Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 19 June 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waltontalk 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments for Drivers

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Ten Commandments for Drivers (third nomination)
Ten Commandments for Drivers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The first AFD was closed a few minutes ago as a bad-faith nomination. I agree with that decision, but looking at the article, I considered: just because the nominator was a jerk (and has been blocked indefinitely), doesn't mean he's wrong on the substance of the matter. This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability. Let this article have its five days in court. :) YechielMan 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete This is why I said "without prejudice" originally; this is a nine days' wonder that would be more appropriate to Wikinews than Wikipedia unless long-term notability is established. --Charlene 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My first thought was "Is this something for Wikisource....?" Hm, no because it's in copyright. If this simply the text of what the Vatican said, without commentary or analysis....isn't it a copyright violation?--Sandy Donald 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment That's a good point. Official papal pronouncements are copyright[1], so is this? I think the probability is high enough that this could be speedied. --Charlene 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Guidance issued by the Vatican advising Catholics to behave in a certain way seems to me to be inherently notable. Presumably this document remains current as far as the Church is concerned until such time as it is replaced or the Vatican says it is no longer applicable. It was the subject of a number of news reports. The article has problems - I suspect this "ten commandments" phrase (as applied to this document) was invented by a journalist rather then being an official title. Even so, keep and improve.Hobson 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Let it go, regardless of previous nom G1ggy Talk/Contribs 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hobson. ?TomasBat 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This has no real content. Papal encyclicals have content, and should have separate articles. Minor press releases do not, and minor is the word for this one The actual document might perhaps be worth an article. DGG 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the excellent point by Charlene.fic and the fact that this article hasn't been around long enough to truly gain much notability. For now, I say delete. Leave it on Wikinews or a similar project for a while, and then we can bring it back if it truly is that notable. Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hobson. It's very debatable whether this would be considered a copyvio. This was published in a number of sources and could be very useful... Ranma9617 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Being published in 'a number of sources' does not have any bearing on copyrights. Even if the copyright holder has decided to let lots of people copy it and publish it themselves in order to get the word out, it's still copyrighted, and probably not released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. --Aquillion 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. The official name for this document is "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road". As well as roadusers, it also relates to prostitutes, tramps and street kids [2]. The media attention has been on the so-called Ten Commandments for Drivers but our focus should be wider aspects of the document. However, it appears to be a guideline not an encyclical so its status is somewhat less but it might be worth an article given the interest. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An encyclical results in large amount of commentary, discussion, and interpretation, which on its own would support an article, and often has far-reaching effects. This, though, is just a press release, with nothing to suggest that there will ever be any more material or commentary on it, and no reason to think it will have wide-ranging impact; its bare text, alone, is not enough for an encyclopedic article. Copyright concerns are also serious; if necessary, it could be summarized instead of posted itself, but I'm not sure I see the point. --Aquillion 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete probably copyright violation, infact if it is published in a number of sources, then I can almost guarantee that it's a copyright violation. Also, what makes this worthy of an article, if it had some effect on deaths, stirred up controversy or something then it might be worth an article, but just because the Vatican makes an announcement doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Besides number 8 could be dangerous in the case of road rage. James086Talk | Email 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worries of copyright aside, a one-off press release from the Vatican really doesn't warrant its own article. We don't hit the 'pedia every time the Pope opens his mouth. Arkyan • (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I disagree with the nominator's assertion that there exists a "ten year rule" for notability, this topic doesn't appear to meet the main notability criteria of having multiple independently published sources about it over a span of time. All the sources are derived from the same primary press release and in the same one to two day time span. So delete for now, and reconsider if and when this is written about more extensively down the road. (P.S. That doesn't mean this topic can't be mentioned briefly in another article on a broader topic, such as giving it a sentence or two mention in an article on driving regulations or church edicts, etc.) Dugwiki 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A few days old, yet gets over 800.000 ghits [3] including virtually every major news outlet. These are papal commandments, there is no copyright problem (it's not scientology, catholics rule your life for free). Malc82 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and expand to Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road. The Category:Documents of the Catholic Church has many articles and this one seems to be as notable/verifiable as many others. Although focussing on its populist/media-buzzword name is unprofessional.--T. Anthony 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly, there are no copyright concerns. The list is a tiny excerpt; see 61. Drivers’ “Ten Commandments” . As others have said, the only way to deal with this in an encyclopedic manner is to cover the entire document at Guidelines for Pastoral Care of the Road, so that these ten commandments can be put in perspective. At it is, this is a hack job to ridicule the RCC by focusing on the minute detail, and is more appropriate on Wikinews. (not that Wikinews is full of hack jobs, just that they are more acceptable there). John Vandenberg 04:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As mentioned above, things issued by the Pope are inherently notable. I agree with the rename to Guidlines for Pastoral Care of the Road. Millancad 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the document is to be retained the title should be amended as suggested, but also including the word "catholic". As an encyclopaedia article, it should provide a brief commentary on the document (covering all POVs), not merely reproduce a list of its main points. Peterkingiron 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Also, I am not convinced that it is not a copyright violation. Even if it is a small portion of the document, it makes up the entire article aside from a quotation from a Vatican official and the first sentence. -- Kjkolb 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment non-notable because... ? There are over 1 million ghits now [4]. Could need expansion and may be renamed/redirected to the whole document, but that's no reason to delete the article. We have the whole text of the ten commandments too and a large number of websites already publish all 10 driver-commandments, that's because they are commandments, they are meant for publication and there is zero chance of copyright becoming a problem here. Malc82 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Improve- It was announced by His Holiness and has received a lot of media coverage. Why should it be deleted? Eddie 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Retraction of commentary a link to the '10 commandments' is provided in a comment above. Please ignore my input as being ignorant trash. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Transwiki to Wikinews. The article in question can't cite the document released by the Holy See that contains the content to which the article purports to speak — and that signals a problem. I've gone looking through the Vatican site (not an easy thing, mind you) and have not found any such thing as a 'ten commandments for drivers' or anything close to approaching the pop culture listing that appears in this article. The closest thing is this press release which refers to this document set (note that the link in the press release is broken and I needed to smith the url to get to the proper page). To boot, the exact meeting event that is noted in the press release has not been added to the website of the Holy See, so that the full proceedings - or even the full official documents - are not yet available. So, what this Wikipedia article reflects is news seen through a pop culture lens; a proper article cannot at present be crafted because primary materials are not available to support its creation. This belongs at Wikinews. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 26 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. Sr13 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Robinson

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO G1ggy Talk/Contribs 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning towards delete - Also per WP:BIO; the article is a bit notable, but maybe not enough. ♠TomasBat 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mattythewhite 07:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - appearances for Kidderminster were before they attained League status. _ fchd 07:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above. GiantSnowman 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete based upon him apparently not ever playing in the Football League then he fails notability as not playing in a fully professional league. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No fully-pro league experience and not a member of a top club's squad.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:54, 23 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 obviously delete. It's already in the main high school article anyway, and is borderline speedyable.--Wizardman 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day (Lambton High School)

Green Day (Lambton High School) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Annual event at a particualr high school. Seems pretty clearly non-notable, and no sources cited to counter this impression. Tagged for speedy, but A7 does not apply to events nor, it is generally heald, to school articles. DES (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per my nom, unless independant reliable sources are cited to clearly establish notability. DES (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Finngall talk 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While I am a proponent of expanding the CSD A7 criteria, I guess I will have to go with Snowball delete for now as I can't see any WP:RS covering this. Leuko 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Whether it technically fits the A7 criterion or not, this is something that so clearly does not belong on Wikipedia that there's no point in letting it sit around a full five days. Call it a G11 speedy if we need to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nomination. Does not comply with WP:NOTE NSR77 T 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- :) Chetblong 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW and a WP:IAR view of CSD-A7. This event fails to assert any kind of notabiilty, thus it fails the spirit of A7 completely, even if the criteria does not explicitly include events. Resolute 04:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would argue that there is no "spirit of A7" or more exactly the consensu discussions that created and later expanded A7 all included strong feeling that the reach of A7 must be narrowly limited and that anything outside of the explicitly defiend limits should not be speedied because there is too much chance that more eyes wil make a difference. DES (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The school already has its own article and this event does not show notability or verification for its own article in addition. Camaron1 | Chris 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As Chris notes, the same (unreferenced) language is already in the article for Lambton High School. Noroton 18:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article fragment that is already in the school's article, where it belongs. Alansohn 19:01, 21 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. Sr13 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FUPEI

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

Does not meet WP:WEB, no WP:RS to indicate notability. Previously deleted as G11 spam. Leuko 22:26, 20 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 Redirect to Manchester United F.C.. — Scientizzle 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Manchester United

History of Manchester United (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are now four separate articles chronicling the history of Manchester United F.C. in a more detailed fashion. This article is rarely updated and is now largely redundant. PeeJay 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable merge proposal. Instead of deleting the main article outright, it needs to be trimmed according to Wikipedia:Summary style. YechielMan 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's also Manchester United 1998-1999.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit the article as proposed by YechielMan. There is not anything to discuss here. DGG 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not having much luck with identifying stuff that should be deleted here :( - PeeJay 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't it make sense to turn this into an index, list page or overview for the five child articles? Resolute 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm erring towards this idea, tbh. That's what they've done for the History of Arsenal F.C. articles, so I think that's what we should do here. - PeeJay 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd also support this idea. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really an option as the article would be well over 200kb in size. - PeeJay 20:40, 22 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. Sr13 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madara Uchiha (Naruto)

Madara Uchiha (Naruto) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research/fanfiction ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as fan fiction. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V as unverifiable original research, fails WP:FICT notability criterion for being fan fic. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fan fiction is not by definition non-notable, or The Seven Percent Solution would be non-notable. The guidelines says that fan fiction may be considered vanity and usually is non-notable, but it's not by definition or always without exception non-notable. (Although it's true that a lot of fanboys would like to think so.) --Charlene 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a world of difference between The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and Naruto fanfic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly there is, but my point was that notability should be based on policy and guidelines. Policy and guidelines don't say straight out that fan fiction is absolutely, no exception, non-notable, and that's likely because of exceptions like Nicholas Meyer's and a hundred others. --Charlene 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there is a difference in usage here. Fan fiction, as an indulgent exercise in speculation by some kid, is almost always worthy of deletion. Published fiction that uses characters and plot elements from another work is a wholly different matter. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take this off the AfD. --Charlene 23:33, 20 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, total original research. Sr13 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular girl

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

Contains an essay which appears to be original research, and a list of characters none of which have any sources or attribution. Article has been tagged as failing to cite references or sources since March, but there is no sign that it is being improved. Hobson 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. There may be a sourced article out there about the "popular" young, attractive person as a meme in literature, but the meme is no more 20th century than Jane Bennett, Georgiana Reed, or Eliza Durbeyfield. If such an article were to exist, though, it would have to be sourced and neither original research or a synthesis. (Edited for clarity.) --Charlene 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep People need to know about the stereotype, a common stereotype of people in fiction. Angie Y. 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is definite OR, and nothing shows that it can be anything more than that. TTN 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - entirely original research --Haemo 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait Give editors a while (three more months) to provide sources. I agree with those that say the article needs to have a reference and has a lot of room for improvement, but I think there may be a source out there and I believe in giving every opportunity.Ursasapien (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seraphim Whipp 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I often go to Wiki for just this type of information. I believe that the article is verifiable Give the editors sometime. It obviously isn't anywhere near being a good article and may never be, but the information is still important. Millancad 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how this article really matters. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because definitely verfiable and Wait, because editors should have more of an opportunity to improve an article that can and most likely will be easily improved substantially with time. --24.154.173.243 17:16, 24 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. Sr13 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Girish (singer)

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

Promotional article on new age musician. Difficult to ascertain any notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 20 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 speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination, without comment on the notability of the subject. MastCell Talk 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments for Drivers

Ten Commandments for Drivers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Another list of unrelated topics, POV of pastor of non-notable church, previous AfDs on similar listcruft from J. Ratzinger, Username Benedict16. Does not cite to any recognized source "Assoc Press" or alt. "Assok Press" not found in Google search of publishers, possible hoax.

Also AfDs proposed for deletion: "Ten Commandments" (purely opinion oriented list) and "Luther's 95 Theses" (Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for speculative ideas). WP:NOT Joe Rat 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Close without prejudice to future AfD. This is not what AfD is about. --Charlene 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? Is this AFD some kind of trolling? I think we can safely conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is the spiritual leader of a very notable church, that the Associated Press exists, and that the Ten Commandments and The 95 Theses are important religious documents regardless of whether one believes in them or not. At best, this is a bad-faith AFD; at worst, it's disruption. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put in a request for an admin to look at this at WP:ANI. --Charlene 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a real news event, which you would know if you were to read a paper or watch CNN. Mandsford 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - either 100% wrongheaded, or disruptive. Calling the Pope a "pastor of non-notable church" leads me to believe the second. --Haemo 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Trolling. --Dynaflow babble 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any opportunity this AFD may have had to have been taken seriously was eliminated by the sarcastic approach. That said, article will be tagged for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 20 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 Consensus not reached - KEEP. --VS talk 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts

List of We Will Rock You (musical) casts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of red links. Unnecessary. Information is more easily ascertained outside of WP, and better-maintained. —  MusicMaker 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Can be better ascertained outside of WP, but still provides some information in the context in which it is contained. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. A list of casts full of non-notable actors from a less-known musical is of no interest to anyone but their parents. The notable names should be noted in the musical's article, and this list should be deleted. -- Ssilvers 01:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article contains information that I found very useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.93.159 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Keep I've taken a liking to such lists and I fail to see the difference from other cast lists, e.g. TV series. A broader discussion about list notability is preferable, I'm unaware of any. Merging with We Will Rock You (musical) is an alternative. -- Steve Hart 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with revisions. This is a list related to a notable topic that has its own article; well defined list-articles associated with articles on notable topics are supported in order to provide sub-page opportunities and avoid length-bloat for the main article. However, the question is whether all productions of the musical are notable; I suggest not. The original production (and cast) are notable; any additional productions that are not recognized separately as being notable should be struck from the list. Such trimming might lead to a very short list which could be folded back into the main article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 28 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. Pax:Vobiscum 09:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thalidomide!! A Musical

Thalidomide!! A Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete!! Totally not notable. YechielMan 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this. It has moderately known stars, and has toured in many important theatres. It made BBC [5] [6]. I can't see how this is less important than many C-list movies we keep.--Sandy Donald 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond. First, having played 5 relatively small cities in England and Scotland does not qualify for notability. Second, the fact that the BBC covered it does not make it notable. The BBC does pieces on people's cats; are we to include them in WP? —  MusicMaker 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond I have to plead relative ignorance at the geography of London, which is what made going through the British musicals that much more difficult. I really don't want to offend the Brits; that's not my intent. The rationale I've stated elsewhere notwithstanding, I'm not going to withdraw this nom. Should this be judged a keep, it would simply go to support the rationale I've stated, and, therefore, would help with the eventual guidelines I hope to get out of this mess.... —  MusicMaker 04:17, 21 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.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Chitra Ramanathan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snow! The Musical

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

NN holiday musical that, apparently, didn't even do that well. (Tho, you gotta love a good disambig line....) —  MusicMaker 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The article speaks for itself. YechielMan 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability is made. -- Ssilvers 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep What exactly are the notability guidelines for musical productions? I'm familiar with WP:MUSIC but that applies to people or groups, rather than theatrical productions. This musical had a notable star, and there are links to non-trivial coverage in The Sun and The Stage, which is probably enough to keep this, unless there are specific guidelines suggesting that isn't enough. Masaruemoto 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. Apparently, there are no notability guidelines pertaining specifically to musicals. Part of my reasoning in nominating so many of these articles, in addition to the desire to rid the servers of some undeniable effluvium, is in an attempt to ascertain what the WP community at large will consider a notable musical, and what it will not. My own personal criteria were thus:
  1. If the musical achieved any production whatsoever in the two main English-language theatre cities, New York or London, it is notable.
  2. If the musical achieved a production in a "Broadway-sized" theater (1000 seats or more) in a major secondary theatre city (Toronto, San Diego, Sydney, etc.), then it is notable.
  3. If the musical achieved a production in a major festival or fringe festival in major cities known for such (New York or Edinburgh), then it is notable.
  4. If the musical achieved one production in a relatively uncompetitive town, theater-wise (Boston, Atlanta, etc.), then the musical is not notable.
  5. If the musical exists mainly to be licensed by schools, it is not notable.
To me, simply having a production somewhere that had a notable actor does not make the musical notable -- the actor could very well have done it some time before he or she was famous, or, conversely, on the way down the ladder and that was all the work he or she could get. But, like I said, the main reason for nominating so many was to see what everyone else thinks, then maybe get some guidelines together for inclusion in WP:NOTE. So, my suggestion would be to vote your conscience.... —  MusicMaker 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • By your own criteria (#1 the musical achieved any production whatsoever in... London), this musical is notable. It achieved a production in central London (it says London in the second line). If it's notable by your own criteria, you appear to be contradicting yourself by nominating it as non-notable. Until a specific WP:N guideline for musical productions is introduced we should just use the general guidline, ie significant coverage in reliable sources, which is taken care of by The Sun and The Stage articles (and a few others), so I'd recommend keeping this as before. Masaruemoto 04:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have added "that aren't a holiday-time flop". The article basically says that it played for a month and no one went to see it. This deserves inclusion in WP? —  MusicMaker 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your criteria fail Wikipedia's policy to counter systemic bias. A musical is not non-notable just because it hasn't played in an English-speaking country, and favouring US and UK productions over those of other countries is also biased. --Charlene 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not me who's favoring US and UK productions over other countries; it's the theatre community at large. I am attempting to discern some sort of reasoning in determining the notability requirements for musicals in WP. The rationale of "this has been produced somewhere so it deserves inclusion" simply doesn't make any sense. Yes, my criteria for inclusion used English-speaking cities. The fact of the matter is that New York and London are the two most competitive cities on the planet when it comes to musical theatre. "If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere."
I nominated maybe three musicals that did not achieve an English-language production. I'm not saying that a musical is NN if it didn't play in an English-speaking city; I'm using typical musical theatre conventions as to what constitutes a major production.
Are you really saying that a musical that achieved three performances in a random small town in Siberia deserve inclusion?—  MusicMaker 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)j
And those conventions come from US and UK musical theatre, which is not the entire story. --Charlene 21:26, 21 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. Waltontalk 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Claus: the Musical

Santa Claus: the Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. One (holiday) production in Southampton. —  MusicMaker 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The musical has been reviewed by BBC. This kind of establishes notability. Link--Kylohk 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 14:38, 25 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 WP:BOLDly re-written as a page on the country song. If this was a wrong move, please feel free to reopen the discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From a Jack to a King

From a Jack to a King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A song that made it to a significant national chart is notable under section 3 of the WP:MUSIC guideline for songs. --Charlene 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So does that mean that if I were to delete the current info on this page, and replace it with information on that song, that this AfD would then be closed? (I'll wait until we get more delete votes first.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or change into an article about the song. Need sources. -- Ssilvers 00:59, 21 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 — Caknuck 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbarella (musical)

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

NN musical. Apparently never left Austria. —  MusicMaker 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Received significant press coverage in Austria; ran for nine months in a major theatre; directed and produced by notable individuals. We don't need something to have existed internationally (or, more specifically, in the United States) to be notable. --Charlene 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was written by Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics and ran in a major european city. As Charlene rightly points out, the fact that it didn't leave Austria is irrelevent, unless we're going to start deleting most Broadway and West End shows on that basis. Nick mallory 02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, surely not that many Vienna musicals are reviewed in Variety.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Nom'ed only because it never had an English-language production (see nom's comments at AfD for Snow! The Musical nearby) which is a very poor reason to delete by itself, as others have pointed out. Johnbod 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:16, 22 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. Sr13 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class of 77

Class of 77 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. YechielMan 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom. Also no secondary sources, therefore not notable under WP:N. Only one newspaper reference which appears to be just a listing, so unlikely to prove notability. Assize 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom. Also, largely unintelligible. - Special-T 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't know about "unintelligible", but real notability and sourcing problems. Lankiveil 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - Will be extremely difficult to source. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:19, 24 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. Sr13 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foosbeer

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up at a bar one night; taken to AfD because a prod was removed Iknowyourider (t c) 21:21, 20 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. Sr13 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waa-Mu

Waa-Mu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN yearly college musical revue. NN anywhere but Northwestern. —  MusicMaker 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. No assertion of notability. Seems to be like any other Varsity show and does not assert any other productions. -- Ssilvers 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:51, 21 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. Waltontalk 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Reich in Hell

Wilhelm Reich in Hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Only college production in Dublin 20 years ago. —  MusicMaker 21:14, 20 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 redirect. Sr13 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let the Eagle Fly

Let the Eagle Fly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN Musical. —  MusicMaker 21:12, 20 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. Sr13 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gift (musical)

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

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 21:05, 20 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 — Caknuck 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellowship!

