are people using WP:ILIKEIT, but there are also people using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. The fact of the matter is simply, that this list does not fail WP:NOT, and no other policy that I can find. To delete this list would be absurd. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First, with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. You've got it flipped. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, thus does not allow ALL information. The list, as you yourself stated, lists EVERY single death on the series (including animals and deaths are not even chronicled in the series). If we were to only keep the notable deaths, than the list would be "discriminate". As for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

And all of the refutes have been refuted? The Filmaker 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I propose a middle ground. How about we rename the article to "List of notable deaths in The Sopranos" and clean up all the non-notable deaths (FYI Pie-O-Mie's death, though an animal is very notable). With regards to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, you fail to see my point. A directory is something that directs you to a different source for information. The premise of this list is not to direct you elsewhere, as the information is already contained in the list. As I said before, of course it is going to link you to the actual episode list, however every list in Wikipedia is going to have blue links to other sources. A list without blue links would just look funny. If we can agree on this, I think we can move ahead and make everyone happy --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The compromise would make, how should I put it, happier' than I am right now. It would make the article a little more decent. However, we can't ignore Bignole's prime rationale for deletion. The list is only a replacement for major events in the plot. Thus can still fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE this time under the Plot summary example: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the article were to offer commentary and reception (as I stated above) than it would not be focused solely as a summary of the work's plot. However, than the article would no longer be a list. It would have to be renamed "Notable deaths in The Sopranos series", at which point people would realize that the list is unneeded and we need only discuss notable deaths such Big Pussy or Phil Leotardo. At this point, the new article is completely from the current article. Therefore, if a user wishes too, the new article should simply be created. The Filmaker 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The list is not a replacement of major events, it's a guide to the major events. It gives just the right amount of information, though the wording needs a copyedit. It is not a copyvio--they are he barest summary. Most lists are intended to be complete--keeping track of the deaths is not very useful if it doesn't keep track of all the deaths. The example used by NOT for indiscriminate would seem to condemn not this, but the articles on the episodes, which are generally 80%-90% plot summary. DGG 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to be all in-depth to infringe on the rights. If I have a story that uses the character of Tony Soprano, that's an infringement on the rights of HBO. Having a list that does nothing but state plot elements infringes on the rights, because there is nothing else, outside the fictional element of the show, on this page. This is a list of fictional characters, their deaths, by who's hands, and in what episode. Not only are there no real world content, but it treats every like it really happened. Bignole 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh be quiet! As I've explained to you above "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." -- learn to grasp this, immediatley. Matthew 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First Matthew, you are becoming quite rude with people, you should probably curb that, and I don't need your lack of understanding of US laws to tell me otherwise. If you think that you can copy concepts and facts without proof that it is your original work, you have a lot to learn. If I created some 7ft hair creature, that carried a weapon, only talked in animal grunts and basically looked like Chewbacca in every way that I didn't already mention, you had better believe I'd find a lawsuit in my mailbox. Because Chewbacca is a concept; he's a character on a copyrighted piece of work, just like all those in that list on this page. If someone can get sued, and lose the lawsuit, over putting Seinfeld quotes in a book, you can believe that more important things to a series like plot elements. Try this, go write a book that does nothing but list every major and minor storyline in a plot and see if you don't have a lawsuit. It's infringement because those are not just "concepts" they are the actual storylines from the series. You cannot publish a set of storylines, with not encyclopedic commentary, without permission from the owner. I feel I should explain this better, when it says "not intended for an actual idea, concepts, facts, etc", it is referring to fact that you can not copyright the "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and you cannot copyright the "fact" that there is gravity acting on the Earth. Meaning, someone cannot "copyright" a filming style, the way they place a camera in a shot, etc. You cannot copyright the fact that Tony Soprano is a person. But the stories are copyrighted, as are the characters in them. If it was as simple as "John killed Bob in "Pilot", that's not copyrighted. But this list lays out the details, which are apart of that show, and since it's laid out in a manner that lists every occurance of a death, that is what makes it an infringement on the copyrights. If you were writing a paragraph about a Sopranos episode, and you need to describe the scene to illustrate your point, then that is not a violation. That isn't what this list is doing. This list is nothing but a huge compilation of episode events, in detail. Like "Shot in the head. Killed during Christopher's drunk fury for not listening to his problems.". You're doing nothing but revealing events in a plot. Bignole 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the page violates copyright, please nominate it for a violation check on WP:CV. A deletion debate is not the proper place to debate this. Vagary 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware that we had that. It's already backlogged, so I'll wait till after the AfD is closed. There is no point in bringing it there if the AfD closes in favor of deletion. If not, I'll go there and see if others agree on its infringement status. Bignole 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this Afd was not originally started over the fact that the List violates copyright. However, true it may be. The Filmaker 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