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

NN musical. Six-week run at a Comic Con. —  MusicMaker 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Nominator apparently did not read the article. Play had a six-week run in a theater, *then* several shows at ComicCon. The LA theater awards and press mentions confer notability, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa 21:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't think that a favorable review from the LA Times counts as an "award". —  MusicMaker 03:11, 21 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. Sr13 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula Spectacula

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

NN musical for schools. —  MusicMaker 21:00, 20 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 Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beavershark

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

Hoax. No GHits, just some MySpace photoshopping.... Chris 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Deleteper WP:HOAX It's spreading to Georgia! I've actually heard of this one. Urban legend.--Ispy1981 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G1 - Patent Nonsense, and WP:HOAX Rackabello 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Plain old patent nonsense. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:31, 20 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. --VS talk 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Summers

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

I can't find anything particularly notable about this guy or his achievements, so unless there is some kind of precedent/consensus for vicars, this is non-notable. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTE for academics. Important to the history of a school (Abingdon), if only because he bought land and a cottage to donate to the school, but other than a short obit in Burke's Register and a mention of the marriage of his daughter to the son of another vicar, I can't see anything. I'm sort of on the fence, because I can't shake the feeling there's more here. Article definitely does not assert notability.--Ispy1981 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I think it is reasonable to keep articles on the headmasters of the major UK and US private schools. I agree with Ispy that more material can probably be found, but I have not yet found it.DGG 01:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- there is zero notability indicated here; he was an administrator. Are we going to list every principal of every school in the world? This would set a ridiculous precedent. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with Abingdon School -- the Headmasters section there could be expanded from a simple list to a list with biographical data: of the Headmasters from 1800-1947 none of them seem to pass notability, but the information could improve the school's article. (btw -- how does delete and merge actually happen? Once delete is passed, we non-admins can't get the information to merge, but if an article passes keep then the merge is redundant. Never yet figured this one out.) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (changed to just Merge at 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
    • I added a {{merge}} tag to the page. I think this is a reasonable solution. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Abingdon School per above. To answer Myke's question: according to WP:DELPRO, merge is treated as a keep. —David Eppstein 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, then I'll strike the delete part. Funny that Merge is keep, since I'd rather merge, but if it's between keep and delete, I'd rather delete. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, I support the merger of the article with Abingdon School. aJCfreak yAk 16:58, 25 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, capitalization fixed in the article title — Caknuck 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Lady (character)

Dragon Lady (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Someone tagged this article for speedy deletion (CSD A7), and I disagree because it's about a character from a notable comic strip. Rather than use {hangon}, I decided to take it directly to AFD. YechielMan 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Yes, I thought it was a marginal call at the time. On reflection, you are right to opt for AFD. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that there was a redlink to this character on the Dragon Lady disambiguation page. To change the redlink to an active link, I began work on the article. But I had not been writing for five minutes when someone marked it for deletion. Consult any major history of the comic strip, and you will find that this is an important character in a major strip. I note that whoever marked it for deletion added "category: comical fictional character", which suggests confusion between "comical" and "comics".

The redlink on the disambiguation pages had a lower case "l" in Lady. If the article is not deleted, then it should be moved to Dragon Lady with a capital "L". I have already fixed the lower case letter on the disambiguation page. Rick Norwood 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. While the Terry and the Pirates character is one of the specific origins of the name, the Dragon Lady is a well known variant on the femme fatale stock character, and has also become a label attached to a variety of historical figures from Supayalat to Madame Nhu. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The term is well known and used today (I'm sure Republicans have referred to a certain presidential candidate that way). Its origin is definitely noteworthy, even without it being the name of a major character in a famous comic strip. Clarityfiend 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. JJL 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the term may not have been invented in the West or by Caniff but it certainly has currency because of this character whose importance in strip terms is not negligible. Do note that dragon lady (stereotype) is a redirect to stereotypes of Asians. Personally I'm not certain that there is enough material for a separate article on the stereotype specifically. --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 21 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. Waltontalk 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Control freak

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

Unreferenced original research. A quick search of JSTOR seems to indicate that the term is used primarily in a joking context and does not interest psychologists. Chick Bowen 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, cleanup and add references, it's a widely-used term, psychological or not. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete 'widely used terms' go in dictionaries. There's no coherent article to be written here, just an essay.--Sandy Donald 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I agree with Sandy Donald. YechielMan 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Fix, it's a notable enough term. Useight 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-We are not a dictionary. Plus, the section `In popular culture' seems to be entirely WP:OR and simply a (very incomplete) list of people with authoritative personalities on TV.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/request; if you say "add references" or "fix," please give some sense of what kind of references those might be. As I said above, I spent some time looking for usable references and did not find any. Chick Bowen 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, pop psychology can be notable too. References like this Guardian article tracing history of word are a good start. It doesn't appear in Google News Archive prior to 1990, but after that hoo boy. It appears to have reached a dictionary by at least 1996[7] meaning that it technically passes WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - Maybe it doesn't belong in psychology, maybe it does. It certainly belongs in one or more Management categories. Nearly ubiquitous is the business community (at least in the United States.) LaughingVulcan 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is already more than a dictdef and there is plenty of room for expansion. note that wiktionary doesnt have an entry for this, so in the very least it should be transwiki'ed. John Vandenberg 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and add references-This is much more than a dictionary entry: this article lists fictional control freaks, which is useful to Wikipedia, and contains explanations of the psychology of control freaks (which could be improvedanf for which references could be added). This term is used widely enough to deserve its place on Wikipedia. Canjth 19:30, 27 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 per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The most important references can be added to the parent articles (novel, film, or both), but does not require a repository of its own, complete with other mundane and inconsequential references. —Kurykh 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture (2nd nomination)
Fight Club in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - still an indiscriminate colletion of information, a directory of loosely-associated bits of trivia, chock full of original research and very short on sources. Seeks to capture any reference to Fight Club the novel or Fight Club the film, or any reference to the rules of Fight Club, or anything with a name that sounds like Fight Club, or (my personal favorite) characters with the same name as a character in Fight Club when something else in the same episode unrelated to that character also reminds an editor of Fight Club. The listed items have nothing in common beyond the passing reference. The last AFD closed no consensus, largely based on the supposed impact that FC has had over the last several years. However, a massive sprawling list of every time anyone on a TV show, film, book, video game or whatever says something Fight Club-y tells us nothing about Fight Club, nothing about the fiction the reference is from and nothing about the real world. Defenders of the article have had several months to turn the article into something other than an enormous mess and have not done so. Time for this to be deleted. Strongly oppose in advance the inevitable suggestion to merge any of it into the article for either the novel or the film. It is worthless as a stand-alone article and it is equally worthless as a section of another article. Otto4711 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, if you see any far-fetched unsourced relations, then get rid of them. The list tells the reader exactly the "supposed impact that FC has had over the last several years." There are more sources on this impact, which I will be adding to the introduction throughout this discussion. What it tells us of the real world is the various connections between media through inspiration and popularity. The listed items do not need to be closely related to each other because this article is about "Fight Club in popular culture", not "extraneous connections between the various items that have referenced Fight Club in popular culture". As this is a list, readers aren't expected to go top from bottom, but skim to items that are relevant to their interests. What it also tells us about Fight Club is which aspects of the novel or film have more memorability than others in terms of the porportion of times they have been parody. Calling the article worthless is as subjective as calling it useful. –Pomte 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you point out to me where exactly it says that lists are somehow not subject to policy because people aren't expected to read them from top to bottom? Can you point out to me where it is exactly that it's written at all that people are expected not to read lists from top to bottom? Can you cite a reliable source that indicates, to take the first item off the list, that Ryan Lavery of All My Children's going to a fight club is in any way a reference to the film or the book,? If so, can you cite a souce that explains how All My Children is so closely associated with, to take the last item off the list (I read the list from top to bottom), the comic book The Mighty Thor that they should be on the same list, and while you're at it could you cite a reliable source that the "variation" on the FC line from the comic book was actually a variation on the line and that it was an intentional reference to Fight Club? Can you explain what having a variation of a line from the movie in a comic book tells us about the movie or the comic book or the real world? Is there a source that backs that up? Otto4711 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lists are subject to WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Do you think people read the established List of countries, Deaths in 2007, or lists of episodes from top to bottom? Can you show how the first death is related to the last death other than that they occurred in the same year? Where does it say in policy or guidelines that lists have to uphold such demanding standards? No, I can't tell you anything about All My Children or The Mighty Thor, but I intend to find out. I'm perfectly fine with you removing those entries in the mean time, and I think I've already replied with my view on the relevance of these items and the real world. Incidentally I've also added a bunch of film/novel-inspired real world fight clubs that talk about the real world. –Pomte 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • LIST and SAL are guidelines. Conformity to a guideline does not mean that policy violations can be ignored. Otto4711 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's talk about policy then. WP:NOT#IINFO says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", not that "Wikipedia cannot contain articles that some editors believe are indiscriminate collections of information". This article does not fall under any of the rejected types of articles listed in WP:NOT#IINFO. While Wikipedia itself is discriminate in choosing which articles to accept, this does not mean the articles themselves act the same way. Articles only have to be sufficiently discriminate such that they do not run into unmaintainable lengths. This article has obvious criteria for inclusion and lists items with plenty of discrimination. None of the types of articles under WP:NOT#DIR apply here either. The article is not a directory by nature; it can always be converted to streamlined prose, which takes a lot of effort and frankly I don't think it's worth it. WP:OR can always be removed, and isn't a problem inherent with this topic. WP:V is what I'm working on right now. –Pomte 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The items listed at NOT#IINFO are not and should not be read as an exhaustive list of the only possible types of articles that can be considered indiscriminate. Thos are the types for which consensus has been acheived but that does not mean that IINFO doesn't still apply to every article and that other specific aricles don't violate it. NOT#DIR is violated because this is a collection of items that are loosely associated. The inclusion of the same or a similar line of dialogue in a bunch of different movies or TV shows don't make for a strong association amongst those movies or TV shows. The fact that some examples of this type of loosely associated items is offered in the policy does not, again, mean that th examples are or should be read as an exhaustive list of all the types of articles that fall under it. Otto4711 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive, but as you implied there is no consensus on this particular type of article, so we have to focus on exactly what makes this particular list unworthy, and your answer seems to be NOT#DIR. NOT#DIR is not violated because "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." Some of the items are known for and heavily associated with the fact that they reference Fight Club, while others are already famous by themselves but also contribute to the topic at hand. The list is like a reference table, which is explicitly allowed. –Pomte 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the notion that any TV show or movie or whatever on that list is more famous because it quotes a line from Fight Club is ludicrous. There is not one item on that list that, if you asked anyone about it, would garner a response of "it quoted Fight Club" as among the top hundred reasons why it's famous or notable. "Oh yeah, Corner Gas? That was that show that had a passing reference to Fight Club in one episode!" Not hardly. Otto4711 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Those belong to the part where I said "...while others are already famous by themselves but also contribute to the topic at hand." School for Scoundrels is known for being a rip-off, from the numerous reviews I've found. All English commentary on Slagsmålsklubben refer to it as meaning "the fight club". Some of the real life fight club articles (such as Princeton University and The Real Fight Club) would take a darker tone if they weren't inspired by the film. One of the only things Through a glass productions is known for is their remix parody. The song "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" doesn't seem to be notable by itself other than the fact that its music video re-enacts Fight Club scenes. The only thing non-Greek readers currently know about the Greek SuperSport FM radio program called Fight Club is that it is called that and samples the Tyler Durden in its intro. Looking at the article for Nashville's Pirate Radio immediately conjures an image of the film. Of course, most of the TV shows and movies listed do not increase in popularity due to referencing Fight Club, but they do get people talking about it (contributed by the nature of the "you do not talk about..." meme), and they provide a counterweight to those listed above for a comprehensive look at the various formats that make references and what types of references those are. If someone is familiar with Corner Gas, then they can relate the quote to the show's general sense of humour. I can always dumb the TV/film lists into one curt list sentence with a footnote verifying each. It would also be interesting to research on any effect of the TV/movie/mass media hype on the real life fight clubs. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an extremely widely alluded-to and parodied film. The sheer volume of quotation and allusion evidenced here justifies the existence of a separate article. Note also that the earlier AfD on this article was as recent as this February, and nothing much has changed since then.

    I generally tend to think that the claim that articles that collect and categorize allusions to one published work of popular culture in another, that they are "unreferenced", is without merit, at least as a sweeping generalization of the content of the article. What these lists of allusions are, in fact, are self-referencing. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The fact of the film's popularity does not mean that every single reference to it or things that are similar to it collected together makes for an encyclopedic article. And the fact that the article has not changed much since the last AFD is a large part of the point. The article has been given four months to improve and address the concerns brought forth in the nomination and that hasn't happened. As to the entries being self-referential, even if one accepts without question that every such self-reference serves to establish the existence of the item, they do not serve to establish the relationship betweeb the item and the other items on the list, the item and Fight Club, or the item and the real world.Otto4711 21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Even if not for that, this article is very poorly referenced. If a given episode of "All My Chldren" has a Fight Club reference, then by all means give us the original broadcast date of the episode where that happened. That goes for every other example cited in this indiscriminate list too. Take the more truly notable ones that are referenced and merge them into the main article.--Ace of Swords 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which main article? –Pomte 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - trim down and add more sources. "In popular culture" are normally accepted articles and Fight Club obviously has a lot of references in PC.--Svetovid 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "In popular culture" articles have in fact been deleted in significant number over the last few months. Otto4711 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fight Club IS popular culture. "In popular culture" is usually a way of spinning off useless and unencyclopedic trivia, and most "in popular culture" articles should be shot on sight. This is nothing but trivia, and Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. --Charlene 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because this is a directory of indiscriminate details that have no attributable real-world context. It's essentially trivia in disguise, and trivia should be avoided in not just sections, but as whole articles. If prose could be written based on attributable sources that offer commentary on the film's impact -- and not the firsthand observations of the editors themselves -- then such an article will be welcome. This does not appear to be the case at all, and I doubt that tagging the article with clean-up tags will procure anything similar to my suggestion. As with the growing trend of giving "Entity in popular culture" articles the boot lately, this article does not have any encyclopedic value to preserve. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Inclusion trends pave way for deletionist trends, whereas the latter breeds itself. I am the sole active maintainer of the article and have been gradually sourcing it over several months, so nevermind ineffective cleanup tags. I would do what you prescribed, but consider that commentary about the film's impact belongs in the film's article first and foremost. Prose may eventually be written once the firsthand experiences are verified, which is in progress. Regarding IINFO and DIR, see my response above. –Pomte 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely welcome attributable commentary about the film's impact on popular culture on the film article itself. However, I have to agree with Otto's counterpoint, "The notion that any TV show or movie or whatever on that list is more famous because it quotes a line from Fight Club is ludicrous." The list itself is synthesized to put forward the argument of Fight Club's impact in popular culture. These items are "See for yourself" original contributions, with editors taking a viewed item and adding it here to "further" the argument of the article. There is no explicit commentary talking about the film and its cultural impact; the commentary is being created by the editors themselves, saying, "Look, the book/film was referenced in these TV shows, so it has impacted that specific medium." This isn't unquestionable 1+1=2 logic -- it's subjective because no cultural standards are defined without any kind of attributable commentary offering independent perspective on the topic. It's basically original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • About Otto's counterpoint, I responded above. Sources have talked about Fight Club's impact in pop culture, as you should be aware from your own research. I'll look for more to dissipate SYN/OR concerns. The argument is not being furthered by the list; the argument warrants the list. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it is; all encyclopedias contain a bunch of trivial facts about things, whether in prose or list form. WP:TRIVIA (a style guideline) says nothing about what trivia actually is, only that it should be integrated. –Pomte 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, WP:TRIV describes trivia as "lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Cultural references", "Cultural depictions", "Subject in popular culture", "Other information", etc." Also, it says that only relevant items should be integrated: "Some entries may be speculative, or factually incorrect, and should be removed; others, such as "how-to" material, may fall outside Wikipedia's content scope policies. Some entries may be more specific to other subjects, and should be moved into articles covering those subjects. Other entries may be too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all." Emphasis mine. María (críticame) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works when we're talking about the whole nature of encyclopedia articles. There was an edit war on the intro WP:TRIV,[8] and the intent of the addition was not to necessarily delete.[9] Most of the items currently on the list are relevant to the topic, not tangential because they clearly fit under the inclusion criteria. Determining which references are minor is too arbitrary a process for me to undertake with the consequence of limiting what readers see, though others are welcome to give suggestions. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I were to make an article "list of things that are blue", it would be just about as relevant and useful as this one. The purpose of articles is to increase the reader's understanding about the subject. Reading a laundry-list of a hundred times a quote or scene or meme is parodied is not informative. This entire article's informative content could be reduced to "Fight Club has been frequently referenced in popular culture". In order to be relevant, popular culture elements must be shown to have an important connection to the article subject, encompass a substantial reference, and be cited. That is not done here. --Eyrian 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if pop culture trivia lists about Middle-earth, ET and The Godfather got deleted, why not Fight Club, a far less popular film? Alientraveller 10:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did any of those films cause people to beat each other up? Were they are verifiable as this one? I honestly don't know, because I can't read those articles now. There is a severe lack of discussion about issues specific to this article here. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete same as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 08:57, June 21, 2007
  • Delete in agreement with everyone else. ...in popular culture articles are glorified trivia lists full of useless, trivial, unencyclopedic material that has no place on the parent article or on its own. Although sourced, this article is no exception. A great deal of the material is coincidental similarities. Yes, I agree that the film and novel are awesome and that people love referencing it. No, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. María (críticame) 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Useless" is as convincing as WP:USEFUL. Most sentences in the encyclopedia can be construed as trivia; it comes with being a resource for all sorts of knowledge. However, trivia becomes coherent given context, and context is being provided in the introduction. Which references are coincidental similarities? They don't just happen to reference Fight Club; many of the sources verify the reference or the intent of the creator. –Pomte 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize; regard "useless" and concentrate instead of "unencyclopedic," meaning WP:NOT. As for coincidental similarities, my little eye spies "The track "Roll Us a Giant" from B.P. Empire EP (2001) used Chloe's words, "I am in a pretty lonely place" among several others that have no overt reference to Fight Club. I do admit, however, that there's enough "the first rule..." jokes to bury someone alive. It comes down to indiscriminate information and lack of notability, both of which plagues this article and therefore goes against guidelines. María (críticame) 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As Infected Mushroom (creator of B.P. Empire EP) is a psychedelic trance act, it's more than likely that "I am in a pretty lonely place" is used as a sample of the character Chloe from the film Fight Club. This should be evident to anyone clicking a few links. I haven't gotten around to verifying this particular entry yet, so you may wish to do it yourself. Notability is asserted by the introduction. The information is quite discriminate; every entry is supposed to be a reference to Fight Club. Refer to my arguments above about that interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO. –Pomte 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fight Club in popular culture has not been able to exercise any sort of notability as an article. Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.) Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." (Bolding is mine again.) There is no notability established by providing an indiscriminate list of trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • While I haven't yet stumbled upon any sources that focus solely on the subject, there are sources that talk about pop culture in general and cite Fight Club as a non-trivial example. Many of the references listed are more than one-sentence mentions; any clearly trivial mentions can be removed. If someone reads the lead-in, I think it justifies to them the existence of the rest of the page. Every step of the claim is sourced, so there is no original research/synthesis. –Pomte 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per other lists "In Popular Culture" passing through here recently. A brief one or two sentence mention in the main film article should suffice, and then this list of trivia and non-encyclopaedic content can sail off into the sunset. - fchd 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the above. It is a completely unnecessary article, there's nothing in it that's notable, nothing in it that would need to be put in the article about either the book or the movie. Millancad 05:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is relevant to note here that the term "indiscriminate" was removed from WP:NOT to avoid this sort of confusion. –Pomte 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I don't know enough about this subject to say whether this article contains trivia or inadequate sourcing, I find it overall to be quite impressive (this is due in part to a large amount of work done recently). The topic is certainly encyclopedic, and sources of adequate (though not ideal) quality exist, so no grounds for deletion are apparent. -- Visviva 08:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's an indiscriminate collection of information. Only a handful need to be in the parent article under 'cultural impact'. Commendation for the sourcing, but this really is trivia and is beneath us. The JPStalk to me 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which handful? Which parent article? Who's going to make the editorial judgment? –Pomte 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The parent article is Fight Club. That's where primary discussion should take place. And the editorial decision is easy: use the ones that are verified as significant by being referenced in independent sources. --Eyrian 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The majority of references are for Fight Club (film), not the novel. Many are verified in independent sources, making them significant by your criterion, and they would double the size of the parent article, creating undue weight. –Pomte 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, most of the things in the sections "General references in popular culture works" and beyond are not independently verified. Most have no reference, and most of what remains are self-verified (for instance, a Thottbot link for the World of Warcraft link). And a large (cited) popular culture section is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT; it seems to me that a movie's cultural impact might well be one of its most significant aspects. --Eyrian 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems your position is selective merge, not delete as bolded above. Long articles about a distinct subtopic ought to be split off according to WP:SUMMARY, especially if there is no single parent article. People will not want this at Fight Club (film). Note that I have not begun verifying large sections of the listed items as most of the opposition is concerned about the nature and justification of the list rather than its verifiability. I've removed the Thottbot link, though Thottbot is more reliable for this type of existence claim than independent publications that merely report what sites say, and may be useful in conjunction with some independent source that relates World of Warcraft to Fight Club as a whole. Feel free to remove other self-verification, and I'll be sure to look for independent sources in the future. –Pomte 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My opinion is still delete, and after reading this last comment even more so. This is not a long article about a distinct subtopic, this is a list of disparate references that have varying degrees of relation to a film and/or a book. And as for "People will not want this at Fight Club (film), well so what? If it's related to the film, either put it there or delete it. What "people" are you talking about? Do they have any inflated worth or say in what goes into such an artcile above any consensus? - fchd 09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"Fight Club in popular culture (and society)" is a distinct subtopic of "Fight Club", just as "Plot summary of Fight Club" or "Critical reception of Fight Club" are subtopics, except those shouldn't have articles by themselves. Incidentally, Fight Club (novel), Fight Club (film), Fight Club (video game) etc. are also distinct subtopics of the general topic Fight Club, and this article deals with all of those.
Sure the references relate to the film, but some of them relate to the book as well and as long as there exist references that are verifiably reference either the film or the novel without specifying which one, it doesn't make sense to have them at either Fight Club or Fight Club (film). If you actually want to delete this content, then don't say "either put it there or delete it". That's clearly merge or delete. The "people" I refer to are two who regularly contribute to Fight Club (film), both established editors and you can ask them to elaborate. There's no consensus here to "put it there" anyway. –Pomte 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#INFO says nothing about this. WP:TRIVIA deals with presentation within general articles, though you are welcome to suggest a better way to organize this list. –Pomte 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, topic is encyclopedic and this is one of the better "in popular culture" lists I have seen on Afd recently. Remove the entries that are indiscriminate, and require quality sources for the rest. Deleting the good with the bad will only mean that they come back again in similar proportions to the current article or worse. John Vandenberg 13:11, 26 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. Sr13 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Onelastbugfixprogramming

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

Unreferenced, probably original research; prod was contested, so listing here. GJD 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research, and why is the title one word? Useight 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons I gave earlier: Dictionary definition, original research, unsourced neologism.--Wafulz 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:ATT. If somehow it gets kept, it needs to be renamed following standard WP naming conventions -- not all as one run-on word.--Ace of Swords 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. (lemonflash)talk 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete interesting, probably true, but not verifiable (and I did look). Dhaluza 00:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even in hacker's jargon dictionary. Pavel Vozenilek 02:19, 23 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. Sr13 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Lodge of All England at York

Grand Lodge of All England at York (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn. Very small schismatic group from another very small schismatic group. MSJapan 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - While the orgainzation in question claims antiquity (and thus notability) it is, in fact, a brand new body which formed in 2005, which simply coopted a much older name. Some history may help people to understand what is going on... There was a historical Grand Lodge of All England in 1725, set up as a rival to another Grand Lodge that had been formed in London. This "Grand Lodge of All England" went dormant in the 1740s... was briefly revived from 1760s to the 1790s... and then closed for good. (see this page for further information) The current "Grand Lodge of All England" (which this article is about) claims to be a revival of this older Grand Lodge... but in fact it is not. This "Grand Lodge of All England" is a splinter group from the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" (RGLE)... itself a non-notable tiny organization which had broken off from the United Grand Lodge of England a few years earlier. (note - RGLE has already had an article deleted for lack of notability... I would think that an article on an even smaller splinter should also be deleted). Also Note: The historical Grand Lodge of All England is mentioned at the History of Freemasonry where it is talked about in context. Blueboar 20:07, 20 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. Sr13 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur hoax

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

The article itself is the hoax. Google is silent about an alleged organisation SAPORD and the external link don't work. -- RHaworth 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Google also silent about Dr. Andrew McMillin in association to dinosaurs. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • BJAODN, if that's still around. Hoax about a hoax. Utter crap. --- RockMFR 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-This isn't even funny enough for BJAODN. Someone is just trying to see how long he can keep this nonsense alive.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The creater `DinoHoax07' is probably a SPA as well.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -This article is utter rubbish and should be deleted as soon as possible. It harms Wikipedia's status as an encyclopaedia. Can you imagine Britannica (or even World Book for that matter) devoting space to every crack pot, iconoclastic view ever dreamt up? I should say not! And thank you, Iknowyourider, for pointing me in the proper direction to voice my opinion. Happy editing! CanadianMist 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy - really, why wasn't this speedied? (obviosly delete)--danielfolsom 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, this is funny enough for that. Per ROCKMFR, this is a hoax about a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (or possibly WP:BJAODN, but really, it's not that funny). Hoax. --Ace of Swords 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It I do not believe this page to be fake. The idea and concept may be entirely inaccurate and foolish, but it does exist. I have read an interview with McMillin, he seems like a nut job, but he is in fact a real person who has obviously gathered some followers with his thoughts. I don't think this qualifies for BJAODN because it isn't a joke or nonsense, it's an actual view believed by some.Jordan78 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Jordan78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: There are some more examples of this sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry on the article's talk page. Iknowyourider (t c) 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete inept hoax. Dinosaurs weren't first discovered in New Jersey - Richard Owen named them in 1842 from British remains. "Macrosteoaugmentation"? Radiocarbon dating measuring the decay of bones? Radiocarbon decay being useful at all with dinosaur remains? This isn't BJAODN, this is a fever dream. If this is supposed to be funny, somebody screwed up badly. J. Spencer 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The alleged web site can not be found, & the organization give no ghits, almost unique in my experience. ( ditto for the person + dinosaurs). Satire of creationists, perhaps. I leave others to decide if it's stupid enough to meet our high standards of inclusion at BJ....DGG 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment BJAODN? Doesn't stuff actually have to be funny to be added there? Masaruemoto 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Think Twice Real. Implausible, unfounded, perhaps, but nonetheless an actual scientific theory. I'm sure an encyclopedia that entertains other implausible, unfouded ideas can take no umbrage at McMillin's viewpoint. Take the Loch Ness Monster, for instance. Wikipedia states that the monster is a cryptid. Where is the reliable source for that declaration? And what of that lunar landing hoax? A viewpoint not held by the majority, to be sure, but still represented in Wikipedia. But I don't think that is the main problem that some people have with this article. The real hitch here is the thought that McMillin may not exist. But anyone with access to Thomson ISI's Web of Knowledge database can find three separate articles that at least mention McMillin. True, there's no mention of SAPORD. But H. W. Wilson's General Science Full Text database details the existence of this organization, dating back to 1984. Sometimes a simple Google search just won't do. It's that type of uninspired, insipid research that threatens this site's reputation as a viable source of information. Not articles such as Dinosaur Hoax. wbhunter 011:09, 21 June 2007 — wbhunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - nonsense, made-up hoax. andy 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if it was a notable theory (which it isn't), the title, referencing and approach of this article would still make it deletion-worthy. Malc82 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an apparent hoax of a hoax. Someguy1221 22:45, 24 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. Sr13 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPhone 2.0

IPhone 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merely a speculative list of potential features, unattributed to reliable sources, not placed in any real context for the general reader. Adequate sources for referencing an encyclopedic article on an iPhone successor are unlikely to exist right now, and any encyclopedic information that is available could reasonably included in the iPhone article. Dancter 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Rumors until something official is released by Apple Corpx 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the iPhone hasn't yet been officially released, and an article about its successor is much too premature at this time. While it seems reasonable to me to expect the release of an upgraded iPhone in the future, it's just much too early for a Wikipedia article about it, especially with the lack of reliable sources. --Kyoko 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The iPhone hasn't even launched yet, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't follow WP:NOR or WP:CRYSTAL. -- :) Chetblong 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's absolutely no verifiable information on the next iPhone yet, this article is garbage. Hemidemisemiquaver 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This can be adequately covered in the main article. John Vandenberg 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like crystal-ballism to me. Acalamari 19:14, 23 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons By James Phillips

The Simpsons By James Phillips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)


Carbon copy of The Simpsons. No reason for a redirect. Blueboy96 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's WP:SNOW this. For policy sticklers, we can call it a copyvio of The Simpsons because it's not GFDL compliant. So tagged. Does not appear to be a copy. Delete though because it's an unlikely redirect. I urge the author, if he believes The Simpsons needs improvement, to work on that article instead of creating another one as he did here. Pan Dan 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't there another article about the Simpsons that already exists. Delete per duplication.--JForget 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey! That was my article. It was just homework that needed to look like Wikipedia. I thought the easiest way to do that was to make it on wikipedia.
  • I printed it now. so please delete it. Everything has been wiped from the page.Thanks for not deleting it straight away Uncle James :D 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As per creator :) Corpx 19:19, 20 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 speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aavin

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

Reads like a prospectus or an advertisement. Would have listed as a CSD candidate, but thought an AfD is more appropriate due to its length Rackabello 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article copy/pasted from here Corpx 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete-as per CSD G12-blatant copyvio. No assertion of GFDL licensing--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:40, 20 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. Waltontalk 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of words having different meanings in British and American English

List of words having different meanings in British and American English (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These lists originated as spinoffs of American and British English differences. The editors who used to work on that page thought that differences in vocabulary between American (AmE) and British English (BrE) could be divided into:

  1. words not used in AmE
  2. words not used in BrE
  3. words with different meanings in AmE and BrE

Unfortunately, this didn't work; this categorization turned out to be too rigid. Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and therefore don't qualify as being "not used" at all in BrE or AmE; that would have meant leaving out a lot of AmE/BrE vocabulary differences. The pages List of words not used... were therefore moved to List of words not widely used... However, page #3, i.e. List of words with different meanings, is too rigid as well. Real words with different meanings are relatively few (cf. Trudgill and Hannah, International English); most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation (e.g. smart, clever, mad). The article doesn't make such distinctions, and is in fact a confusing hodgepodge; it also features a lot of irrelevant information (such as "bird means 'avian creature'" and "read means 'to peruse written material'").

In addition, these articles are totally unmanageable and unmaintainable. Practically every day somebody adds a word to list #1 or #2 that actually belongs on list #3, or vice versa; often, someone will change or delete one or more entries on the basis of his/her personal experience (=original research: "I've never heard that" and the like).

But most of all, these articles violate several WP policies, to wit:

  • WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an idiom guide, or a list of dictionary definitions---and that's exactly what these articles are! Furthermore, many of the entries are slang-oriented, and Wikipedia is not a slang guide either.
  • WP:V and WP:RS. These lists are unsourced stem to stern.
  • WP:OR. As we have seen, these lists are extremely OR-prone.
  • List #3 is *very* long. According to Trudgill and Hannah, there are *thousands* of words that are used differently in AmE and BrE, so this approach is hopeless.

Bottom line: Lexical differences between AmE and BrE sure ought to be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. But that's not the way to do that; these articles have grown out of control, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. It's time to start all over again, with a totally different, source-based, encyclopedic approach. As we have seen, there are both linguistic arguments and policy-related arguments to get rid of these pages. Futhermore, two similar articles were deleted a few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_idioms.

Note that there's no need to transwiki these pages to wiktionary, either: thanks to wiktionary categories (UK, US, etc.), a list of words used differently in BrE and AmE can be automatically generated.

Please keep from pleading usefulness, effort, or interest. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete agree whole-heartedly. Bulldog123 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I've contributed to this article. The main problem I saw was that it leads the reader to believe that there are only two dialects of English that matter, and all other dialects are somehow sub-dialects of them. An article that discussed the differences among the many, many types of English would be welcome, but to somehow pick out British English and American English and dedicate all kinds of articles to the differences between those dialects alone reeks of bias. Another problem is that people keep adding in unsupported urban legends about how words and phrases were created (such as the phrase "to ball up" having something to do with snow in horses' hooves - a daft Victorian bowdlerization and proven as such). --Charlene 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've edited these articles 662 times. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Take a rubber to it.--Sandy Donald 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot of them. They are extremely useful, utterly fascinating, and a great deal of work has gone into creating and maintaining them - but they are fundamentally rubbish. I for one would like to spend less time correcting egregious errors in these three articles, and put some effort into helping to improve American and British English differences. Snalwibma 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-the general rules on American and British English spelling differences should be sufficient to replace these lists wholesale.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Hard work should not be discarded, and interesting and useful material should be kept somewhere. It somewhat shocks the conscience that the purgative itch has spread so far that these pages are thought worthy of being deleted, but the opening comments on this AfD are truly disheartening. These lists are indeed useful and interesting compilations of words that are likely to cause misunderstanding or incomprehension between Britons and North Americans. The information compiled here should be retained somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, someday we're gonna bring back this stuff---in a different form. But why transwiki? This information should already be in the wiktionary, under the germane entries, duly categorized as UK, US, etc. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's certainly not suitable for Wikipedia, but paper dictionaries often have appendixes like this; it seems suitable for Wiktionary. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. No paper dictionary has such appendixes, to the best of my knowledge. Paper dictionaries have this information under the individual entries. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Yes there are lots of issues here, and yes I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the term 'British English' somewhat annoying (I'm English, I speak English - I don't need some foreigner telling me what I speak!) but I think this is an important concept that deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Markb 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
See my comment #1 below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Honestly, what's so offensive about these lists? Does every book we don't want to read have to be burned? It strikes me that anybody who plans to travel across the Atlantic would want to know a bit more about the differences between the two nations that are separated by a common language. Most of us LIKE lists. Travelers like books of common phrases. Differences and similarities between Transformers and GoBots-- good! Differences and similarities between American and British English--- bad! No wonder WikiGroaning is out there; and WikiSnickering is next. Mandsford 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That aside, your argument is a balanced blend of WP:POKEMON and WP:NOHARM. See also my comment below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates WP:WINAD. Masaruemoto 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is not a dictionary, but that is. Resolute 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Do not delete until Transwiki is complete. Leave explicit redirect from a stub replacing this article pointing to the article in Wiktionary. WLDtalk|edits 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Transwiki to Wiktionary, or merge the three articles (which would be a lot of work). This is a very useful resource, which is what an Encyclopedia should be. I am British, but work with Americans and people whose first language is not English, and come across differences regularly. This list is unsourced because there is no other resource that has such a list. The criticisms are valid, but this list is needed. TiffaF 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is null and void. 1) You are pleading usefulness. 2) "The article is unsourced because there is no other similar resource." Well, that's exactly the definition of original research. Boo. See also below. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment #1. This one's for the keepers. Apparently you didn't read the "complaint." I said, Lexical differences between AmE and BrE sure ought to be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. But that's not the way to do that; these articles have grown out of control, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. It's time to start all over again, with a totally different, source-based, encyclopedic approach.. Maybe you don't know that I've been constantly working on this topic since I joined Wikipedia. This implementation, however, is a failure. Some buildings are just too dilapidated to repair or remodel. You can't help but tear down and rebuild them. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment #2. And this one's for the transwikists---and especially my friend WLD. This material doesn't belong in the wiktionary as is; please note that List of idioms in the English language was transwikied and deleted right off the bat. Luckily, however, wikionary has a Category:UK, a Category:US, and a most interesting Category:English words with different meanings in different locations; all you have to do is edit the (*already existing*) wictionary entries and tag them accordingly. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Take a look at wiktionary:Transwiki:List of idioms in the English language (A) and all other articles "List of idioms in the English language (x)" where x is A-Z. I think you'll find that "List of idioms in the English language" was deleted from Wiktionary because it was an inferior duplicate of the "List of idioms in the English language (x)" articles. You'll note that the deletion is a Soft Redirect to a wiktionary category. Now, I'm working on getting a round tuit to finish the work started transferring the Transwikied "List of idioms in the English language (x)" into Wiktionary proper (starting a Z and working backwards), so that each idiom has it's own entry. It's slow work because I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary, have high standards for citation etc. that are difficult to find the time to meet, and am extremely busy in real life. The point about all this is that the current "List of words having different meanings in British and American English" should be transwikied (your arguments for deletion are correct according to the current rules of Wikipedia) and used as a template for either a good article there; or good individual entries. I agree with other comments that point out that there are books on this topic: I have ISBN 0 902920 60 X [American-English, English-American : a two-way glossary of words in daily use on both sides of the Atlantic / [compiled and edited by Anthea Bickerton]. 1985.] , with which I could probably reference a significant number of entries in the current article - this would provide citable, verifiable references (whether they are academically strong is another matter). WLDtalk|edits 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question for the Lumbaryard Man: Jack, you have certianly given this a lot of thought, provided some excellent arguments, and done a fair amount of work in this area. Do you plan to rebuild a well-sourced similar collection of terms on wikipedia? I realize that there are essays that devalue arguments such as the article being interesting and useful, but these are just essays (and not very good ones). I would rather have folks find these pages with all of their problems than end up consulting the urban dictionary. -MrFizyx 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I'd like to start an American and British English lexical differences, along the lines of American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences, both of which are spinoffs of the main article and are fairly well written. We could for example categorize lexical differences by topic: food, apparel, household, business, transportation, education, colloquial usage, etc., and include more obscure differences as well: to extend the real estate analogy, for example, try googling UK and US sites for renovate and refurbish. Pieces of information such as "a bird is an avian creature" and "to read means to peruse" would naturally be left out. I can find printed sources to support even the "renovate/refurbish" example. As for the essays, they may not be excellent, but sure they're fun... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case I support your nomination to delete and encourage you to follow-up on your plans to write an even more useful article. -MrFizyx 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep obviously relevant topic and WP:RSes could easily be found. This topic has been the subject of no fewer than 5 different general books available at Amazon.com for instance, plus a few others with specialized comparative vocabulary for theater/theatre, underworld, and the like and this only on the first page of 1000+ results for a book search at Amazon for "British American Dictionary" It exists, people are writing about it, and we're deleting it. Seems odd... Carlossuarez46 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Either you didn't read the discussion, or you are making a fool of me. EVERYBODY agrees that the topic is relevant. On the contrary, your comment is totally irrelevant, since it evades the issue. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't read the discussion. It takes a lot more than 8 minutes to get to this page, read it through, and post a six-line paragraph. I just hope the closing administrator takes this into account. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The closing administrator should take into account your incivility and blatant intimidation. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This nomination appears to be an obsession, with twelve comments from the nominator about why this article should be deleted, many of them defensive... nothing uncivil, I suppose, but I haven't read the entire discussion. I don't know the Wiki precepts, don't care to memorize them, but I recall that the process should be limited to "non-controversial deletions". This one appears to be controversial enough to be a "no consensus"... I hope. Mandsford 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I read through the nominator's comments, and the complaints seems to be about maintenance-related issues that are repairable. Citations can be added for individual definitions, unverified entries can be removed if appropriate, and poorly-categorized words can be taken out. The list itself is supplementary to the American and British English differences article, and it does illustrate the differences between American and British English in a very useful way. It should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not just maintenance, it's also WP:WINAD. And then come linguistic issues. From a purely linguistic standpoint, the three-way classification (not used here, not used there, used with different meanings) is poor; we should gut-rehab the lists into something that makes more sense, merging them and then tearing them apart again. But it's gonna take a lot of work; I believe that a categorization by topic would be more useful than a dictionary-like alphabetical list. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Since you're working on an alternative that may be better, perhaps we can keep this article until your project is complete. You can't tear down the old bridge before the new one is ready to cross. I'm curious how far along you are on the job. When your article is ready for posting, please be assured that we will be just as adamant, as we are about this article, about saving your hard work from those who wish to delete it. Best wishes. Mandsford 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that I've worked on these articles, in their current form, more than anybody else. Another issue is that we currently have a lot of entries that explain basically the same thing, e.g. toilet, bathroom, john, restroom, loo, W.C., with a lot of redundancy and data fragmentation. A possible solution could be this User:JackLumber/Draft of American and British English lexical differences. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not obsessing (4th comment for me), but since you asked us to look at your rough draft, I would say that it combines lists #2, #3, and #4 but doesn't appear to be a substitute for the first one that you nominated... it appears that #1 is the product of steady evolution, also combining #2, #3, #4 in a nicely organized form, with columns separating AmE and BrE and words common to both languages; as with your prototype, there are explanations of the meanings. I like the Neapolitan ice cream approach of the current list, rather than the alphabetical list that mixes AmE and BrE words together in one smoothie. Mandsford 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Where's list #4? I nominated three lists. The problem of the current approach (which I prefer to term the double-entry bookkeeping approach) is that it's linguistically WRONG.
Most of the words that are characteristic of BrE or AmE are by no means totally unknown in the other dialect, and real words with different meanings are relatively few; most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation. The double-entry bookkeeping doesn't make such distinctions. You can't smoothly explain how the words smart, clever, mad, rubbish, rent, quite, rather, renovate, refurbish, and hundreds more are used, with them friggin' columns. Them friggin' columns are just factually inaccurate---and take up an enormous amount of space to boot. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
LANGUAGE IS NOT A REFRIGERATOR! Language is dynamic, it evolves, it can't be compartmentalized! ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right-- I miscounted; you're combining articles #2 and #3 into the prototype. I'm not computer savvy, so I guess #1 does take up a lot of space in its current format (161K for this article; compare to 82K for main BuffyTVS article; 43K for Buffy Summers, 5K - 10K for each episode article). But the format of #1 imparts the most information in the most readable form, and inaccuracies can be fixed. Again, no rational reason to delete these lists now, since there isn't much to take their place; the prototype was started in Oct '06, 4th edit in Dec '06, dormant until 6/22/07.
Gone as of 6/26/07. You happy now? May it rest in peace. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps language can't be compartmentalized-- but comparisons and contrasts of the language of the U.K. and the U.S. would seem to require separating the two into compartments. As I think about it, I believe that language really is a refrigerator, preserving its contents for public consumption, ready to receive additions. Some of the items have gone stale, no longer consumed, but left in the refrigerator until they are no longer recognizable. Definitely an interesting analogy. Mandsford 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. William Avery 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep. As a fairly regular contributor to the articles, I'm reluctant to see them go, but I don't think there's any answer to Jack's points - they're a blatant violation of WP:RS and WP:OR. However, I would also add the comment that, if we decide on deletion, we shouldn't attempt to recreate the content. If the content is (in principle) acceptable, and the issue is just about the formatting of the articles, then deletion is not the way to go; resurrecting the merge proposal would be a better idea. On the other hand, if the content isn't acceptable (mainly for OR reasons), it will remain unacceptable no matter how it's reformatted. The lists are very useful indeed, but Wikipedia isn't (apparently) the place for them. Tevildo 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So you are convinced that no reliable sources could be found? Then why advocate a re-creation of the material? It RSes can be found, then deletion is unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm convinced that no reliable sources can be found for the material as it is currently. The lists have been put together by lots of individual editors on the basis of their own knowledge of usage - undeniably OR. If the lists are going to be sourced, we're going to have to use dictionaries, which will violate WP:WINAD, and which won't give us the discrimination that the lists need. And, just to repeat, I'm actively advocating against re-creation of the material, if we get a "Delete" decision. Tevildo 00:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I believe ISBN 0 902920 60 X [American-English, English-American : a two-way glossary of words in daily use on both sides of the Atlantic / [compiled and edited by Anthea Bickerton]. 1985.], which I mentioned earlier, meets the main Wikipedia criterion of a source written in policy: it is verifiable, and "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It is a (small) book, not a web-page. It has actually been republished. It's not the 'Transatlantic Journal of Lexicology', but it is a start. As for whether it is sufficient to meet the reliable source guideline (not policy) is a different kettle of fish, and possibly not relevant to this AfD. WLDtalk|edits 08:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There are also Divided by a Common Language: A Guide to British and American English by Christopher Davies (an Englishman; published by Houghton Mifflin) and Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Transatlantic English by Orin Hargraves (an American; published by OUP). Both are guides to British and American customs and culture as well as language. But neither of them feel the need to remind the reader that read can mean "to peruse and understand written material." ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Changing my opinion based on the above. If the material can be sourced, then the articles should stay and be properly referenced, not deleted merely because of formatting problems. Tevildo 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - your first argument (WP:DICT) is bollocks/bullshit, because then all lists of words would have to be deleted. Your second and third arguments are essentially the same, lack of sourcing is not a criterion for deletion. We can tag it with {{unrefart}} and look for some sources, they sure exist. If you want to delete this one, then try to delete all language-related lists at once. Bonne chance. SalaSkan 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
A list of words is not necessarily a dictionary. See for example List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China (!) ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -I agree with what Salaskan said. Lord of Light 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -- Steve Hart 14:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is beginning to look like 'no consensus' WLDtalk|edits 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment we have 11—5.5—5.5 (D-K-T). ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if this were a vote, that would be 'no overall majority'. As we know, AfDs are not votes, but overall, actions are meant to be taken on consensus with a bias of 'no consensus = no action'. At the moment, the only way to argue this is to say that those not arguing for deletion (either immediately, or after a transwiki) are not taking policy into account - whereupon Wikipedia becomes a vast Nomic, at the beck-and-call of those who know how to play the game. WLDtalk|edits 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary if deemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I agree that not the whole article is useful, but some entries are particularly valuable (like "table an item from the agenda" etc). 128.211.171.197 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The table example is featured in the main article. Anyway, lexical differences between EngEng and USEng are to be covered, that's for sure. We still have to figure out how. 11—6—6 (D-K-T). ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we already did figure out how. Ten want to delete these lists, and twelve don't. It was 6-0 in favor of deletion at the beginning, so the tide did turn. We all seem to feel strongly about this. The difference is that if it's kept, we don't HAVE to look at it. If it's deleted, we CAN'T look at it. Mandsford 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki to wiktionar. I found this article useful as an American living in England. 78.145.8.18
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, per above. Will (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11-6.5-7.5 ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z...... Mandsford 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete after transwiki, if someone undertakes the latter job. `'Miikka 01:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete after transwiki. There are several kinds of list:
  • paradigm lists -- samples every type of difference (e.g. unknown in America; considered obsolete in Britain; used only ironically in America; considered offensive in Britain; applied only to children in America; used only in the metaphorical sense in Britain; etc. etc.) Such a list would be useful IMO; the current articles are nothing like that.
  • glossaries -- a set of structured lists of differences by topic, say, might be useful -- I think this is what JackLumber has in mind -- or possibly as an augmentation of existing dialect-neutral, topic-specific glossaries.
  • exhaustive lists -- this is possible for restrictive topics; the English language is not such a topic. These lists can only be exhaustive by replicating Wiktionary. Far easier to move them all over there and save duplication. For subsequent maintenance, if you can't be bothered creating a Wiktionary account, just add your wee edits anonymously.
  • random subset lists -- this is what we currently have. Falling between all the stools, reading it all through is sometimes interesting, sometimes tedious, but never encyclopedic. It diverts both readers and editors from more productive work.