• I've enjoyed this show since day one, so my initial impression of this article is that it's a fascinating fan resource and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, my consigliere has pointed out to me that this is Wikipedia, not a Sopranos wiki. The question that has to be asked is: "Is this specific topic of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic?" Now before you fly off the handle, I am not saying that The Sopranos is an unnotable topic, or even that deaths on the Sopranos is an unnotable topic. The only relevant question before us is: "Does a topical concordance of deaths throughout the series meet standards for inclusion on Wikipedia?" This article's usefulness is irrelevant, its novelty is irrelevant, its enjoyability is irrelevant, and its cherished place in the hearts of fanboys and fangirls is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a harsh mistress which demands that we set aside our emotional attachments for the sake of being as objective, detached and fair-minded as possible. Sorry folks, but listcruft is bad for our thing. Perhaps this list can find a good home on a fan-wiki, but as far as its appropriateness for Wikipedia, I have to say: Whack. Groupthink 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Haha, I love this comment. You may be right. I have at least copied the content, so it won't dissappear with a deletion of this article. cun 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a television show. It is not real life. Therefore the amount of miscellaneous information about it that is encyclopedia is very limited. Herostratus 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's a television show is not a valid reason to delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Because it's a television show, only a limited amount of miscellaneous information about it will be encyclopedic is SO a valid reason to delete. Groupthink 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Indeed it is. I presume this AfD will be cited in future cases so it is important to make a precise decision on the case. One more thing. All the info from the list should be covered in the episode articles and that is enough. Too many redundant lists on WP, we should have stronger policy. --Tone 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect or Merge into an Episode list. Episode lists are an estblished precedent. Permitting one death list means there will soon be death lists for every action-oriented film or television series. And actor. Bleh. Trust me: Do you really want to know the names of every two-bit extra mutilated by Bolo Yeung?--Mike18xx 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Cleary stated why above 69.218.8.5 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can clearly state why, your comment is invalid. I can just as easily say "Clearly stated why not above." The Filmaker 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You did'nt say anything when a user in favor of deleting said "per above"69.218.8.5 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I assumed that they agreed with the many objections to the article. However, I have no clue what objection you have, as the majority, if not all, of the keep votes points have been refuted. Or did you not bother to read any of the replies to the votes? The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Refuted" is a very strong word. This debate could probably serve to be summarized - I'll put out a call for someone neutral to do it. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They most certainly have not been refuted in my view. I have found the delete areguments to have been rebuffed in this disscusion69.218.8.5 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide an example? Even if you could, I doubt that is the only arguement that was made for deletion. The Filmaker 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep: Yes, it is a telvision show, but why is that such a problem? This is an ensyclopediea and they have to be informative. TV shows are at best, art forms and deserve recordniton and the death of a TV character is genuiningly (sp?) concidered important enough to be mentioned as though it was real (But state it isn't) as the character is dead and not seen again (Apart from the odd show where they are). So this and all other death lists should stay, as this is very informative and also people may wish to know how characters died rather than a pasific characer. MJN SEIFER 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is a television show or that it is a death on television has nothing to do with any of the objections to the article remaining. In other words, it is not "a problem". The problem is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information which in turn violates copyright and also violates the directory policy. The information is present elsewhere in more accessible places (and where a reader would most likely look) and the only real use for the article is as a minor convenience as a navigation tool. The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As you agreed above, copyright violation is not relevant to this debate. It is a red herring: please stop bringing it up. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Television shows (and anything else for that matter) should be entitled to separate articles about elements related to the subject that are notable. As long as it's properly maintained, I believe that this page should be kept just as much as List of crossovers on Lost. -- Wikipedical 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being associated with something doesn't entitle you to notability. Bignole 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and while I have my doubts as to whether or not that page is too trivial to be included on Wikipedia. I will mention that the Crossover article is slightly more useful as the crossovers are not always (and should not always be) explicitly stated as in the context of character and episodes often times they are very trivial. However, in the larger scheme of things, they can prove to be notable. The notable deaths on The Sopranos will always be explicitly stated in the episode and character articles. The Filmaker 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedica1. Groupthink 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true as well. The Filmaker 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep - I already read this article 2 weeks ago. Any article that generates this much discussion on both sides of the fence probably should be kept, since there is obviously enough interest for the article to be here. Wikipedia's for the readers, after all, not for the editors or the rules lawyers. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Wikipedia has something approaching 60GB of Simpsons cruft, which kinda outweighs any rational argument anyone could ever put towards anything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't that a supporting argument for deleting 60GB of Simpsons cruft? ;) Groupthink 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm resigned to the continued existence of 60GB of Simpsonscruft. Wikipedia is, after all, created and run by primates, many of whom watch the Simpsons. However, a large number of primates also watch the Sopranos, which was popular too; the show is now over, so there should be no more Sopranoscruft created. As for this article, I personally read it 2 weeks ago, and as I think the true test of keeping cruft (e.g. Simpsons) is whether a large number of Wikipedia readers may find it useful, I therefore think this article should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Generating a lot of attention doesn't mean it's notable, it means that a large portion of the fanbase is on here hoping to keep it. Bignole 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the same can be said for 60GB of Simpsonscruft. I'd like to see someone try to AfD an article like Disco Stu or Duff Beer (The Simpsons) on the grounds that they are non-notable and lack secondary sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both of those should be merged. Disco Stu should be in a "List of The Simpsons characters" page, as he's kind of minor. Duff Beer should be merged with the main article, as it contains some relevant information, especially the bit about people actually creating it in the '90s. Bignole 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Go ahead and try! You have my blessing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Throw up the proposed mergers. You'll have my vote. Bignole 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No no, you first. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a place for a debate. You brought it up. What you are doing is equivalent to dumping information into Wikipedia and expecting others to source it for you. You think they should be merged, propose it. You think they should be AfD'd, then propose it. Stop doing the "well this exists" game. I'm not your parent, you can propose articles for deletion or merger on your own. Frankly. I think both of those articles have a better chance of actually expanding into sensible encyclopedic articles. They probably need to be merged until that actually can happen, but they have a better potential for it than this page, which has about a snow ball's chance in hell of being encyclopedic. Proposals have been made about how info from here could be use to make an encyclopedic entry. I frankly think that a "Death in The Sopronos" article is best served as a section on the main article's page. Bignole 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep a cool head. I personally have a "live and let live" philosophy regarding most articles. I have also never dumped information into Wikipedia expecting others to source it; I suspect a "list of deaths" isn't going to come from secondary sources anyway. And you did propose deleting or merging those Simpsons articles, not me. Most importantly, when it comes to cruft, I generally believe in keeping it if it's not vanispam, been well-written, and something useful to a large number of readers. This doesn't follow the hard-and-fast rules, I know; but I believe in using the rules as guidelines and letting common sense, a desire to serve the average reader, and an understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia rule the day. Especially when it comes to AfDs that generate this much discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, by that reasoning I could have a List of measurements for my toe nail, and is enough people want to read about it, then that's ok. I go to college, being in college is a great achievement, thus I could be considered notable, and by association so could my toe nails. I don't think so. Random trivia is not notable. Who killed who is anything is not notable. The fact that someone wants to read about it doesn't change it's notability. 10 million people may want to read about my toe nails. My toe nails wouldn't be notable, but the fact that 10 million people wanting to read about them would be, luckily that isn't the case. The way death is portrayed in the Sopranos could be notable, but not a list of every minor character that died. Work it up in a List of characters article, and just have the actor's name end with this last appearance. Bignole 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Satisfactory sources were not found, probability that they exist not enough to satisfy notability and verification guidelines. — Ocatecir^T 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane (hovercraft)