jnestorius(talk) 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Joesty---your description is most perfect. I actually prefer the paradigm kind of thing, as noted in the complaint and on the LOWHDMIBAAE's talk page: Just because a word displays British/American differences doesn't mean it's "mostly used in one variety" or it has "different meanings." Usage, frequency, denotation, connotation, register,... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment fundamentally, the nominator doesn't like the current state of the article and intends to write another to replace it. Such a deletion is against policy. There seems to be no dispute as to whether the subject is encyclopedic (reliable sources are available for the subject -- whether those sources bear out every detail of the current content is no reason to delete -- one editor's view is to the contrary, notwithstanding the cited books, which I will assume that editor has read to be sure). If the pages are in such a need of a re-write the proper procedure is to propose the alternate on the talk page or create it in userspace and reference it on the talk page, rather than make the community take it on faith that this article will indeed be written, will be better than the current one, and will properly attribute any prior versions as per the GFDL. We all have come across an article in our humble opinions we'd prefer to delete and start from scratch. Fortunately, you can propose your own version for community review and consensus. Unfortunately, we cannot just delete something because we would rather re-start from scratch. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carlossuarez46 and others. Wholesale deletion of popular harmless huge collaborations like these are harmful to the Wikipedia community. Instead of putting energy into deleting them, add tags which explain their defects, and put an effort into improving them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the trouble is, it is not a "harmless collaboration" but a ragbag of nonsense and rubbish which takes an enormous amount of energy to keep straight. Unwatched for a day or two, it degrades into unreliable and misleading uselessness. It attracts a fantastic quantity of original research and unfounded personal opinion. The problem is the list structure, which acts as an invitation to add "my two-cents-worth" or "my tuppence-worth". I am sure the many contributors are well-meaning, but most of what gets added is nonsense (and/or duplication) and needs to be deleted. Jack is right - the only solution is to delete the lists and replace them with a proper encyclopedic article covering the nuances of different usages. Snalwibma 09:06, 28 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 Discounting the SPA's, notability is is not established by reliable independent sources per WP:NOT. Sandahl 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Keiser

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

Not notable. Subject is founder of Hollywood Stock Market, which is notable, but Keiser himself has received insufficient independent media coverage under BLP. Article reads like a fan site, and a large amount of it is devoted to non-notable Karmabanque website.--Mantanmoreland 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, insufficient resources to meet WP:BLP policy, and article is nothing more than a list of quotes anyhow. Burntsauce 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Burntsauce. Notability not established by reliable independent third-party sources. The Parsnip! 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the relevant info and redirect to the Hollywood Stock Exchange article, which isn't even linked from this one for some reason. Propaniac 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Merge Not notable enough. Corpx 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable enough to keep, but what the heck do I know :) --Tom 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I added some, not all, of the material on the Max Keiser entry and there was at one point an explanation of the significance of the underlying patent on HSX. It was however deleted. The three underlying patents which are still linked to in the article, I believe, are the only patents for prediction markets and virtual currencies. The virtual specialist technology he invented is a mechanism for creating a price for previously unpriceable things like fame, popularity, ideas, time spent online, etc. Prediction markets were called the biggest financial and market trend for the future by the Economist Magazine (December 2005). So, his virtual specialist technology is notable to economics and finance even if the average person doesn't understand the notability. The debate held between Keiser and the Hollywood studios in the public during 1999 when Keiser said studios were going to have to compete with a 'price point called free' was revolutionary at the time. From the Hollywood industry trade magazines linked to in the article, it is clear to see that no other person had suggested this publicly at that time and it was considered heretical as the articles make clear. In terms of Karmabanque not being relevant, Cheuvreux, a major European bank, only just came out with a report this month, June 2007, called "Consumer Power: Pricing Power versus Consumer Power" and the report specifically cites Max Keiser alone as having innovated a powerful market solution to the demand side of the consumer / corporation equation with Karmabanque. And Newsweek Japan is profiling Max Keiser and Karmabanque for the final issue of June 2007. The Karmabanque Hedge fund concept is the first ever mechanism for monetizing dissent in a day and age of anti-globalisation protests where hundreds of thousands protest G8 like events. Karmabanque has been profiled in the Washington Post, Dow Jones Marketwatch, Atlanta Journal Constitution and dozens of other important financial trade magazine and has been included in the curriculum at universities (Robert W. Benson, Loyola Law School) as well as legal opinions issued by the Washington Legal Foundation. So, while it may not be easy for the the average person to understand the significance at this moment in time, it is notable in financial, market, banking and academic sectors - all of which also use Wikipedia. And, finally, Max Keiser is an American presenter for Aljazeera English. He has made six films for them and most of the films are linked to in the article. Aljazeera English is a notable international broadcaster with significance at this moment in history. — 82.123.21.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC). (diff)
  • Note: The above comment comes from an IP address that has no editing history prior to the above comment.--Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum - Sorry no I am not Max Keiser. I didn't have an account now I do. — Predictablefrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC). (diff)
  • Neutral - Suggestions to both sides of this debate------A) To the anonymous IP above posting from Paris, France, where Keiser has lived and might be now, you might want to ensure that you can let wikipedia know that you are not Keiser himself, although vanity bios are not forbidden (an issue which is ironic on this page), or a significant other. You are not editing per BLP guidelines, so the deletion nominator has a point. Make an effort to show sources for ALL of your edits. The sources are there and extensive----B) To the deletion side: It appears you did not give an active editor a chance to more further source the material after some sourcing was done after this nomination was opened. It appears that eagerness to delete the BLP without giving the editor(s) more time to source the statements might have been affected by the fact that Keiser is working for Al Jazeera, and also reporting on controversial stock market issues, both of the preceding two issues that the nominator's edit history shows to be on the extreme opposite sides of in articles edited here. Piperdown 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hi, my name is Chris Masse, the editor of Midas Oracle, a group blog on prediction markets ( http://www.midasoracle.org/ ). In my judgment, the "Max Keiser" entry on Wikipedia is useful because it gives additional information about the first version of the Holllywood Stock Exchange, which seems to be a more ambitious endeavor that what we have right now. And as you all know, the Hollywood Stock Exchange is the world's most popular play-money prediction exchange. Economists who have been studying both real-money and play-money prediction markets say that their their relative accuracy is socially valuable. See the works from Robin Hanson, Justin Wolfers, Eric Zitzewitz, Koleman Strumpf, Paul Tetlock, and others. So for all these reasons, I vote to KEEP the "Max Keiser" entry. — 86.202.162.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:33 & 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC). (diff) (diff) — AND — Chris. F. Masse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC). (diff)
  • the "Max Keiser" entry on Wikipedia is useful because it gives additional information about the first version of the Holllywood Stock Exchange, which seems to be a more ambitious endeavor that what we have right now. Shouldn't that information go in a Hollywood Stock Exchange article then? Morgan Wick 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but shouldn't there be only one "keep"? You appear to have "voted" (quote unquote) twice, once logged in and once not. I assume this is inadvertent. --Mantanmoreland 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing your "vote" but I was hoping that you might also revert the links to your site too. They are not appropriate.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: six edits by four SPAs are from two users at most (perhaps only one):
  • (I {{spa}}-tagged their posts.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - subj is an active correspondant for Al Jazeera English. In considering notability, wikiepedia BLPs are replete with brief stubs of reporters for various news networks, a good portion of which are of debatable notability as people, but have their own very brief articles due to their positions. As this wikipedia by nature is British/American by location, language, majority of users, caution should taken in neutrally considering reporters from Western hemisphere networks vs networks that have in the past evoked widespread hatred against it, whether justified or not. Piperdown 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First, being a journalist for Al Jazeera is not sufficient to establish notability. You appear to recognize this by taking a "neutral" position. Second, please stop disparaging the motives of editors favoring deletion of this article. That is now the second time you have done this. Your innuendo and attacks are tiresome.--Mantanmoreland 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not be established and as has already been said, virtually no content other than quotes. What little could be used can easily be fitted into appropriate articles. —AldeBaer (c) 00:24, 25 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paula Campbell (singer)

Paula Campbell (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Promo campaign, see also cfd for Category:Paula Campbell albums) of a monnotable singer with a single album of dubious merit and circulation. `'юзырь:mikka 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep but some expansion is needed, especially bio info, but also musical portion will have to be expanded since one album was already relased prior to this year's (2004 at least in the US though).--JForget 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC) After that, it would definitely meet WP:BIO.--JForget 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Didi you happen to notice what kind of album it was? (delicately described as "limited circulation") `'юзырь:mikka 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Propaniac 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Based on her page at MTV.com Corpx 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Her" page has no weight in such decisions, not to say that this "her page" has NOTHING but her pretty faces. `'юзырь:mikka 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete barring the addition of any material to show notability. fuzzy510 22:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the singer seems notable. She is signed to a major record label and is releasing her debut this year. She is also on a major U.S. tour with Ne-Yo. --musicpvm 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. -- Steve Hart 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the artist actually is notable per WP:MUSIC. She meets criteria #4 and #11 [10]. --musicpvm 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There don't seem to be any reliable sources on the article indicating that she's done either a national tour or received national airplay; the link you posted, apparently to show that she's gotten airplay, doesn't seem to be viewable by the public (required a log-in and I didn't see a registration link). Propaniac 23:57, 25 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. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is nothing really to merge; there is a mention in two of the three artists' articles already, one of which is supported by reference to an interview. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DNA Algorithm

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

Non noteable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Should be merged with Daniel Bedingfield, Nikola Rachelle and Natasha Bedingfield Dalejenkins 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge as above. Not notable in itself.-gadfium 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dalejenkins 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete and merge any useful info. as indicated. JJL 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep merging to multiple articles doesnt leave a useful redirect. There is sufficient sources that mention this band.[11][12][13][14][15][16] John Vandenberg 09:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • John, none of the links you provided offers information which proves this band is a notable one. So I don't see why you think the article should be kept. Regards, huji—TALK 21:44, 21 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biowiki

Even less notable than many of the wikis Wyington Duarm has been nominating for deletion. No articles even link to this one. Mynglestine 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Mynglestine 14:47, 20 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 & Merge. --VS talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother

George Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Most of the infomation here is trivial and un-encyclopedic. Sources are few and far between. Galloway didn't win the competition, nor did he do anything extremely controversial. I'm suprised this article has lasted this long. Dalejenkins 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Can we merge it with the Big Brother article? Corpx 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) would probably be the best article to merge it to, or perhaps George Galloway. The only problem with merging it with Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) is that it might make the article heavily weighted in favour of just one contestant. Perhaps this could be solved by trimming down unnecessary details after the merge? Tra (Talk) 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge about a paragraph worth to Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) in the controversies section. There was clearly coverage of his time in the house but three or four sentences is plenty. Otto4711 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Needs quite a trim to remove irrelevant content.Depending on how much is left, either Merge (I'd suggest to George Galloway) or Keep. An active Member of Parliament appearing on Big Brother was controversial in itself, and gives GG's opponents an easy comeback for years to come. Paulbrock 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As the article was originally split from George Galloway, I'd suggest merging it there, although it was split because it was too large, so perhaps a weak keep from me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest merging with the George Galloway article, with a stub cross-ref placed within the CBB2006 article, thus covering both bases. Not an auto-delete, although notorious rather than notable. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the subject was notable, and because he is an active politician received coverage in different areas from most BB stuff. As Paulbrock says, no other politician will ever allow him to forget it, so the article will be needed for some years to come. Johnbod 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, though he's an MP, this is not encyclopedic material. -- Steve Hart 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The event is notable, I've seen British newspapers repeatedly mentioning it in 2006. However, it does need more sources.--Kylohk 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Same as others above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galbijim Wiki

Not notable, no outside sources, no newspaper articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyington Duarm (talk • contribs) 2007-06-19 21:43:14

  • Delete, does have afew newspaper mentions, but not as many as some deleted sites. Mynglestine 04:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: from an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs.  RGTraynor  18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the delete vote said, it has multiple newspaper mentions, which act as outside sources. If the lack of sources and of articles is the only reason to determine its non-notability, then there's no reason to support deletion. Nyttend 18:13, 20 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. Sr13 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet systematics

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

Article describes a non-notable group; as noted on its talk page by the author, "Of course is a new term, not "established" but no harm can be done by collectively creating a new term of something that exists by many different names, as the entry text warns." I requested it for speedy deletion; another user removed the tag for a reason that I don't understand, but since it was removed I brought it here. Nyttend 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The intent seems to be to use Wikipedia as a tool for original research, or at least a compilation of it. Propaniac 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I dont think this topic is relevant enough right now to warrant a page Corpx 19:25, 20 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. Sr13 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular cultural references for The Wizard of Oz

Popular cultural references for The Wizard of Oz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Article lists any trivial mention of The Wizard of Oz in film, book or TV show, including "movies where the characters are seen watching The Wizard of Oz." Therefore, it runs the risk of becoming insanely bloated. The main article has a "cultural impact" section as well as a list of notable adaptations. My mistake; this list seems to be concerned with pop culture refs to the film, not the story itself. The entirety of the article up for AfD is duplicated at the film's article. Bzuh? María (críticame) 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a medium's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not only is it merely cruft, it's really most sincerely cruft. Otto4711 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Retain - This content is like a ball of mercury, if there isn't a separate article then it will clutter up the main article. The similar content in the original article should all be moved here and then removed from the main article. Butwhatdoiknow 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Better here than there is not a valid argument for keeping the article. If the information is unencyclopedic in the main article then it's unencyclopedic on its own. The proper course of action for dealing with unencyclopedic material is to delete it, not to foist it off into its own terrible article for someone else to deal with. Otto4711 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. --Charlene 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I know, it's hypocrital of us to all use Wizard of Oz references as we vote to delete this article, but it really does list even the most trivial references to Oz, and I liked all the Oz books. You forgot The Matrix, but "Kansas is going bye bye" would meet your criteria. Gotta drop the farmhouse on this one. Mandsford 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:08, 21 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. I didn't find the keep arguments sufficiently persuasive. Keep if referenced is not a good argument, when you are not providing the references. A search through google does not yield anything which can be taken as a serious academic or reliable source. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bektashi jokes

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

Wikipedia is not a joke book, and this article does not cover encyclopedic material. The article does not cite its sources and is basically a list of off-color jokes. Agha Nader 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. per WP:BJAODN.--Edtropolis 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep We have a whole huge category:humor. Humor is an importnat element of human culture and various prominent national humor topics , such as Nasreddin are fairly encyclopedic and easily referencible. And the statement "basically a list of off-color jokes" is just plain false; the nominator seems failed to read the article. `'юзырь:mikka 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki:Humor is not a collection of jokes either. Just because a group/culture is joked about doesnt mean wikipedia should have a list of those jokes Corpx 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per юзырь, this article is not written as a jokes list. The article describes a specific social and cultural function Bektashi jokes play in certain Islamic societies. The two jokes (usefully) illustrate the encyclopedic points, but they're not the main thrust of the article. As long as the content is correct (already tagged as needing citations), the article is encyclopedic. Zenauberon 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems a little too much like original research to me, but if references can be provided, Weak keep. Clarityfiend 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, refs req'd, or may fail as OR. Zenauberon 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if referenced. If this is an important subjecy, it shouldn't be hard. The article isnt a list, it talks about cultural parallels and signif. What it needs is references to some book with more of them. DGG 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article contains a lot of original research. The article states: "The following example illustrates how the Heterodox understanding of Islam by Bektashis is expressed in these jokes:" While it tries to give significance to the "examples", it is entirely based on OR. Another case of OR is "The legacy of the Bektashi also serves as a means of opposing the pressures put on society by Orthodox Islam." If you remove the original research from the article, then it will indeed be an article that is just a list of jokes.--Agha Nader 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep After reading the article, I agree with mikkalai and others. This is an article about humor in culture different from yours or mine, not a "joke book". No, Wikipedia is not a place for an expanding collection of jokes for editors to add to. However, that which one finds funny is as important a part of one's cultural background as anything else. Let's not start a trend where we need to nominate as an AfD Lightbulb joke or Knock-knock joke, which analyze those respective forms of mirth. Mandsford 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--SefringleTalk 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment There has been no sources to prove the notability of Bektashi jokes. Just because a theme for a joke exists does not mean it ought to have its own article.--Agha Nader 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • of course keep It seems kids without a sense of humor get mad everytime they see a joke.--BMF81 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith--Agha Nader 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This article is about the fundamental role a sophisticated, ironic form of humor plays within a particular society. From a sociological perspective, this is quite interesting and certainly noteworthy. The article needs expansion but its basic premise is clearly encyclopedic. I don't see how anyone could characterize this a joke book.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"Its basic premise" is based on original research that cites no references... how is that encyclopedic?--Agha Nader 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Your characterizing it as a "joke book" when it obviously is not is difficult to understand. That it is not properly sourced does not make its content unencyclopedic. And it certainly is not in violation of WP:OR given the information in its external links. Obviously, it needs more scholarly references but that can be fixed and is not grounds in and of itself for deletion. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The entire article is in violation of WP:ATT. Are we to assume it is encyclopedic because the unreferenced original research sounds encyclopedic? There has been no proof that it is encyclopedic. Since you are making the affirmative statement (i.e. "its basic premise is clearly encyclopedic.") you have the burden of proof. Moreover, the external links are not references, they are websites that have these jokes.--Agha Nader 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless the editor who originated this article is John Shindeldecker, none of this is OR. The content appears to be derived from the third external link, which really should be listed as a citation instead. (Under Section X, there is a series of jokes listed, along with interpretations that seem to match those adopted in the WP article.) A check of the organization hosting the ref'ed article suggests this is a secondary source with editorial control, not self-published, although I won't claim to know anything about the "Alevilik-Bektasilik Research Site." But a google search tells me that whoever this author is, the Canadian gov't considers him authoritative enough to cite on an official document. Zenauberon 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if referenced. Being a joke book doesnt matter, notability matters. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article discusses a cultural influence and model of humor. -- Bigwyrm 03:15, 26 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouses in Spain

Lighthouses in Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

zomg listcruft!!!111! Erm. Sorry. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. -- Merope 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Category is there already, no need for a list. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Kwsn. Why do we need two pages to do the work of one?--C.Logan 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete since the category exist, lots of red links too. But there at list 15-20 other list similar to that, so I guess most of them are listcruft as well.--JForget 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is Cruftcruft. First, the category only lists articles created--many of the lighthouses on the list will never have stand-alone articles, and we usually merge these to a list. Also lighthouses are prominent geographic landmarks, important in both marine navigation, and human culture. Each one must be unique for identification, and the unique characteristics are often associated with the adjacent settlements. Dhaluza 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a perfect example of a list that does what a category cannot, show articles that are not yet created. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'll give you that one, but how can the lighthouses be verified? That's a big concern of mine. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Look on a map. We don't delete articles because you can't verify it without getting out of your chair. Dhaluza 12:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, since we're using lists on WP, this one serves its purpose. -- Steve Hart 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lighthouses are important features in ocean navigation, and therefore important geographical landmarks, often receiving a pretty prominent mark on maps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 28 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 redirect and possible merge to AC/DC. Most of the keep arguments fail to address the issue of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The relevant portions of this article can be merged at editorial discretion, the edit-history remains intact. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AC/DC in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/AC/DC in popular culture Articles for deletion/AC/DC in popular culture (3rd nomination)
AC/DC in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete This is the third nomination for this article, but I hope those who are going to look at that fact and be inclined to !vote "keep" because it has survived previous AFDs will look at the article and at the quality of the "keep" arguments. In the 1st AFD, two of the four keepers appealed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX, arguing that if this article is deleted then other similar articles would also be deleted. In the 2nd, three out of the four "keeps" were based on the notion that the article could be improved and the other keeper at least partially agreed with the nomination. As to why this article should be deleted, it falls under WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:AVTRIVIA. The mere presence of something that AC/DC did or that a character in a movie is dressed like a member of AC/DC or that someone drew a picture of an AC/DC member for an album cover for another band tells us nothing about AC/DC or the thing in which AC/DC appears or the real world. The fact that a character wears an AC/DC t-shirt or regrets missing an AC/DC concert is trivial and again tells us nothing about the band, the fiction it's drawn from or the real world. A strong consensus has emerged that it is not notable that an artist covered another artist's song and over a dozen lists of such cover songs have been deleted. The only part of this article that is encyclopedic is the list of tribute albums, and I have preserved that in List of AC/DC tribute albums and located it where it belongs in Category:Tribute albums. This article is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Otto4711 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note - the first AFD for this article is found here under a different article title. Otto4711 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia. The band AC/DC is part of popular culture. Some of the entries in this article are really about ac/dc current!! --Charlene 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that need for cleanup is not a ground for deletion - often crap ends up in articles which simply should not be there, but the subject itself is notable of an article and a decent article *can* be written. Orderinchaos 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then let's delete this article, which is not decent, and then someone can write a decent article. Otto4711 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is sourced and most of the references appear relevant. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that an article is sourced does not mean that the rest of WIkipolicies don't apply. Simply saying "it's sourced" does not address the policy violations asserted in the nomination. "Relevant" does not appear to have any foundation in policy or guidelines. Otto4711 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, I think "relevant" was in reference to your nom, which asserts that many of the references to AC/DC are not relevant to the band. It would also seem pertinent to WP:AVTRIVIA, since that which is trivial is presumably non-relevant. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years just like the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Beethoven this is notable beyond the genre of Music. All claim of fact are referenced, its even notable to enough for Rolling Stone to recognise AC/DC infleunces in popular culture. Gnangarra 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That similar articles may exist about other acts is not a valid justification for this article. Jimi Hendrix, Aerosmith, The Who and Rush all had an influence on pop culture but articles filled with this sort of stuff were deleted for them. This article does not in any way establish AC/DC's influence on pop culture. It establishes that there have been a few instances of people mentioning AC/DC or dressing up like someone from AC/DC in movies or TV shows. In almost every instance noted, some other band could have been substituted and it would have made absolutely no difference. Otto4711 04:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please dont put words in my mouth or try to refactor what I'm saying, I said "The article covers a specific area of knowledge about AC/DC and its influences to culture during the last 30+ years" I didn't say xxx has an article so this one should, referencing demonstrates Notability together woth Verfiability the sources are reliable the indiscriminate unsourced pieces were removed during the previous AfD, but then you know this as you initiate the second nomination a week after the first AfD closed and have now started a third, I suggest that you go and read the policy WP:POINT and since your demanding further policy considerations also read WP:CIVIL and respect the opinions of others. 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of civil, falsely accusing people of violating POINT or CIVIL just because they disagree with you and expect you to be able to defend your statements is in itself highly uncivil. I respect your right to have your opinion but I also disagree with it and I will continue to challenge it. If you don't like having your opinion challenged then you should probably reconsider participating in these sorts of discussions. Otto4711 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As someone who actually normally opposes "popular culture" articles and sections, the AC/DC "brand", if you will, is widespread and distinctive enough in the 34 years they've been recording to actually have one. Reliable sources do not appear to be a problem. Apart from Jimi, I'd have voted delete on the ones Otto cited. Orderinchaos 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a trivia fork. Lots of other notable subjects have had these type of articles deleted, and we don't need to list every single thing about a band to have an article. Just widdle down the cruft and merge anything needed to the main article. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Biggspowd 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per other "In popular culture" articles that have passed through here recently. If the content had been suitably encyclopaedic, it would have stayed contained in the main AC/DC article. - fchd 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no different than most other popular culture articles. Carlossuarez46 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the references which say "still shot on imdb.com" are a true reference. They are original research. A reference would be to an article discussing how (eg) Jack Black looks like Angus Young when he wears a schoolboy uniform styled outfit. BTW: Abstaining, because WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to !vote Keep.Garrie 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep, although there are still some legitimate issues with some of the references, overall this seems like an example of what articles like this should be. -- Visviva 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - this is really not sufficiently encyclopaedic in its own right as an article. Anything relevant in it is already in other articles, or should be moved there by those above concerned enough to become emotional about the topic. Agnetha1234 07:43, 23 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 Speedy delete A7. -- lucasbfr talk 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Barajas

Jesus Barajas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - No establishment of notability. Keith D. Tyler 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ditto.--C.Logan 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is the first relevant link in google search | Not notable Corpx
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO as he has not yet played in a premier league team. Might have been speedied, since being the goaltender for a small-town Florida children's football/soccer team is not really an assertion of notability. --Charlene 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Never heard of the guy. EliasAlucard|Talk 06:47, 21 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete a7. Punkmorten 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 21 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: Speedy Deleted as duplicate page and not a candidate for a redirect. SirFozzie 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A R REHMAN

A R REHMAN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article already exists for this individual. This duplicate article is a redundant mess. The article was created not long ago today, June 20. The creator apparently compiled this mess of information haphazardly primarily for the addition of this individual to the List of notable converts to Islam page, unaware that the individual is already listed on that page (with a link to the established article). The creator and sole editor of the article in question, Abrus, has shown to have little familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it should be noted by his short contribution history that he has spent a good portion of it removing information that he does not like, and listing Answers.com articles (which are explicit mirrors of Wikipedia) as sources. I suggest that this article be speedily deleted. C.Logan 17:10, 20 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. I'm not crazy about moving things to BJAODN that aren't funny, so I won't. Sr13 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chickens in popular culture

Chickens in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate list serving as a directory of loosely-associated topics. Draws together material from multiple genres and styles of fiction along with a few real chickens with absolutely nthing in common beyond the existence of a chicken, or in some cases a person in a chicken suit. Otto4711 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep (or annihilate popular culture sections!). Please don't remove this, otherwise all this rubbish gets rolled back into the already too-large Chicken article from where I removed it. I'm not wild about "popular culture" stuff anyway, but there are plenty of Wiki editors who seem to love it, and better they add it to articles like this than into serious articles about biology or whatever. Neale Monks 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. I'm sorry, I'm not at all wild about the concept that we need to have garbage articles because it then supposedly becomes too hard to edit the main article.  RGTraynor  16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of an animal's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bulldog123 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention of The Wrong Trousers?! Seriously, though, WP:NOT, OR, etc. María (críticame) 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 20:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the correct way to deal with unencyclopedic trivia is to delete it, not fork it into its own page. --Haemo 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense in popular culture ON WHEELS!. YechielMan 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Articles_for_deletion/Chickens_in_popular_culture. This could be considered as listcruft and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. With regard to "XYZ in popular culture", it can be encyclopedic, but this is one such instance where it is unencyclopedic. You have to be careful with these articles. --SunStar Net talk 09:25, 21 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. Prodego talk 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Davies (English footballer)

Scott Davies (English footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable Corpx 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite ironic, as I placed him up for deletion before. Why is he kept when he definetley wasn't notable (when in non-league with Morecambe) and now he's nearly there, people decide against his inclusion? Mattythewhite 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - didn't realise... I've just checked, and the previous AFD was before the move from Scott Davies (goalkeeper) to Scott Davies (English footballer). Regardless, WP:BIO states that a player should have played in a fully professional league before being notable enough to warrant an article. This player doesn't satisfy that criterion, and may not do so next season if Morecambe feel he is not up to the job. robwingfield «T•C» 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not currently notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I doubt Morecambe are going to release him, they've done their summer releases already [17]. It's a very mild case of WP:CRYSTAL, but there's really little point in deleting him if the article's going to be created, probably in a poorer state in just under two months time. The general understanding is that players who are in league club squads but are yet to play a game are allowed to be kept. In the context, I think it would be fine to keep Davies under this ruling until the start of the season. HornetMike 11:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - while he has not played a league match yet, an appearance in the play-off final is surely noteable. If it must be deleted, surely the text could be archive somewhere so that it may be recreated if and when he does play in the league -- Campdave 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • An administrator, such as I, can undelete an article if requested.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For the reasons that HornetMike stated. Che84 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, as per HornetMike. He played in the Play Off Final, is in Morecambe's squad and may well therefore be playing in the Football League in a couple of months time, at which time another article would have to be created, and this one at least is fine. Of course if he leaves them without playing and ends up back in non-league football then at that time it should be deleted. But for the sake of a few months it should be kept for now. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per HornetMike. If he fails to play for Morecambe in the Football League the article can come back for AfD later in the year. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep wait and see if he does play in the Football League Kingjamie 12:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per my vote in previous related AfD - I have seen no reason to change my mind as yet. He is a player contracted to a club in a fully professional league (at the moment). Wait and see. Ref (chew)(do) 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We cannot predict whether he will play for Morecambe next season. If he does, we can undelete.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per HornetMike. Govvy 11:14, 27 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 redirect and merge as per editorial consensus on appropriate talk pages. Not here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The speedy deletion of this article (as a CSD G4, also in light of NPOV issues) was overturned at DRV. The article's title and structure raise NPOV concerns. Clearly, some content is useful, and a merge, redirect, or even a rewrite, could be in order. However, no consensus emerged at the DRV about any further action after overturning. Weak delete, as it stands, though obviously the DRV (and I) encourage alternative suggestions. Xoloz 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • History of previous deletions An AFD was entered for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide 29 April 2006, It was agreed that it should be deleted. The author should not wait a month and then recreate it under a different name. In this case the original author created a new page with similar content to the original during the AFD (see Algerian Genocide Claims from 10:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)) that was deleted along with the original (see Algerian Genocide from 11:19, 25 April 2006 . This page was a recreation of the second page that was created during the original AFD and the next edit after "Algerian Genocide Claims" was deleted was at "08:30, 22 October 2006. David Falcon (Redirecting to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians)" which I think is more evidence that this article is an attempt to circumvent an AFD. The current page we are debating was created with the name Genocide Against Algerian Identiy, on 02:06, 20 May 2006 by David Falcon , (about a month after the original was deleted) it was moved "18:16, 14 June 2006 . . Deodar (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identiy to Genocide Against Algerian Identity" and moved again "02:19, 27 September 2006 . and again: Dmcdevit (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identity to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians: neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable.." See above that it was deleted in November 2006 with a speedy deleted and remain deleted for half a year until undeleted in April this year. So I deleted it again as soon as I became aware that it had been undeleted (I was not informed that it had been undeleted). If it remains it makes a mockery of the AFD process. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the alleged incidents should be narrated somewhere, and a record of notable commentary might wish to record that some people have used the g word. But a list of media accusations isn't an neutral article.--Sandy Donald 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep if properly sourced, which would include references to the specific use of "genocide" in this context. DGG 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
  • keep The title alone should not be used to judge an article. That being said I agree with remarks by DGG, and it seems properly sourced at the moment. Bleh999 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply referencing something doesn't make it neutral. If I were to create an article Accusations of racism made against George Bush and then write about every controversy he'd been involved in, where some commentator had used the word 'racist', would that be NPOV? Of course, all the incidents from Iraq to Gitmo would be notable and, of course, criticism of Bush's involvement in them would a legitimate topic, but organising them round that loaded word would be biased. Now we should have articles (don't we?) on French attitudes and actions towards Algeria - and criticism of them should be recorded (including, in context, any description of them as genocide) - but this is as biased as List of times someone has described the pope as bigoted or Accusations of barbarism against Islam.--Sandy Donald 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There are about 12 daughter articles of 'George Bush' including one called Criticism of George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush so I don't think your example about George Bush was a good one. Your example of 'barbarism against islam' is also not good as we have Allegations of Islamic apartheid, Criticism of Islam and Islam and slavery as well as Islamist terrorism not to mention Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid amongst many others including just articles on books or documentaries and redirects. If we were to accept your argument all of these articles must be deleted, by the way I think genocide should be mentioned in this title name, because it has been described as a Genocide by individuals, organizations and some governments (such as the government of Turkey, whatever your personal opinion of them is), the article is not presenting the French actions in Algeria as genocide as a fact, it is an examination of the phenomena surrounding the genocide claim. Also this title was chosen by an admin to make it more neutral, so if your objection is just the title alone, it doesn't merit deletion. Reach consensus on the talk page for name change, rather than deleting, btw your arguments sound very similar to Doc glasgow you wouldn't happen to be friends? Bleh999 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not a big fan of the title, but I fail to find something better. I'm open to every new proposal, let's not delete the article because of its title :). The reason of the title is that President Bouteflika called these acts Genocide, and some other sources concurred (especially Turkey, for an obvious reason). The reason of the title was an attempt to have some distance from these accusations. On a content POV, some could be merged to Algerian War, but the polemic started in 2006, and putting these events in their own article can help making the issue clearer. I won't vote keep or delete on that matter, because I am really split here. I think the best option won't be a simple "Keep" or "Delete". -- lucasbfr talk 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A topic of period and current debate. Already has some sources. Edward321 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and merge. I note that, officially, the accusations of genocide stems from a 2006 speech by the Algerian president. For now, at least, this accusation should be included in any of the other articles concerning this subject, e.g. Algerian War of Independence and Torture during the Algerian War. -- Steve Hart 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Both of those articles are already quite extensive, they are not suitable for merging as we usually split articles that are very long, I don't think that is a good reason to delete this article since it is going against wikipedia policy. Bleh999 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To be more precise: The historical events these accusations are based on, and how France behaved, is covered in other articles. The accusation from official Algeria was brought up rather recently and should be added to one of these articles, for now, IMO. The accusation article is not very long, yet, either. -- Steve Hart 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not know about Torture during the Algerian War. That might be a good idea to merge both articles (but by reading a bit that one, a big NPOV work seems needed on that one too). -- lucasbfr talk 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with what you are saying about the obvious relevancy of the topics, but Torture during the Algerian War that article is specific to one topic, namely torture, maybe it could be renamed to Human rights abuses and accusations of Genocide during the Algerian War, and both old articles redirecting to the newly merged one, maybe then I would support a merge, but I don't see how the topics would fit in the same article otherwise. Bleh999 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentIt should be noted that Philip Baird Shearer is the admin that speedily deleted this without an AfD contrary to wikipedia policy. I don't agree this should be merged into human rights in Algeria because the French rule in Algeria is considered a different state as per wikipedia norms, besides yet again Philip Baird Shearer is confusing moving the name of the article with a deletion of the content, either you disagree with the title or the content, which is it? You don't make any sense at all. Bleh999 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree that Human rights in French Algeria and Algeria shouldn't be discussed in the same article, these are 2 very different subjects. I note that Human rights in France has a section called Torture and inhumane treatments during the Algerian War that points the reader to Torture during the Algerian War. -- lucasbfr talk 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--SefringleTalk 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask which above you are refering to? AfD is more a discussion than a vote. -- lucasbfr talk 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia policy is only to delete articles that violate policy not because of personally invested opinions, bias and politics, philip says we should delete it, but why? How does it violate wikipedia policy to report on current events, that is the whole point of an encyclopedia you cannot censor articles because of personal bias and not provide any compelling reason to delete. Look we have Assyrian Genocide and the article even explicitly admits no country in the world recognizes it as a 'genocide' yet the article calls itself a genocide. Fact is that this article is well sourced and documented, and the only reason to delete it censorship and unfortunately personal bigotry. Recesende 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The major reason is that if it remains it makes a mockery of the AFD process. (see History of previous deletions above). The second reason is that the current name makes the structure of the article tend towards a non neutral point of view, if the text were to be placed into the article human rights in Algeria the issued and the recent allegations could be looked at in an historical context --Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move and redirect to Controversies involving the Algerian war of independence or something. Don't scrap the whole article if it's just the title that is the problem.--Flamgirlant 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Rename we should have no articles with titles like "accusations" or "allegations"; they come cheap and are hardly worthy of an encyclopedia. The events that give rise to the accusation and allegation may deserve coverage in an encyclopedia - here perhaps in the Algerian War or if too big to fit a NPOV named Civilian casualties in the Algerian War. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I considered your vote to be keep if you just want it renamed, however we have Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid. Allegations_of_Brazillian_apartheid, Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba, Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid survived 6 AfD and it looks like Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid will survive too Bleh999 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My !vote is consistent with keep if someone is only counting noses (I hope the closing admin actually reads stuff where there is a true difference of opinion). Why keep it somewhere? It seems to easily pass WP:N, the war is a historical event (how one interprets it seems to be the core of the controversy/accusation). WP has seen fit to not use certain terms as being inherently POV ("cults" comes to mind), unfortunately "apartheid" isn't there perhaps so we don't mischaracterize anything, we're left to parrot whatever terminology the "alleger" or "accuser" uses. Also the whole "allegations", "claims", and "accusations" is troublesome in titles as it is in articles themselves. Is a "claim" sufficient to support an article? I hope not. Many "claims" are based on the loudest voices with the most strident views, and WP would give WP:UNDUE weight to those views. A quick google search for Bush and "war crimes generates 2million ghits, Bush and "war criminal" another 770k, but unless and until Bush is put on trial somewhere for something related to those accusations, I'd venture to say that accusations are cheap and despite their volume an article Accusations of war crimes against George W. Bush would be unwarranted and premature, as would be the 2 million ghits for judaism + evil, 2.3 million ghits for islam + evil, and 2.5 million for christianity + evil, be bases for articles Accusations that Judaism is evil, Accusations that Islam is evil, Accusations that Christianity is evil. Sorry for the long explanation, but it's not an easy keep or delete for me on this one. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Those comparisons aren't really valid since those articles don't even exist and we can't even judge them but if they did exist we would judge them on their own merits per WP:ALLORNOTHING, also do we have articles that criticize George Bush, by the way someone else pointed out that the Assyrian holocaust is not recognized by any country in the world, therefore it is really just an accusation as well, and that term is not recognized except online. Should it be deleted? The fact is that there is no set guideline on what constitutes a genocide for the people that have suffered the events that lead them to call it a genocide. There is nothing hateful or incorrect about the current title of this article, it may not be perfect but I don't understand the objections of some people, although I do respect what you have said about the 'allegations' articles, but the fact is that the people of wikipedia support articles with such names, expect more to be created. Bleh999 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Bleh999 I think you are putting beans up your nose, just because there are some articles that exist on Wikipedia that are inappropriately named is no reason for keeping another one that has all the same problems as the ones you are mentioning. A much better idea would be to suggest that those articles be moved to better names or deleted as is being discussed here with this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That link has no relevancy to what we are discussing, I don't what compelled you to think it did. Besides we judge the content as it is viewed from wikipedia policies, not because of personal bias, maybe you forgot that in your zeal to get this article deleted. No one has yet stated a valid reason why this article violates wikipedia policies, your own personal opinions aside.Bleh999 19:59, 28 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin wolpert

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

This is a borderline case, but he's not on the right side of notability yet, I'm affraid. Apart from being unreferenced, (I found the link to copy of the documentary here), it's tough to say what distinguishes Wolpert from numerous others Bridge pros around. His achievements are all fine (Blue Ribbon pairs are still a side event of NABCs, and he came second one year at Spingold. He's currently ranked 586 in the world [18]. The problem with establishing of notability within bridge world is a bit difficult, as it's kind of walled garden; (see Google). In all fairness, he was sort of featured in Sydney Morning Herald, but more as a traveling bridge hired gun than for his achievements... Tough call, I'd say. Duja► 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for lacking clear notability, aside from bits and pieces of media coverage as mentioned. A key clue is that "what links here" shows zero other Wikipedia articles (aside from this AFD). YechielMan 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. 586th isn't even a big fish in a small pond. We're not talking Blue Team here. Clarityfiend 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's been the subject of a documentary produced by a national tv network in his home country, Canada. He's also been written about by a newspaper in Australia. I also did a web-search on the "Vincent Dumuy" listed in the article. Nothing came up, BUT spell it "Dumey" & there are lots of hits, including some that also pertain to Gavin Wolpert. I didn't have time to look through them (pizza just was delivered to my house) but I found this which lists Gavin Wolpert as a member of the Flight A 2003 Cdn National Team. ColtsScore 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    ...and the team ended up 9th in the subsequent 2003 Bermuda Bowl, not even making it to the quarterfinals. WikiProject Contract Bridge is mostly dead, and it haven't set up hard rules for notability. Still, I feel that allowing all Bermuda Bowl participants and all NABC finalists would give us few thousands biography articles in what is (unfortunately) still a minor sport.
    He maybe is (or was?) a rising star (altough his best achievements are from 2003-2005); still, he's ranked #32 in Canada's all-time Masterpoint list, which isn't good enough even for America's top 500 (although I do think that masterpoint rankings show more how persistent one is, than is a real measure of play quality). Remarkable? Yes. Enough? Not in my book, but YMMV. Duja► 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 15:08, 25 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. Anas talk? 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Wilson (Consultant)

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria for persons. Of the four sources given, only one is from a reliable source, and it is not an article about the subject, just one that mentions him. Prod was removed by anon. -- Merope 15:21, 20 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Burroughs Report

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

This article is about an e-book by William S. Burroughs. First, it fails WP:BK since no secondary sources are known. Second, I would merge to the article about the author if there were any sources about this text; but even the text itself is no longer available online, the web site seems to be dead. PROD was contested, with comment: "major author. any of his works is impt." By WP:BK, this would require special historical significance of the author, which does not seem obvious to me. --B. Wolterding 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm not sure what constitutes special historical significance for an author. The WP:BK page says that an author who is the "subject of common classroom study" would have special historical significance, but it does not specify how this is determined[19]. In my experience, William S. Burroughs is a "subject of common classroom study." Jordansc 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete William S. Burroughs is an important author but, as far as I can tell, The Burroughs Report is not cited in the MLA bibliography and doesn't come up in Academic Search Premier. Unless other sources are forthcoming, this information should be included in the William S. Burroughs article. Jordansc 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • comment I contested the prod, in the hope of bringing it to attention to see if secondary sources could be found. I agree that otherwise it would be best merged.DGG 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: If the article is to be merged, as you suggest, what content should be merged to William S. Burroughs? There are no sources whatsoever, not even primary ones, not even sources confirming the existence of the text. I can hardly merge a sentence like, "Allegedly there has been a web site, on which an autobiography..." --B. Wolterding 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable book. Am I the only on who see a parked domain on the external link? It's possible the owner just lost the domain, there's a recent whois change. The book still turns up on google. -- Steve Hart 15:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, at least the link to the book still turns up on Google. But I don't think that the Google cache is a reliable source that can be cited... --B. Wolterding 15:21, 25 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 Speedy deletion - (Patent nonsense). This article from start to finish has been nothing more than a forum in-joke. If it's ever to be a serious article, it needs to rewritten from scratch citing real academics and journalists.  Netsnipe  ►  20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First World Problems