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

I don't see how this craft is notable (craft, not cruft). Orphaned for a few months as well. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - How many were built? This article is perhaps a weak keep. It needs to the Wikified and to have sources cited. It is probably only a stub, but need not be so non-notable that it should be deleted.
• Keep. It appears to be a real craft. It seems that it might have some standing in the history of personal hovercraft development. Per above, though, if only like ten were built, then maybe not. Herostratus 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Certified by USCG and a unique configuration. Also of historical interest. Dhaluza 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How is it of historical interest? The company itself isn't notable, how can the craft be as well (other than unique design, I'll give you that one)? Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve 'cuz it's spiffy -- I want one!--Mike18xx 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability. The Filmaker 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability would require secondary sources, but none are given. --B. Wolterding 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment are you saying you doubt they exist, or are you objecting to the fact they were not cited. Unfortunately due to the historical nature of this, there are no online sources--I only found this blog post: [34] which is probably not suitable as a reference to add to the article. But paper sources probably exist, and deleting it presents a catch-22 as someone who has them won't know we need them if the article is deleted. Since there is no reason to believe the content is bogus, I think we can safely keep this and wait for improvement. Dhaluza 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the point is: I do not know of any sources, since the article doesn't list any. It's the responsibility of the editor to add sources that establish notability. (Otherwise, how should others verify?) The mere probability that sources exist is certainly not enough to pass WP:CORP. The article has existed since several months, and no sources have been provided. But of course it can be userfied and recreated once reliable secondary sources have been found. --B. Wolterding 11:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahasamparka

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

Non-notable book. No hints to secondary coverage, awards, or similar are given, hence it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). The external link in the article points to a Wikipedia mirror. PROD was contested last October, without rationale. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unpromising Google results. Only ref is a Wiki mirror.--Ispy1981 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, searching turns up no reliable sources. John Vandenberg 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Peacent 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Hayfield

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

Probably written about self or by close relative, creator no longer member of wikipedia, unclear how important subject is, doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines, does not link to many articles within wikipedia. has been proposed to be deleted before. Eliz81 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet the criteria for authors in WP:BIO Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 2 novels published by major publishers, co-author of computer books currently in print. NawlinWiki 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Stellatomailing 03:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing in WP:BIO for Creative Professionals coincides with this author for notability. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peacent 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, editor in chief of a well known magazine, and her earlier novels are mentioned in major newspapers.[35] John Vandenberg 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as noted above. COI is not relevant for deleting, but a Google test or other way to verify would be. Bearian 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak keep not notable. she appears only to be an editor, rather than an author. Cleaning House ranks in the 5.33 millionsths. [Edit: However, as pointed out by User:Jayvdb, reviews of said poor seller would nonetheless satisfy WP:BIO, although not all the links relate to her.] Ohconfucius 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nom. She may be an editor, but she doesn't have enough Sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP.--Edtropolis 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix., per Vandenberg.
• delete - no secondary sources given, and I can't imagine there would be that much written about her to satisfy sourcing requirements. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States

List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is a fork of List of standardized tests in the United States and is therefore redundant. It adds nothing new to Wikipedia, it is very limited in scope, and it was created after the other list mentioned above. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• An AfD really isn't necessary here, as the articles could just be merged back together - but since this is a fork and it's here, I'll agree with the nominator and say this should be deleted as redundant. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep temporarily. I left a note at Talk:List of standardized tests in the United States. My suggestion is to use categories and subcategories. In the meantime they will need the list page to know quickly what to add to that grade-school test subcategory. See: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. The same introduction can be used on the category page. --Timeshifter 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, categories cannot be created with pages that do not yet exist. The list provides existing and unavailable pages. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree. I struck out "temporarily" from my first comment. I think more subcategories of Category:Standardized tests need to be started though. Then they can be filled in more as the wikipedia pages are created.--Timeshifter 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I still think this list is redundant with List of standardized tests in the United States. There is absolutely no need for this list since it is simply a copy of the other. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a conflict between you and another editor. I am not taking sides in that. My point is that more breakdown by type of test is needed. Both on the list pages and the category pages. I don't see how this list is redundant. I don't see an equivalent subsection at List of standardized tests in the United States. --Timeshifter 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's here. It's the exact same list, and the other editor copied it because he wants a list of only state standardized tests, and that's silly because there are other standardized tests. Why are you giving an opinion on this subject if you haven't read both articles? The redundancy is very obvious. Furthermore, this list is not very long, and the other one is not long enough to be split into multiple articles, so why do you advocate more lists when there isn't enough content? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This list provides information vital to understanding No Child Left Behind, and its contents are under continued scrutiny by media, politicians, parents and students across the US. Lumping it together with other, less valuable conglomeration lists would unnecessarily complicate WP. – Freechild (BoomCha) 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Maintaining a list of fewer than 50 items is useless, and this list would never contain more than 50. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of lists and charts on wikipedia. Many of them have fewer than 50 items. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you would want a more specific list when the more general list isn't that long? Why should there be two lists? I can find no good reason for having both of these. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We need more third-party opinions here. So far, only Timeshifter provides a third-party opinion. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Outside view Delete unless intended for expansion or if the plan is to divide the main article. The material is all readily found on the main list in the same sequence. The only thing added is the alphabetical table of contents, but most people can navigate an alphabetic list of states without one. This would make sense, however, if it is intended to have separate articles for the various major groups, this being only the first step, or if it is intended to provide considerably more detail or a different arrangement in the smaller list. But otherwise, its a clearly un-neded partial copy.DGG 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Peacent 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awake