First World Problems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:OR and/or WP:NEO Iknowyourider (t c) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

this is a fascinating conundrum in the modern world and wikipedia desperately needs to stay on top of stuff like this to stay relevant.

also, ironically, having your wikipedia article marked for deletion is perhaps the ultimate FWP. as a mark of wikipedia's hipness (hipsters love irony!) perhaps the article could be left in this state indefinitely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imperialism cola (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 Jun 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Obviously a term with cultural significance, only needs more references. MisterQuickly 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Complete and total original research. Wildthing61476 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable but needs more sources. This article seems trying to trace a current phrase through its usage. One of the articles linked actually talks about the phrase in general terms. Authors should include material from that in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.98.84 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong keep. This piece is coming together nicely, and with time and effort could one day be a featured article. — Imperialism cola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. But needs more examples of usage. — Tesharr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: A garbage article that blows holes through WP:OR and WP:V. No reliable sources to back up assertion that this is a "current phrase," complete synthesis.  RGTraynor  17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- utter rubbish and offensive Astrotrain 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like something off a blog, not an encyclopaedia article. --Folantin 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs work. [20] would appear to indicate that the phrase is notable, and has significant content. The current article is perhaps not perfect, but this is a common WP:New Article Problem. This one hasn't stood even for a day yet.
  • (Disclosure: I have once been a victim of WP:IDONTLIKEIT delete of a fresh article that was thus deprived a chance to develop properly.) Digwuren 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would consent to see it userified for that reason; but this should not be in article space. There may be an article here; but this is not it, and is not likely to become it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Sure it's a phrase a few people have used, but this article is just silly. Slideshow Bob 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Neologism with no indication of mainstream use. The examples used as "First world problems" and "third world problems" seem specifically designed to trivialize the concept of a "first world problem." In other words this article is blatantly WP:POV. Resolute 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Neologism, POV, non-encyclopedic. --tjstrf talk 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability of the phrase is not asserted.--Flamgirlant 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Doesn't seem POV to me, and OR accusations may be premature, looks like there are sources out there. Appears to me to be good subject for an encyclopaedia article. Capmango 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It brings about a new sense of discussion to the world we live in.— Jellybeancontest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Moreschi Talk 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete This term definitely seems relevant and makes sense, but a neologism's a neologism, and without better sources, it's original research. If there were any relevant, reputable sources to come along, I could change my opinion to Keep. 68.186.51.190 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Helps to define problems for our disassociated youth whom may not be able to fully grasp such differences. mutualdistrust 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Mutualdistrust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - sheer rubbish "sourced" to a couple of blogs. Utter crap. Moreschi Talk 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV rubbish, I have removed the worst, it is reinfocing the myth that all first worlders live in paradise while all we who live in the third world suffer in misery which is simply propagating a myth. There may be a case for an article with a different name on sonme of the basic issues but this article doesnt provide a starting point, SqueakBox 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't get that from the article; I got the idea that certain things that are enormous problems in the first world are completely irrelevant in the third, and vice versa. But I can't tell if this article is OR, and I don't have time to go find out. I could agree that a different article with a different name approaching this issue might be the best solution. Capmango 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Googling is not research; the first footnote cites a paragraph by Paul Krugman which reads
    In this article, I will follow that procedure to think about the impact of emerging economies on wages and jobs in the advanced world. I will start with an oversimplified and unrealistic picture of the world economy and then gradually add realistic complications. At each stage, I will also bring in some data. By the end, I hope to have made clear that the seemingly sophisticated view that the Third World is causing First World problems is questionable on conceptual grounds and wholly implausible in terms of the data. link
I do find the OR that Rogue offers a wish-fulfillment of living in the Third World hilarious, however, and offer BJAODN as an alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I must have skipped over that paragraph the first time. That is pretty hilarious. I wonder how many third worlders spend their days fighting mythical monsters in underground dungeons. Capmango 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Likely less than the number of first worlders, SqueakBox 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not as bad as "My McGriddle's folds were not injected with enough syrup this morning" Wildthing61476 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
How does that change the fact that Krugman used the phrase "first world problems" ? User:Imperialism_cola
Comment The fact that Krugman used the phrase is not a justification for an article and especially one that fails to address the reality of first world problems, SqueakBox 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Especially since his argument is that real problems in the First World are not being caused by the Third World, although some claim this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Alot of OR. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original-research-o-rama -- and not even all that thoughtful OR, as the Krugman bit demonstrates. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as soft, fluffy, POV-pushing neologism-cruft. Also, warn or block any users who turn out to be connected to this for meatpuppetry, disruption, and general stupidity: "it needs some historical background and fake citations," "my fifteen minutes of wikipedia fame!" "i cannot muffle my laughter at work," "where can i read about the pet peeves of this fucking fag who wants this deleted," "these guys really hate original research," etc., once this closes. --Dynaflow babble 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as trivial essay, I can not see how a good essay, or a good sourced article, could be written on this over-broad subject. DGG 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best, this is the start of a very earnest essay full of original research. At worst, it's utterly pointless. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 21 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. WjBscribe 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klaatu barada nikto

Klaatu barada nikto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - yet another indiscriminate list serving as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The list brings together items from across every medium, genre and style to unite subjects that have no relation to each other whatsoever than the script writer included a three-word phrase. Otto4711 15:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not really a regular contributor to wikipedia so I guess my oppinion won't have much weight. But I just came to this article by searching this sentence when I read it somewhere without getting the reference. So having an article about this is usefull if one considers Wikipedia as an encyclopedia one can easily turn to when looking for information. That being said, having a more detailled explanation of the sentence and tying it more to the original movie's topic would be good. Gom 3:23 22 June 2007 (UTC) 218.42.149.66 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep Too big to merge into The Day the Earth Stood Still. Useful and interesting information on how the movie has influenced, and continues to influence, pop culture over the years. Capmango 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are not compelling, and a simple list of occurrences tells us nothing about the phrase, the film, the media in which the phrase appears or the real world. I agree that none of this should be merged to the film article and in fact I'd be willing to bet without looking that this was forked off from that article because the editors there got tired of dealing with it so they decided to turn it into someone else's problem. Otto4711 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to avoid the words in AfD discussions because it always seems to provoke this response. I understand and agree with the the WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING guidelines, so by implication when I use the words in AfD I mean within an encyclopaedic context. I guess I need to add the context every time. It is useful encyclopaedic content, and would be of interest to people using an encyclopaedia to research the impact of 1950's sci fi in popular culture. I've come down on the delete side of plenty of lists that I personally found interesting or entertaining, because I didn't think they belonged in an encyclopaedia. I think this list belongs. Capmango 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, selectively, into The Day the Earth Stood Still. The laundry-list of every little occurance in media is not helpful, although some small discusson on its notability and impact on pop culture is agreeable. Arkyan • (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Arkyan. The phrase has certainly been culturally significant, but let's not go hog wild. Strange, the The Day the Earth Stood Still article contains no mention of it, although it was arguably part of a key plot point in the film.--Ispy1981 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's because the content was split off from that article, per the edit history of each article. Editors don't want it there. Otto4711 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps said editors are having an ownership problem, then? If it is relevant information to the movie, then it rightly belongs in the article. I don't think the difficulty of maintenance should be a criteria to delete. Tarc 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But the presence of the quote in some other film or TV show is not relevant information to TDTESS. Otto4711 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, mainly just a big fork of trivia, you take that out, you can easily merge the important info (a sentence or two) back to the main article. Biggspowd 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a phrase's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP! This is a monument to ... well, something or other that's very nice. And we really should have more of those on Wikipedia. And if Gort ever comes back, we're gonna need this one. I believe WP:IAR is fulfilled in all its majesty if we keep this one, which is something we ought to do every now and then, and it really would be nice to have this article around. I rest my case. Noroton 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps this is anecdotal, but I definitely remember searching Wikipedia for the phrase after seeing it first somewhere outside the movie (which I did not see - yet). But trimming it down a bit and trying to find commentary (as per Eric's criticism) would be nice. Eldar 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into another DayTESS article. I'm positive there is one about Klaatu or even about Gort. I was stunned once to find that someone else besides me remembered "Pulu si bagumba" from an episode of Gilligan's Island. Granted, "Klaatu borada nikto" is more significant than any phrase written for the screen in Klingon or Schwartzian, but still not it's own article. Mandsford 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep too big to merge. JJL 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Interesting enough though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 June 2007
  • Keep A rather discriminate list that amply serves its intended purpose. Yet another misreading of WP:NOT#DIR, which states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." and every single one of these quotes is a direct reference to the phrase that is the subject of the article. Alansohn 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The entries are not famous for being associated with the phrase. The phrase being uttered in Rayman 3 does not make the game famous. The large majority of the items in this list are not famous because they used the phrase. When people think of any of these items, they don't think, "Oh, that phrase boosted the medium's prominence!" The only exception on the list I can see is the Star Wars characters being named after parts of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The phrase is notable, not just because of its mention in the movie, but because it has become so deeply embedded as a cultural phenomenon, having been used in a wide range of media over a period of decades, as is throroughly documented in the article. It is the inclusion of these dozens of references that establish notability of the phrase and the article. The entries are not proving their fame; it is the notability of the phrase and the article that are being conclusively proven. Alansohn 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you are citing original research -- the firsthand observations of the editors themselves -- to put forward an argument about the film's impact. The article has "See for yourself" original contributions instead of attributable critical commentary about the phrase's impact. This is not an logical 1+1=2 argument -- this is subjective since this topic is bound by cultural standards. The editors themselves are basically listing their own observations and saying, "The phrase was used in these TV shows, so it has impacted that particular medium!" It's essentially indiscriminate trivia because there is no attributable intermediary that observes the film's impact on certain media. The editors are doing that themselves, and that's just plain synthesizing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The primary means by which Notability is established in Wikipedia is by providing references to the subject. That's what I see in this article. It does not mean providing quotes that say "the phrase 'Klaatu barada nikto' is notable". Every single one of these quotes is a completely objective reference supporting the depth to which the phrase has permeated popular culture. There is simply no requirement whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia policy that requires that Notability may only be established if it is "reflected through uncovered commentary". Notability has been established. Alansohn 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability is being established through original research. This article has no independent and attributable voice saying, "The phrase is prominent in popular culture." Even if there were sources provided, this does not give editors a reason to indiscriminately list bits of trivia to support the viewpoint. I've explained already that the inclusion of the phrase in most listed items do not automatically make it notable. Of course the connection is "clear" -- but is it encyclopedic for inclusion? That's not possible to judge with editor-submitted indiscriminate trivia. I've already said that most of these items are not made famous for including the phrase, and besides having these phrases, there is no relevant connection between the items. There is no independent basis for this article. How is the phrase any more prominent than having in popular culture entities like root beer or chicken? Because it's specialized? You're arguing for an article without merit, because the topic has not been explicitly explored by attributable critics. There is no inherent substance that is not being determined by the editors themselves. I'll be concluding my arguments here because neither of us will bend, and I believe I've made my case clearly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: One thing I came across (and I'm done, I promise). Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.) Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." (Bolding is mine again.) This is in line with my argument -- passing mentions are trivial, but entities like the Star Wars characters appear non-trivial. Cheers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but applying some common sense to this arena: Most of the references to Klaatu Barada Nikto are easter eggs; the whole point of the reference is that it is subtle. Capmango 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Klaatu barada nickel. Jtrainor 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and/or redirect to The Day the Earth Stood Still. Get rid of what amounts to a huge "in popular culture" section (we all know how controversial those are) and there isn't much left. What's the harm in redirecting, then? Morgan Wick 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Random users like myself may well come across the phrase and want to know "where did that come from?" This article told me what I wanted to know. Search engines throw up unrelated results often enough that a redirected search may well be ignored. 212.32.83.78 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim, pare, and re-evaluate most entries. Most of these do seem to fall under 'X in popular cultures banner. And I think it would be better for each phenomenon to link back to the movie. In a cursory glance, not many of the list's entries even use it in a context similar to the one intended (the only I can remember myself was from the movie 'Toys', a use that I never understood since I saw that before hearing of The Day the Earth Stood Still ... ). A notable use like that would make an article like this, but as for the rest, it'd be better used as a link FROM the citing work. IL-Kuma 08:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is clearly demonstrated by the large number of pop culture references over so many years. Everyking 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a nicely circular argument. It's notable because people mention it and people mention it becuase it's notable. Otto4711 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, the large number of pop culture references can be mentioned without listing every single one. What do the references add to the films that include them other than to have people like me smile a bit? Alastairward 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article makes a contribution, even if not one of major significance. Deleting it on a technicality makes little sense to me. In fact, the article proves the case for its own existence by demonstrating how widely the subject phrase has been assimilated into our culture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamdenTommy (talk • contribs).
  • Delete as per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - pointless list. Interesting list, but fundamentally pointless. Kripto 01:53, 30 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 redirect and merge to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. Edit history remains intact and can be used while merging content. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sergeant Bluff-Luton High School

As Schoolcruft. Article is not encyclopaedic, does not meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thewinchester (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District, corresponding section already exists; but shorten the text considerably. (A complete listing of the school's staff is not really suited for an encyclopedia, in my point of view.) --B. Wolterding 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since all high schools are inherently notable. Noroton 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
quite seriously, perhaps you can try to convince us of this, or at least outline why. ?DGG 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing just that, ad nauseum, in the past 200 deletion discussions I've participated in, so I guess I figured everyone knew it. But I guess I should do it every time. Here's the argument: User:Noroton/opinions. Noroton 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Wolterding that a complete listing of the school's staff is unsuitable. It's also an easy way for a vandal to abuse someone at the school (with misspellings, insertion of non-employees into lists of employees). In fact, I'm just going to delete it now, and I suggest that as any editor comes across similar lists we all just delete them. The superintendent of schools and the principal should be the only names in these articles (if even they belong) and all information needs to be footnoted, especially names. If we allow these lists of names, we're just playing with fire. Noroton 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District, and merge any useful school material (if there is any) into that district article. No verifiable claims of special notability per WP:SCHOOL or WP:ORG - notable alumni, student composition, or staff, historical relevance, unusual location or architecture, athletic accomplishments or records, national news media coverage for notable events, etc. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Eusebeus 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District - Article does not establish notability with no verification. In the long-term any notable information on the school can be included in a expansion of the school district article. Camaron1 | Chris 10:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. I have searched for notable references on this school for the last hour and I have failed to find anything that would satisfy WP:N. There is, however, a fine place for this school in the Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District article. Trusilver 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the district article per WP:N and WP:V, as there are no WP:RS cited to support notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:24, 26 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. Sr13 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA HTTP cookies controversy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy (2nd nomination)
CIA HTTP cookies controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was nominated a week ago and Kept with the argument "let's wait until the DRV for Brandt is closed". Well, it has been closed, and this topic is as non-notable as it was then. -- Itub 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as before - regardless of whether or not Brandt has an article, this controversy is worth a blurb in a newspaper, but is not an encyclopedic topic. Most every website you visit uses cookies. The CIA used them. Someone pointed out that they weren't supposed to. They stopped. It's not an encyclopedic topic. --BigDT 14:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Internet privacy. Extremely unimportant, nonencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with RockMFR. This was a relatively minor story from a few years back, and WP:NOTNEWS. How many people still care, or ought to care? YechielMan 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge. There was little "controversy" here. In two separate incidents, Brandt informed the CIA and the NSA of some issues on their public web sites, and they fixed the problems. There were a few news stories about it at the time, but there was certainly no ongoing "controversy". The only reason this article exists is because it was split from the Brandt article in the recent deletion; had it not been related to him, we probably wouldn't have had it in the first place. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Coment "How to get rid of an article that you dislike but without real consensus to delete: 1. Merge the content into other articles--since it is a merge no content will be lost. 2. Since the merged articles will contain relatively little content, delete the separate articles as being trivial." If the disputed close of the main article is to have any show of respectability, let its recommendations be followed. DGG 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles containing the words "Daniel Brandt" and end this petty vendetta against the poor chap once and for all. Screw process.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BEANS, please don't give consensus-backed ammunition to spambot makers with agenda to destroy the entire Wikipedia =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete still pretty much a storm in the teacup. Other controversies Brandt has been involved in may be notable; this, however, warrants only short mention in... some other article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a CIA article has a bunch of newspaper mentions and this makes it notable. SakotGrimshine 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Making huge article even worse with this kind of trivia? Pavel Vozenilek 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as others above have noted, this is a very minor incident that simply is not relevant enough for an article.--Isotope23 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems to fit notability requirements. Let's watch and wait rather than delete it outright. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait for what? --- RockMFR 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless there's some really compelling reason to delete, I'd like to give the article some time to expand. This article has been in existence for not even two weeks yet, for example. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the government was banned from doing this in 2000, was found doing it again in 2002 and 2005 (NSA). While not as major as the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, this was hardly a minor affair. John Vandenberg 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not notable. Most of the articles referenced are from 2002, which is a long time ago in the internet world. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "which is a long time ago in the internet world" what does that have to do with anything? --MichaelLinnear 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Does the CIA still use persistent cookies? that the CIA used some persistent cookies FIVE years ago, but no longer does, is NOT notable. If they still use cookies, it might be marginally notable. --Aude (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We've already got this covered, folks: I see that Internet privacy#Cookies says "See main article, HTTP cookie", and HTTP cookie#Privacy and third-party cookies has a very good account of the CIA/NSA cookies incident. Good stuff. So the article is entirely superfluous. CWC 05:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Already covered elsewhere.--MONGO 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Is well sourced and well-written. If the "complex merge" of the Brandt article was in fact a compromise at all as claimed this article should be kept. (Part of me would like to merge this into a Brandt article again if possible or at least to PIR but that's clearly not going to happen). JoshuaZ 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why the obsessive focus on Brandt, who seems to be a big nobody?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't an "obsessive focus on Brandt". Brandt is a notable public individual. AMIB attempted to split the article up as a compromise between those who emphasized privacy claims and those who prefered to have an article about him since he is a notable individual. Supposedly, this compromise would not result in the removal of any information on Wikipedia other than a few personal details of Brandt's life. If that is the case, we should keep this. JoshuaZ 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, covered adequately under privacy and cookie pages. I'm sure the CIA gets all the information it needs from IP addresses in server logs and referrer logs regardless of usage of cookies. Even ref 4, The Guardian, calls the issue a "relatively limited concern" and a "relatively trivial infraction". Certainly not worthy of a dedicated article. --Dual Freq 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I thought you were all kidding when i first read the title... perhaps it was the name of some strange website, alas no, a totally unnecesary article that hardly needs mention in CIA or Cookie pages where it should be. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with the nominator. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - about a news story from 2002, which has occasionally be mentioned in subsequent news stories. Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 24 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 redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. Wizardman 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sergeant Bluff-Luton Elementary School

As Schoolcruft. Article is not encyclopaedic, does not meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thewinchester (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as schoolcruft and redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District, (itelf up for deletion, but likely to be retained). Eusebeus 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to school district, do not delete since, at some point in the future, an adequate article might be created. Noroton 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District, and merge any useful school material (if there is any) into that district article. Same mold as the High School, also in AFD. No verifiable claims of special notability per WP:SCHOOL or WP:ORG - notable alumni, student composition, or staff, historical relevance, unusual location or architecture, athletic accomplishments or records, national news media coverage for notable events, etc. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District - Article does not establish notability with no verification. In the long-term any notable information on the school can be included in a expansion of the school district article. Camaron1 | Chris 10:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as stated repeatedly above. I have had a very difficult time finding any information that even hints at notability off of the internet, the school district's article is the best place for this one for the time being. Trusilver 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the district article per WP:N and WP:V, as there are no WP:RS cited to support notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District. The article is a bit light on content exemplified by its having "jobs for (unknown) people, and (unknown) students". Unlike high schools, elementary schools are unlikely to have adequate amterial to demonstrate notability, and this one is no exception. Alansohn 22:40, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logan Levkoff

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

unsourced, reads like an advert Will (talk) 13:57, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smilodon in popular culture

Smilodon in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of an extinct tiger. Otto4711 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, definitely a list of loosely associated topics. Arkyan • (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. (a) I'd rather not see this stuff repopulating the scientifically-focused Smilodon article again, and (b) there are sufficient appearances of Smilodon in the media to make this a viable topic. — RJH (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the correct way to deal with unencyclopedic trivia is to delete it, not fork it off into its own page. --Haemo 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per numerous other "In Popular Culture" lists that have appeared here recently. In this case, it's probably OR to assume that some of the appearances mentioned were actually Smilodons. - fchd 19:16, 21 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. Sr13 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pets in EastEnders

List of pets in EastEnders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - a list of pets from a soap opera? There is no encyclopedic value here. Otto4711 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its as important as a list of characters, as pets can be crucial to a plot a lot of the time. Keep. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Trampikey is absolutely correct that TV series pets are inherently ... oh wait, no he's not. Delete Eusebeus 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and without malice. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If a pet is crucial to a plot then it may be considered a character and included in that list, but a list of pets is unwarranted. Arkyan • (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire: Fails WP:NN, WP:NOT. The sets are crucial to the plot of shows a lot of the time too, but we don't see lists of those. (Heck, the costumes are often crucial. We don't see lists of them either.)  RGTraynor  18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dalejenkins 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although giggle-worthy, this has no encyclopedic value. Rolf, Abi Branning's gerbil, who was buried to the tune of "Bright Eyes" can be mentioned in the episode summary or the article for his mum. María (críticame) 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Seriously... talk about your indiscriminate information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. Useight 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all entries with the articles of their respective owners. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite a bit of indiscriminate info. Possibly merge into the character articles, if the animals in question are important to the story, and not just goldfish in the background of a set. --Phirazo 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V, as no asserted facts are cited to WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:31, 22 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. Sr13 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groomba

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

No claim of notability in article; product is still in beta stage. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't establish notability. Contested prod. Kathy A. 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Could hardly find anything but first-party websites. --soum talk 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was hoping this was a Roomba for pets, but no joy. --Charlene 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 10:09, 21 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. Sr13 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shrug people

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

As per the article creator request. Some other contributors have raised some concerns about the article as being a hoax or at leas not verified. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per {{db-author}}. Original creator has requested deletion, and the vast majority of other's edits were merely tagging. --Evb-wiki 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is full of false claims see the article creator's talk page for more details--Aziz1005 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:10, 21 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. Sr13 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Victorianism

Anti-Victorianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like someone's high school essay. Full of opinions and not a source in sight. The term itself does not appear to be common at all. Sandy Donald 13:18, 20 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encantadia plot summary (part one)

Encantadia plot summary (part one) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Encantadia plot summary (part two) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Two long, sprawling, rambling articles summarizing what appears to be every detail that flashed across the screen. Otto4711 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep If the article really covers 110 episodes (!) like it says, it doesn't seem unreasonably long or excessively detailed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 20 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. The notability of the concept has not been established through coverage by independent reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-universality in computation

Non-universality in computation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable concept, used only by its inventor. An additional issue with the article is that the meanings of the terms used deviate from the common meanings used in the field of computability theory, making the article confusing and misleading. Discussion with the author (see Talk:Non-universality in computation) has failed to resolve this.  --LambiamTalk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also, all the sources are from one author (a couple have dual authorship, but still the same author appears there as well). What's up with that? –King Bee (τ • γ) 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seems like a case of promotion of a crank/unestablished idea using Wikipedia. --Cronholm144 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article on concept with single proponent created and supported by single-topic contributor so looks very much like vanity article. No independent sources. Gandalf61 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Isn't this just an overblown restatement of the time hierarchy theorem? On the other hand, I think merging there would be counterproductive. —David Eppstein 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) No, now that the article has been cleaned up it's clear that it's even more trivial than that. Universal computation is impossible because one can spec a system with insufficient bandwidth to read its input data quickly enough? This doesn't seem like a deep insight having any relevance to the Turing thesis. But more relevant than this IDONTLIKEIT argument is the fact that very few computer scientists have been taking this stuff seriously enough to cite it. Delete. —David Eppstein 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A brief look at a technical report by Akl suggests he can express himself well in the vocabulary of conventional computer science. If he were the one writing a Wikipedia article on his views, he might be able to do a better job than the article we are now considering for deletion. He has created some new subtleties around the edges of the Turing Machine definition, at points where the TM assumes something 'just happens' with zero effort. However, even in that paper the actual importance of the new subtleties is not clear. If his idea catches the general attention, and other people write about it, that will be the time to consider having a WP article about his theories. EdJohnston 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this. Akl seems to me to be arguing that a Turing machine cannot operate in real time, or on quantities, like quantum measurements, affected by the computation; yet these are still "computations" which a Universal Computer should be able to do. He is not "disproving" the Church-Turing thesis, he is denying it. A note to this effect may be useful at that article, so I will copy the links there. This article fails to make any of that clear. Nevertheless, he is cited by other people (some of them his co-authors, but that's not uncommon) so he should be mentioned in that article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete. Hello everyone, so I am the author of the page and just want to start by apologizing for the abundance of references by the same author. To be totally honest, I was in the middle of finding more sources as i was writing the article, however, I was first exposed to Dr. Akl's research so I naturally used him as a reference. I have to stress that this is not a vanity page and i truly apologize if that's how it has come across. I also feel bad for not making the article more user friendly. This was the first full page I have created and struggled with how much technical / non-technical information to present. If given the chance by this committee I would gladly re write the article in as much detail as you all see fit. I am sad that it has gotten to this point where the article is on the chopping block since I truly believe that this kind of research should be on Wikipedia. I have updated the references section of the page and have removed all but one of Dr. Akl's papers. I am in the process of adding another independent reference but i first need permission of the author. I will address each of the comments above in your respective talk pages since some of what was said isn't true. However, judging on the initial ground for deletion, the fact that there was too many sources by the same author and that it was not notable, I have fixed this and will continue to fix it in the coming weeks. As i said before... this is not Fringe research, however, there is no doubt that the research is controversial. I feel that this article and topic represents an exciting area of theoretical computer science and believe that scientists young and old, as well as anyone interested could learn a lot from it. So I apologize if the article was not well written, but I will change the article and have already begun cleaning up the references. For these reasons I do not believe this article should be deleted. Thank you very much for your efforts. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to let me know. ewakened 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The new references are that well-known hoax, the Perspex machine, and a paper, of which I have not seen more than the abstract. The abstract warns It is suggested that claims to have "broken the Turing barrier" could be toned down and that the important and well-founded rôle of Turing computability in the mathematical sciences stands unchallenged. I suggest that ewakened take this to heart. I would be content to see an article which did not have a section on "The myth of the Universal Machine"; in the meanwhile, at least userify until ewakened has understood his sources. A redirect and mention at hypercomputation would also be a good replacement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine.  --LambiamTalk 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the Perspex machine is not exactly a hoax, it has nothing to do with computability theory. It may have something to do with philopsphy of computability theory, but, even so, the "proofs" here are wrong and unsalvagable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up - Most of the delete arguments above seem to rely on a novel interpretation of "independent sources." First, the subject is not the author, and second, the references in question seem to have been published by reliable third parties with editorial and/or peer review. The fact that the same author appears on them only means caution must be used, per WP:SPS. (Note to closing admin, please review relevant policy and discount any arguments made contrary to policy). I don't know if this theory is true or not, and neither do the others making arguments that it is not, which is WP:OR anyway. We don't allow inclusion of OR in WP, and we shouldn't allow exclusion based on OR either. Even if a counter-proof was published in a reliable source, we would simply merge that into this article, give each appropriate weight per WP:NPOV, and let the reader decide: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", per: WP:V. There seems to have been a productive discussion on the talk page for this article, and the normal editing process should be followed, with the history preserved. Move any unsupported controversial material to the talk page, and work out a reasonable compromise. Dhaluza 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. What exactly would we be keeping? What could be proposed as a neutral topic for an article? If reliable sources can be found to show that Akl's work is notable, any appropriate work could be merged to our article on Hypercomputation. Note that there is already an article called Selim Akl that contains a statement that's clearly POV: Dr. Akl has shown that the notion of universality in computation is false. This statement lacks reliable sources to establish its truth. I still maintain my Delete vote for the present article, and invite discussion as to whether any of this material belongs in Hypercomputation. EdJohnston 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You would keep what is verifiable and place it in context, even if that leaves a stub. The theory was published, and even if disproved, it is still notable as a rejected theory.Dhaluza 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. One of the consequences of "publish or perish" is that almost any assistant professor has managed to formulate several ideas on which they have written a series of peer-reviewed publications; see also Least publishable unit. Peer review examines whether the work is original, of interest to researchers in the area, and does not contain serious mistakes. Acceptance does not mean it is notable in any usual sense of the word. That comes only when others pick up the idea and start using it (and not just dutifully refer to it in a "related work" section). Should we lower the threshold to publication by the inventor of an idea in a few peer-reviewed publications being enough to consider the topic sufficiently notable to become encyclopedic, there is no end to the uninteresting stuff we can expect.  --LambiamTalk 07:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You raise a valid point about "publish or perish", however you use this to justify a novel interpretation of WP:RS. There is no requirement there for checking that sources have themselves been cited. Unless the journals publishing this work are known for publishing quackery, we need to defer to their judgment, and not substitute our own. They do more than just check for typos; they decide whether to publish or not to protect their reputation. While this is not an absolutely effective filter, it does eliminate most of the usual wacky stuff. This AfD is taking the WP "quackery patrol" into new ground, arguing the relative merits of the theory itself, and dismissing what appear to be RS. That is not our job. Dhaluza 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He does not need to argue verifiability; merely notability. Papers that are not cited are the equivalent of articles that end up on a cuttingroom floor; there's no evidence they're of interest to anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that your personal opinion, or does it reflect a consensus opinion shared by the WP community? It certainly seems to go well beyond the policy guidance at WP:V and WP:RS. Dhaluza 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Hello, about the comment on "publish or perish"... once again, I feel as if some people are very quick to judge these sources or these articles without going through a thorough fact check. I do agree with Dhaluza and beleive we have shown that the article is verifiable. I do not believe Dr. Akl falls under the publish or perish mentality. I can see there being more of a concern if Dr. Akl was a recent PhD graduate, but according to his bio he has had his PhD for thirty years and is a Tenured professor at one of Canada's best universities... i don't see this as a publish or perish motive, and feel to acuse this on that basis is stretching it. I am aware, as per Lambiam 's and my discussion on the talk page that we are to forget all credentials in WP, however, if we are talking about something like publish or perish, his credentials should come into question. Also, I do not think that just because an article about the Perspex machine is being considered for deletion that this is a valid reason to throw the article away. Once again if you read the article, James Anderson dedicates an entire section to Dr. Akl's result. He goes one step further and claims to have found the universal machine... however, this does represent valid research. I don't understand how anything that is not publish in anything less than the most prestigious journals would gain any validity in WP, if editors could not agree as to what is considered a "good" or "bad" journal. The scientific community accepts peer reviewed journals and even though some may be more prestigious and better edited than others, they must all start somewhere. I don't think we can be the judge as to what counts as "Good" peer reviewed sources and bad ones. It seems far too subjective. You either create a list of journals that WP accepts as valid or you must accept them all as valid. Thank you ewakened 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
While I basically agree with most of what you said, I think we can give relative weight to different journals, and discount those that have been shown to publish unreliable material. In fact WP:FRINGE deals with this in the "primary witness to notability" criterion. So, we would not use references from a journal less reliable than WP for notability, because that could make WP the primary witness. But in this case, no one seems to question the reliability of the journals, the argument seems to set a very high bar, by requiring that the references are also used as references. This is novel, and in my opinion excessive. Dhaluza 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The requirement is that others than the inventor pick up on the topic: his or her idea/invention/.... If that is done in academic publications, the authors of these publications will cite their sources, which possibly are the original publications, but that is besides the point. An example. I can easily find many sources referring to Riemann's xi function, even without going back to the original publication by Riemann. Therefore his xi function is notable. The same does not hold for his psi function defined in the same publication. Although Riemann's publication Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse is well cited, the psi function he defines therein is rarely mentioned. It is not notable. If the mere fact of an idea being used by its inventor, who happens to be the author of a publication mentioning it, is enough to establish notability, then we are definitely setting the bar too low.  --LambiamTalk 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that sources have been cited are cited can be considered more reliable, and given more weight. But, the bar for inclusion has been set much lower in WP policy, and while the arguments to raise it may have merit, they do not represent consensus. The place to try to get consensus for new policy is in the related policy forums, not AfD. Dhaluza 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep bringing up reliability, since that is not at issue here. The place where we try to get consensus on the question whether the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia is right here, in this discussion. Also, I don't know which of the many Wikipedia policies you are referring to when you write "the bar for inclusion has been set much lower in WP policy". I am not trying to set any new policy, but am just applying what I consider to be common sense. There are some guidelines for notability – which is not the same as policy – but they are not cast in stone, and are to be applied with common sense.  --LambiamTalk 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so then you agree that the sources are reliable per WP:RS (and therefore at least some of the content is verifiable per WP:V). Where your interpretation goes well beyond policy is by rejecting these sources on some other grounds, then saying it does not have Notability (which is based on sourcing). You need to cite some consensus based policy or guideline supported argument for deleting this, otherwise what you call "common sense" seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dhaluza 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you be more specific in identifying the relevant policy than saying "well beyond policy"? I have no clue what the policy is or policies are that you are referring to. I think the material covered in the article is non-notable. If you feel that it is notable and therefore should be kept, please argue why you think that it is notable, instead of waving some unspecified policy in my face.  --LambiamTalk 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Of course the sources are reliable, in the sense of WP:V. They are primary sources. What source could be more reliable for verifying that Dr. Akl claims such-and-such than a publication by Dr. Akl in which he claims such-and-such? 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This statemet is contrary to the WP definition of primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS. The author's notes are primary sources, but his scholarly publications are secondary sources. This argument is conflating the author with his theory. The author is a primary reference in relation to his biography, but not his theory. Again, these new, novel, and evolving deletion arguments all appear to be contorting policy to support what at bottom is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dhaluza 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not my understanding of WP:PSTS for mathematical publications. Primary sources are the original published research papers describing a new concept, theorem, definition, etc. Secondary sources are survey papers, textbooks, or other research papers that describe the same material but do not make any claim of novelty for it. Research papers that cite the original published work may be secondary sources, or may not, depending on how trivial the citation is. Author's notes are generally not available and therefore generally not any kind of source at all. —David Eppstein 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP terms have definitions that may differ from common or specialist usage, but we must use the WP definition to interpret WP policy. WP:PSTS does not address mathematics specifically (the term "math" does not even appear), but it does address science in general, linking to lab notebook under primary sources. Mathematics research is a little different, but not so different that we need a completely different definition. Primary sources on WP are the set of initial observations, and secondary sources are the subsequent conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports on what is published in RS. There is no need for WP to set a higher standard for inclusion by only considering secondary sources that have been cited previously. The authors of the consensus-based policy documents could have used this standard for inclusion, but did not. Dhaluza 10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Although not fully accepted as consensus, I think WP:SCI is far more relevant to this discussion than the quotes you are mining from WP:PSTS, especially since lab notebooks have little relevance to this type of research. —David Eppstein 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There should be a secondary source (preferrably by someone other than Dr. Aki) that the material is WP:Notable, or that it means what the editors here say it does, or we've violated WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of that guideline either. WP:SYN deals with synthesizing material in articles on WP, not synthesizing ideas as scholarly research, publishing those ideas in WP:RS and then citing them on WP. This is specifically permitted in the next paragraph of that guideline WP:COS: "Citing oneself: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." Dhaluza 00:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and really clean-up There appears to be a larger body of published work on this topic than is represented in the article currently. A cursory Google search turned up published works by several different authors including Oron Shagrir, Gualtiero Piccinini, Toby Ord, Tien D. Kieu, Cotogno, and Svozil in a wide variety of journals and books. Research appears to be progressing at several locations around the world, from Australia to Israel to the U.K. to Canada to St. Louis. This leads one to believe that the ideas presented appear to be widespread in the academic community, and notable. The article really needs to be cleaned up and better sourced, but that merits stubbing the article, not deletion. SqlPac 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Question. Can you give a pointer to publications by any of these authors that address the topic addressed in the present article (non-universality in computation, in the particular sense as defined by S. G. Akl?)? This article is not about the research of the authors you mention, even if there are common aspects. For most of the topics addressed by the research of these authors we already do have articles that deal with it, such as our articles on Hypercomputation and Quantum computing. I am not necessarily against a different article with a different content on a different topic with probably a different title; my concerns are about the article under discussion here.  --LambiamTalk 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Response. Additional sources, who are not Mr. Akl, do need to be added to the article. As I mentioned, my Google search was cursory and I am unfortunately unwilling to purchase the articles I located on non-universality and hypercomputing that referenced S. G. Akl's work. There appears to be enough of them that it leads me to believe this AfD based on non-notability is premature. I personally think a merge request would have been a more appropriate course of action. It appears there are some others who agree that Mr. Akl's work appears to be notable, but who also feel it might not merit it's own article. But we're now here in the middle of an AfD and not a merge request. I personally think that merging this article into a larger treatment of universality/non-universality would be a more appropriate course of action than dumping this content into Davey Jones' bit-bucket. A more general treatment would have hundreds, if not thousands, of more easily accessible (read: free) non-Akl references available. Of course Mr. Akl's research would constitute a much smaller section of the article as a whole. Since we're not in a merge request (where I think we should be), but rather an AfD, my Keep stands. SqlPac 04:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is not very satisfactory, is it. You don't need to purchase the articles to give the names of authors and titles of referencing articles. Curiously, using Google scholar and Citeseer, I can't find any respectable references. It is possible that encyclopedic articles can be written about unconventional notions of computation, or about challenges to the Church-Turing thesis. I see no evidence that the work reported on in the article under discussion would deserve a mention in such (thus far hypothetical) articles.  --LambiamTalk 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Petrus H. Potgieter, Zeno machines and hypercomputation, University of South Africa. See Zeno machine article. SqlPac 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
So what does it say about Akl's work? This is it: "In this regard [8], [9], [10] and [11] are well worth also consulting." Here "[9]" is a reference to Akl's "The myth of universal computation". This is a trivial "dutiful" citation, basically not meaning more than "yes yes, I'm aware of this". The citation occurs at the end of a section discussing modified forms of the Church-Turing thesis. Here is Potgieter's final conclusion: "... this author has found no compelling reason for an immediate redefinition of what we mean by computable."  --LambiamTalk 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The difference between the Zeno machine and this article is that the former made a perfect sense from the start while the article under discussion was a nonsense due to the lack of clear definitions and a confusion of terminology (sadly, a reflection of the references), which brought about the initial negative attention. One could make similar notability arguments about the Zeno machine, ask for more references by more authors, etc., but noone did. Now the article is reasonable (though not perfect) so why not take it as if this initial phase never happened? Jmath666 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
My main concern, as nominator, was and is lack of notability. The confusing presentation of the article was only a minor issue, since that could be fixed. The topic has not become more notable by the clean-up of the article. The current clearer version makes it only more understandable why the scientific community ignores this work: it consists of rather trivial observations grandiosely presented as deep insights.  --LambiamTalk 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean up. There's certainly a topic here - but it presents itself in a way that verges close to "zany new theory" in its apparent contradiction of established ideas that in fact stems from inconsistent definitions. It needs a lot of careful clarification and references from major journals. Dcoetzee 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I question the motivation of the nominator. It seems that he was not able to develop consensus for his position at the talk page so he nominated this for AfD. I can't say that this is inherently prohibited or wrong, but the move seems premature. Perhaps this should go back to the talk page for an attempted resolution and the AfD should be postponed until we can evaluate the progress. --Kevin Murray 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith. Indeed, the author and I were unable to establish consensus that the topic is notable. However, the reason for my nomination is not the unremarkable fact that the author did not agree with me that the topic is not notable, but rather that I believe it is not notable.  --LambiamTalk 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I do assume good faith in saying that you are not inherently wrong, but in my mind premature to bring this to AfD. --Kevin Murray 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is not based on consensus, but on the strength of people's arguments - the closing admin should be like a judge, weighing all arguments and deciding which is the best option. So I don't see a problem.—greenrd 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Selim Akl. This should not be presented as an accepted theory until there is some evidence that it is actually accepted; as it stands, the concept covered in this article is purely the product of Akl's work, and is therefore only appropriate in Wikipedia as part of our biographical coverage of Akl. However, the author has made a solid argument that this does comply with WP:V and other core policies; therefore it's reasonable that we include it somewhere. -- Visviva 10:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment moving hotly disputed content to a WP:BLP page is probably ill advised. If the content were stable, a merge might be an option. Having a separate article does not mean it is an accepted theory, and the article can and should clearly lay that out. Dhaluza 10:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if the material is basically biographical -- that is, pertinent only to our coverage of the person, rather than the field -- then BLP applies regardless. -- Visviva 10:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think the theory was intended to be an autobiography, so we shouldn't cast it that way. Also some of the refs were co-authored, so it is not strictly related to one individual. Dhaluza 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Dhaluza is right that the article was not meant to be autobiographical. Dr. Akl might have been the first to put himself out there with these ideas, but he is certainly not the only one, so to call this work autobiographical would be taking away from others as mentioned by Dhaluza. ewakened 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't dispute that the article is not intended to be biographical. But the article as it stands is not about the general theory (if there is one), but about how that theory has been put forth by one person. That makes this effectively part of our biographical coverage of that person, whether we like it or not. -- Visviva 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even if the concept were notable, the name is only used by Selim Akl, so WP:NEO comes to mind a reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This argument also is a novel interpretation of that guideline. And,like the others, it turns it on its head by arguing that something specifically permitted in the text is not OK to do. If you read all the way to the end, you'll find "To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." Dhaluza 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      Quoting from the same paragraph: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Actually, if you do a Google search for "non-universality in computation", all you get is links to this article and the Selim Akl article. With the search "universality in computation" you additionally get references to Turing, as in "Alan Turing defined the abstract Turing Machine which clarified the concepts of computability and universality in computation", so then it is used in a different sense than the particular meaning of Akl. That is even stronger with the search term "universal computation" – the term is generally used in the meaning of "capable of computing any computable function". By the way, my espresso machine can compute espresso given ground coffee and water as input, something no Turing Machine can do. However, I'm not going to offer this as a counterexample to Church's Thesis.  --LambiamTalk 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      I did not see this as an article about a neologism as a word, just one that uses a neologism as its title, which all articles about something new or different must do. But we don't delete articles with bad titles, we rename them. In fact, you may have stumbled on a reasonable compromise to the content dispute. Why not just rename this to Universality in computation and describe the work by both Akl et al., and Turing? Dhaluza 10:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      Why not? Because this work by Akl, as well as his particular use of the term, is non-notable, that's why.  --LambiamTalk 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      We already have an excellent treatment of the Turing machine and Turing's other work here at WP. The article you propose would invite an undue comparison of Turing and Akl i.e. presenting their theories as equally established, which is certainly not the case. Perhaps Akl's work could be mentioned in a couple of sentences in one of the article's that already speaks to these issues.--Cronholm144 11:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      Yes, I saw that and the one at Universal Turing machine, Turing machine examples, Post-Turing machine, Turing completeness, and utm theorem. So with all this coverage, a comparison with a competing theory would not be undue, it would provide balance. The two theories do not need to be presented as equally established, obviously one has been around longer and gained greater acceptance. But we do not censor or dismiss minority opinion or alternative theories, we present them in context. The Non-universality theory has cleared the bar in terms of notability by being published in reliable scholarly sources by a recognized academic author. Whether it is true or not is not for anonymous editors to decide on WP. Dhaluza 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      If we presented the two theories with the weight that notability would dictate that we would have to write an article in a 300:1 (Turing et all) to (Akl "et all") ratio.--Cronholm144 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've refrained from commenting thus far, as it seemed to be that Akl's publications have established a marginal grounds for keep. Nonetheless, as this discussion has progressed, it's become clearer to me that the people arguing "delete" have a better grasp of Wikipedia policy and how Akl's work here pertains. Akl's challenge to the notion of universality in computation is one of many by others that have been made over the years, and like the others, shows no sign of making a non=negligible impact on the field. Dhaluza's proposal to promote Akl's work in order to "give balance" is ridiculous. Why should we promote Akl's work over all the others that have also raised challenges of dubious merit to Turing's work? There is no reason to regard Akl's work of worthy of even mention in Wikipedia. There are a few peer-reviewed publications, sure, which incidentally appear in journals with Akl as an editor. The others do not appear peer-reviewed. As a big section of WP:RS states, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just citing a small number of peer-reviewed publications by one researcher and his collaborator does not qualify as an "extraordinary" evidence. --C S (Talk) 23:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a twist on what WP:RS actually says, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." WP editors do not interpret evidence. Now, if Akl is an editor on the journals he has used to publish his work, there could be a case for treating them as self-published sources. But the idea that we should ignore a dissenting opinion because we think it is wrong is completely against WP policy. I am not suggesting that WP "promote" Akl's work, only that we report it as a published dissenting opinion. And if there are others who have published dissenting opinions in RS, we should report them as well. Dhaluza 11:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok fine, substitute "source/sourcing" for where I wrote "evidence". Happy? Now, nobody has suggested that we ignore dissenting opinion because we think it is wrong. So that is a strawman. Please kindly address the arguments that have been made. --C S (Talk) 12:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not a strawman argument, it is what many of the arguments for deletion, including yours, come down to in my view. Your statement that I wish to promote Akl's work is the strawman, because I never proposed that. What I said was that his theory apparently was published in multiple RS, and should be covered to some extent in some form. For now, we should keep this article to preserve the edit history, and the editors involved should work through the normal editing process to determine what stays and where. The content may well be recast, trimmed, and/or merged, and redirected. Deleting this article on notability grounds does not make it go away, because Notability only limits articles, not their content. Dhaluza 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see, you are simply recasting everyone's deletion argument as "I don't like it". If you insist on doing that, I can't stop you, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Promotion may not be your intent, but that is the overall effect. Akl is one of many that have proposed alternatives. There is no indication his work needs to be held above others. WP:Fringe is what is relevant here. --C S (Talk) 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not recasting, just observing that once the arguments are stripped of their fancy clothing, that's all I see. I agree that WP:FRINGE is relevant, and its central point is that WP not be the "primary witness to notability." Since Akl's work is published in academic sources, there is no danger of that. It's out there, so we can talk about it, and that does not mean we are promoting it. WP is a tertiary source encyclopedia, so we don't promote anything that has not already been promoted. Your arguments that we must cover topics in strict proportion to the ratio of publications or references is spurious, and your statement that Akl's work needs to be held above others is a straw-man. We can report his work and others in order to provide readers with the "sum of human knowledge." Dhaluza 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
So we have a clear, and apparently unbridgeable, difference in interpretation of the notion of "witness to notability". You consider Akl's reporting on his own work a secondary source, and a witness to the notability of his work because it is published in academic sources. I, on the other hand, think his writings are primary sources and do not count as witnesses to notability.  --LambiamTalk 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I also take the position that Akl's writings are primary sources. By the way, Dhaluza, when you say my position is a strawman, that makes no sense, as I am not misrepresenting my own position. You simply don't like my stance. My claim that you have created a strawman is still quite valid, as in the end, you insist on arguing against a position that your oppponents do not even claim to hold. --C S (Talk) 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been cleaned up. Now it makes some sense and maintains NPV. Jmath666 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. It makes sense, now. However, no sources have been provided to indicate that anyone other than him (and possibly Carl Hewitt) thinks it notable. No change in my "delete" !vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
  • Keep covered in reliable sources, it's a theory, tag it as such and move on. -N 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment: I'm not familiar with this option of "tagging as theory." How does it resolve the notability dispute? It looks like, especially given your edit to the article, that you think putting the word "theory" into the article (presumably what you mean by tagging?) is sufficient to resolve notability. But actually all theoretical concepts in computer science and mathematics are in fact theories. So I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. One reasonable proposal I can see someone making is that a sentence should be added that it is not a mainstream view or accepted by the mainstream, but actually, we would need to source such a statement. Given that this theory is not notable enough to have garnered any commentary, no such sourcing can be done. --C S (Talk) 06:48, 27 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, as illustrated by Achilles below, this article does not meet the preset requisites to establish notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Gatti