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

This article started as a stub and has been expanded, but not with anything useful. Theres about four sentences worth of material:

Being awake is the behavioral manifestation of the metabolic state of catabolism. It is the daily recurring period in an organism's life during which ... behaviors necessary for survival ... are conducted. Being awake is the opposite of being asleep, the behavioral manifestation of anabolism. Logically the only necessary behaviours are ingestion - for survival of the individual - and procreation, for the survival of the species.

(note catabolism/anabolism aren't even links in the article). It all seems kinda woolly and pointless which makes me wonder if there is any material one could possibly make an article out of for the topic.

The rest is an enlargement on the above, by enumeration of possible wakeful activities and further philosiphising (sp?). Then theres a number of other possible meanings for the word "awake", which don't belong here because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wiktionary is).

The philosophy sounds like Original Research to me; I can't really see the justification for it. Then all that would be left is the link to catabolism, so all the article could just redirect there.

I think the obvious problem with "Awake" as a topic for an article is that it is so broad as to be meaningless. At current it is focused on behaviour and what I'd call reductionist behavioural philosophy. Alternatively it could have been focused on neurology, physiology, psychology - anything really. Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep. Sourcejedi 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is the nominator's first AFD, and I've seen several hundred of them. He makes some good points in arguing that Awake is little more than a dicdef, but experience has shown that Wikipedia tolerates articles like this, and if the article is deleted now it will be recreated soon anyway. I think it should be tagged "cleanup" but not removed. YechielMan 13:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: recreation does not mean we should not delete. If the article is recreated in bad taste it can be salted. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - great reasoning by the nom as it does fail WP:NOT, but as stated by Yechiel, the page will be quickly recreated and it is a common term. Good job of keeping your eyes open Sourcejedi and keep being BOLD Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is really 'thin' in content and not at all encylopedic. It almost reads like a children's book i.e. "Animals can eat and run, fly, swim or walk while awake" etc. As the nom says "Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep."--Arthana 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously some cleanup is necessary. But while wakefulness (possibly a better name for this article) is seen as the "default" state and sleep as a mode or alternate state deserving special attention (not the least due to curiosity, since we don't experience it with the same clarity), wakefulness does receive some scientific attention and so while sleep is naturally going to be a more comprehensive article there's no reason we can't have one as good at a shorter length. starter sources include [38][39][40][41] --Dhartung | Talk 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) here. That would fill the void and not pose any prejudice against someone actually writing a verifiable article such as Awake (biology) or Wakefulness. Tikiwont 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Tikiwont. This is a superior solution, as it addresses the issue of potential recreation. The current incarnation of this article is poor - and poorly titled. Putting the dab page here is the best solution. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move the dab page, per Tikiwont. If a proper article can be written in the future, then great, but as it is the article is poor and has no meaningful content. PC78 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While there's nothing wrong with stubby articles, this article doesn't need to exist; the first sentence of Awake (disambiguation) is all that's needed to explain it. Redirect to Awake (disambiguation), or move that page over awake. Someguy1221 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Disambig or Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) in. Note: the definition on the disambiguation implied consciousness. As animals can be awake yet not necessarily conscious, I modified the definition. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep per Dhartung. A proper article can be written on this topic, it should be renamed "wakefulness", and Dhartung has already provided a starting point. Also, wakefulness is inherently notable, or else you're not reading this post. It is also written about quite a bit in scholarly articles. Also, regarding style: it looks like many ancient Wikipedia articles are similar to this in style and lack of sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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