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

Autobiography, violates WP:AUTO. I found 600 Google hits for "John Gatti", and the large majority are for other men with the same name. He's not nearly notable. YechielMan 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment violating WP:AUTO doesn't appear to be cause for WP:DEL in and of itself; and my understanding is that being a member of a notable band is sufficient to establish notability for a musician. right? Capmango 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to comment: I agree that WP:AUTO is insufficient grounds for deletion; there are many known exceptions. However, if you try the Google search yourself, you will not find much to work with. YechielMan 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I agree with Capmango that being a member of a notable band establishes notability. The article needs much better sourcing, however.--JayJasper 17:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable per WP:MUSIC. WP:AUTO should not be reason to delete in this case -- Steve Hart 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I cleaned up a little for neutral point of view and removed spam link; however, reliable 3rd party sources need to be provided.
  • Delete. As far as I can see, fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any independent sources, and I just removed a bunch of text from the article because it was copied from the artist's own website. You'd think such an obvious copyvio would have been spotted earlier in the AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:45, 28 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Edward's College, Gosford

St. Edward's College, Gosford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable school 2good2btrue 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)— 2good2btrue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q-Bench

Q-Bench (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article represents the only edit by User:Qualnetics, who almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Failing neutral third-party sources, we don't have a NPOV version of this article. YechielMan 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; agree with nominator. It also seems to me that this is a niche product that is unlikely to receive widespread consumer recognition. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleteas per nom and as pure spam and cruft. Bearian 01:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. Search engine returns mostly forum topics and primary sources, both aren't sufficient to satisfy notability. Also, the name of the author does suggest WP:COI, so it may be self promotion.--Kylohk 11:15, 24 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowikis

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old).
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion yet again on 2006-01-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus; keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis.

Utterly non-notable wiki, no sources. Wyington Duarm 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, altohugh this nom is mis-spelled. Anyway, it has no claims to notability other than a legal dispute, and seems to have no reliable secondary sources. The only thing notable about the legal dispute was the mentioned in BBC News. It is not notable, so delete per nom. Mynglestine 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No reliable sources … apart from the 10 such sources that are actually cited in the article, do you mean? Uncle G 11:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The website is a notable wiki, which made headlines internationally and has legal ramifications which are ongoing. I am very much opposed to removing this article.David Cannon 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per Davidcannon.--Edtropolis 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Article already has tons of sources in respectable media. Evouga 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy keep, article is well sourced and subject seems notable enough. More information on the "legal ramifications" could be added. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: in an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs.  RGTraynor  18:05, 20 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 all, the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article had been withdrawn from nomination. Sr13 07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

Some sort of crystal ballism. Doesn't provide any help nor real meaninful information. I do not believe such an article is nesscery. Francisco Tevez 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all amount to crystal ballism and they lack WP:RS:

Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bulgaria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - withdrawn per Dr. Submillimeter ↓. Also it is somewhat sourced. --Evb-wiki 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Bundle added by --Evb-wiki 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Also added by --Evb-wiki 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its too early for this kind of article.Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.81.152 (talk • contribs)

Yes, please read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Francisco Tevez 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note- a whole batch of pages on this subject under different country names has been created. The whole thing tells nothing and is all crystal ballism. Francisco Tevez 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • They are all list here. Can we just nominate the entire category and everything in it? --Evb-wiki 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will do that now. Francisco Tevez 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all apart from the main Eurovision Song Contest 2008 which easily has enough verifiable and sourced information to deserve to be kept. The other articles clearly run foul of WP:CRYSTAL but the main article as an event almost certain to take place and with plenty of good, referenced information in it should be an easy Keep. Davewild 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • SPEEDILY CLOSE this batch nomination and process pages each by its own merit. This is extremely disruptive habit and often leads to mistakes and abuses, and a headache for closing admin. For example I find the story in Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 interesting (and with reference). `'юзырь:mikka 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If they boycott there is no reason to have an article there, the information could perhaps be put in the 2007 article. We don't have an article about, say, Norway at the 1980 Summer Olympics (which they boycotted). Punkmorten 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Eurovision Song Contest 2008; Keep Eurovision Song Contest 2008 Apart from the main article, the other articles have all been created by the same user, who seems to have a history of unconstructive edits. The main article, Eurovision Song Contest 2008, is a different story as it is a major event (the most watched tv-show in Europe as far as I know) and certain to take part. Apart from the main article, all the other articles are just crystal ball speculations and/or original research regarding which countries might or might not participate. JdeJ 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, when someone adds a section like Countries which could theoretically debut to the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article, it makes me want to renominate it. --Evb-wiki 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I can sympathise with that feeling, but with any luck that article should quieten down a bit in the next while as people realise that the "wouldn't it be interesting if..." scenarios will keep getting removed and that really what we'll see in 2008 will be a continuation of the same old thing that we know and love. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the currently-active articles listed here (that is, all bar the one on the 2008 Contest itself). Such information as there is (Andorra is the only country with anything substantive written) can be moved to the "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles. In Andorra's case, that would actually be a very good idea, since the claim of withdrawal rumours is - I believe - unsourced there. The other entries are pretty much cookie-cutter articles which are full of unsourced speculation and should only really be created 6+ months from now when the expected national finals start taking place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried to make the Andorra article more objective and added a reference to try and make the article better. To be fair, Andorra is the only country I know anything about. However it's still mostly speculation (although not as bad as it was a week ago) and if people want to delete it that's ok by me. I'd keep the main ESC08 article though as there's a lot of sourced info, but I wish people would stop listing endless lists of countries without any refs. Also someone's put on the main page that Slovakia is a definite for 2008. As far as I'm aware STV's position is they'd like to take part, but need to secure their budget before they commit themselves. So someone has knowingly made the article false - and also not provided a reference. CKnight16 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete at the minute, reinstate in a few months It may all seem specualtion at the minute but as time gets nearer towards the 2008 ESC, countries acts and performances will become clearer. In thrre or four months all thse will become good articles, but until then its simply crystall balling—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Skeggy_tom (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all except Eurovision Song Contest 2008; Keep Eurovision Song Contest 2008 This page is well sourced and written. Yes, i know i wrote it, but i agree with all other pages being deleted. Just leave this one. ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Eurovision Song Contest 2008 - Currently they are just speculations with very limited verification. Also, the more established Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and X Country in the Eurovision Song Contest articles can easily take most of the notable information at this time. Camaron1 | Chris 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete them all, except Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Eurovisiocruft.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do NOT delete Eurovision Song Contest 2008, just overprotect it. Select just one member or a couple of members to update the page and/or delete everything that have no sources Tony0106 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC-4)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DRV overturns unanimously to a keep result. Xoloz 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 27 Club

  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}}
An old AFD resulted in a consensus to delete, here

The article admits to be about a neologism. This is essentially a list of celebrities that died at age 27, with the vague allusion that this may be something special rather than bland coincidence. However, a basic fact of statistics tells us that given a large enough sample size, any number of samples can be found that have an arbitrary trait. This is speculation, trivia, and not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The fact that, statistically, it's not that amazing, is not the point. It's a reason to downplay the significance the phenomenon, not delete the article about its following. Also - I'm not entirely down on the wikipedia slang but going by the dictionary definition of neologism - it's not one anymore. The phrase has been around in popular culture for some time. Gosh, wiki nazism is getting worse and worse.Caleby 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NEO and possibly WP:HOAX.--Edtropolis 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just how is this a hoax, may I ask? We're not saying someone dead and in the ground is alive. Paul McCartney isn't even on the list, despite that (I believe. I could be wrong.) he was 27 at the time that many people believed he died. All on the list are undeniabley dead, and aside from Robert Johnson, where it is not clear, all were very much 27 years old. It's not supernatural, it's a widely recognized, and undeniabley odd coincidence. And neither is the term new and unheard of. Check out some of the links on the article itself. Or simply google "27 club", and find all the people calling it by that name. I fail to see how this is either a Neologism OR a hoax. CherryFlavoredAntacid 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Grouping people based on the age they died and profession is a trivial intersection, as well. Arkyan • (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While any age group can have a significant amount of celebrities who died while in it, few, if any, have the recognition that the 27 club has. The 27 club is also the subject of peices of art/posters, as seen in the following links. [26] [27] While the subject may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, it has great relevance and importance to the fans of the deceased. I believe that to delete the article would be to leave a part of popular culture out. CherryFlavoredAntacid 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Same as above. While it is a statistical fact that every age group will contain a number of celebrity deaths, the 27 Club is without a doubt the most famous. It is represented on posters, shirts, and various other things. Further, the members all died of unnatural and/or mysterious causes. Avisron 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Got any reliable sources on that? >Radiant< 09:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For what? That they died of unnatural or mysterious causes? Avisron 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, most people who die so young in the Western world, die from unnatural causes. But see my comment above - downplaying the coincidence has a place in the article itself, but is not a reason to delete the article. Caleby 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial page, neologism, etc. Wildthing61476 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per CherryFlavoredAntacid and Avisron above. This is a natural phenomenon, not a conspiracy, but it's a notable item of popular culture. — Mudwater 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not trivial and not a neologism. It's a fact and a known phenomenom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.32.167.231 (talk • contribs) — 201.32.167.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This phenomenom is quite known everywhere, I have just listened club de los 27 in Spanish TV and I went to wikipedia to get informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.76.26 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2007
  • Keep Clearly established phenomenom, althought the BBC source 404's I did find mention of it on this BBC page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/r2music/documentaries/nirvana_27.shtml --Thepinksuicidallemming 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - to mee, deletion seems mandatory by WP:NOR -- 790 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just read WP:NOR and it doesn't apply. There are multiple references.
  • Delete - per WP:NEO and possibly WP:HOAX. - The article isn't even correct when it says these people were in their "prime". Jones, for one, had just been thrown of the band he started because he was unable to contribute anymore. Delete! June 23 07
  • Weak Keep When this was re-created, I decided to do some research and see if my assumptions were right that this article is WP:OR on a neologism. Much to my surprise, I did find multiple sources for the phrase "27 Club" being used to group these particular individuals together, as well as one that comments on the spike in statistics among 27 year old musicians and artists (from Charles R. Cross article: "The number of musicians who passed away at 27 is truly remarkable by any standard. Though humans die regularly at all ages, there is a statistical spike for musicians who die at 27.") Check the footnotes I added, and my notes about the sources on the talk page. Do I think this article is needed on WP? Not particularly. But it is WP:V sourced now. I do fear it could be a magnet for OR, but that's not necessarily a reason to delete. However, I have to wonder if the topic might be better served by a simple category rather than an article. But I lean towards having a short article so the sources can be linked. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Category could be good, that way it could also include other less-known members such as D. Boon and others that used to be mentioned on the 27 club article. How about a category "Musicians who died at the age of 27", and a stub article for 27 club with its references? It's not like Wikipedia is short of space... I'm right and you're wrong 06:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard about it, how a certain 'group' of musicians died at a certain age, something about how the "greatest musicians" died at 27, and this could be considered on the same level as any conspiracy theory (although, it is far from what could be called a 'conspiracy'). It's a phenomenon that is referenced more than once, in fact, several times. Zchris87v 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable. -- Steve Hart 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe not notable to you, but it is notable to many music fans, don't the multiple references show that? If it wasn't notable, we wouldn't even be having this debate. I'm right and you're wrong 06:19, 28 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. Anas talk? 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Weinstein

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jared Weinstein
Jared Weinstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Person is non notable. Simply being the American president's assistant doesn't qualify T@nn 10:50, 20 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 speedy close per bad faith nom. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_via_multiple_accounts and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mynglestine. Non admin closure, if someone wants to reopen, go ahead. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurispedia

Short, unsourced article on website with no claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom, no sources. Mynglestine 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is called judging a book by it's cover. I hadn't heard of Jurispedia until the article, but it's obvious that the short text will increase. The website is "inspired by Wikipedia" and copies its format; surfing to it is like ending up in a parallel universe run by attorneys.

However, unlike a lot of other sites that take a Wiki article verbatim and call it their own, Jurispedia at least acknowledges that it's imitating Wiki. I can only surmise that the reason that Wiki hasn't sued Jurispedia is that this legal research site got permission. Or Wikipedia overlooks these things "pro bono" (for the greater good). Mandsford 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Ok, that may have been a joke, but since you're a relatively new user, Mandsford, I feel compelled to mention the policy on copyrights in case it wasn't and you actually don't realize the wide freedom to reuse content granted by Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. Pinball22 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. per comment. Notable government wiki. --Edtropolis 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sites with no sources don't deserve articles. That's why we deleted Encyclopedia of Stupid and Encyclopedia Dramatica and all that other non-notable crap. Mynglestine 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages with no sources should be sourced, not necessarily deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable per above. It's also not a government wiki. Arkyan • (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article already lists two sources and more can be found (ie in Social Computing Magazine). A poor article should be improved, not deleted. Evouga 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: from an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs.  RGTraynor  18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The two sources listed are kind of weak - the United Nations summit paper is by Jurispedia's creator, and the BILETA conference paper is a teacher's proposal to use it in a class. The former isn't independent of the subject, and the latter doesn't really say much - it's barely over a page long. If there are other sources, I'd be interested to see them, but what I've seen so far doesn't say much for the site. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A good start on an article on a notable subject. The two sources given are sufficient to start out with--a substantial article from the creator, and a small one to show that others know about it. . DGG 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 21 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 speedy keep as a bad faith nomination supported by a sock-puppet, with no other editors opining delete. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina PeopleFinder Project

Katrina PeopleFinder Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources or claims to notability. Wyington Duarm 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep References to the project from newspapers that demonstrate notability are trivially easy to find in google's archive news search (see here) . I have already added a couple of sources where I have access to the articles without additional expense. -- SiobhanHansa 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-two sources isn't that much. Mynglestine 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Weak, because it's a lame article about a good subject. The project is notable, in that it was a joint effort by computer experts volunteering their time to create a database; with the assistance of other volunteers who entered the data, the db kept track of thousands of persons displaced by an unprecedented American disaster. The article could be improved in many ways, including more sources that point to the project's accomplishments, anecdotes, some technical details, whether the project has been a model to similar projects, etc. Mandsford 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Two sources ISN'T THAT MUCH. There are no claims to this site's notability, so quit insisting there are. Mynglestine 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a notable program and a good subject for an encyclopedia article. Capmango 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A poorly written article is not a good reason for deletion, and it is clear that more sources do exist. Evouga 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep even if the NYTimes article were the only source, it's still be fringe notable. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: This may be a bad faith nomination: from an account created only yesterday, nom's put up several articles for deletion. There may also be sockpuppetry at work; User:Mynglestine is likewise a near-SPA, and has strangely (and solely) chimed in on all nom's recent AfDs.  RGTraynor  18:04, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kokey

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

No ghits for a TV series, (did find info on the movie tho) I think this might be a hoax Rackabello 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The AFD notice on the article page was removed on 2007-06-15 by User:Witchy2006. I'm therefore relisting this discussion to June 20. - KrakatoaKatie 06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless claims of this TV series can be verified Rackabello 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources/refs can be found. -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There may be a sourcehere but I don't read Tagalog (if that is the language it's in!) The context there looks good, and wouldn't want to get all Anglo-centric about this, but even with this as an in-line citation, the article as it stands is pretty ropy. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a hoax. Using "Kokey" and the name of the channel, ghits confirm there is a remake (The Tagalog word for "remake" is "remake". That's about all I can tell you.)--Ispy1981 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If this is about a television series in Tagalog, wouldn't this article belong in the Tagalog Wikipedia? Rackabello 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Not necessarily. We have articles about Mexican TV shows in English Wikipedia. All that matters is whether or not it meets the notability guidelines, not its country of origin or language. Natalie 10:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per CSD:G12. as per CSD:G1--Edtropolis 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This isn't even close to G1, which only covers patent nonsense. This article is completely coherent, and not a speedy candidate. Natalie 10:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't make any sense of the article, there isn't nearly enough context. Doesn't even mention what country or countries the series airs in, and "ends in two weeks" doesn't work in an encyclopedia, unless the author intends to update the article every few days. I say unless author adds sufficient context to come to a reasonable decision, we might as well delete. Capmango 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A show in the Philippines which hasn't aired yet. No notability guidelines for TV series, but going from WP:NF it's far from notable. -- Steve Hart 15:40, 25 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Concorde pilots

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

This is just a list without any references. I believe it fails on WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT#DIR. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with existing article about the Concorde, and leave it at that. None of these people merits their own individual listing, as the red-links show. These persons learned to fly a supersonic aircraft, but that doesn't make them astronauts. Mandsford 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I did consider putting it in for a merge but it's just a non-notable list and there wouldn't be any encyclopeadic value in it. If there are notable pilots in the list (i.e. first pilot to fly, last pilot to fly, etc.) then they should be included in relevant sections of the article (which seems has already been done). → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Concorde talk page. → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - A lot of the blue links only point to disambiguation pages OR pages of people under the same name. Some of the links, yeah, should be transferred - Maybe 'notable concorde pilots', ie the first woman concorde pilot, and such. Reedy Boy 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose deletion: The article provides information not readily found in other sources. If the list is not referenced then it should be tagged in that way, not summarily deleted after some effort had been put into its creation. BTW, I believe that any editor can remove an AfD tag at any time, FWIW Bzuk 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - The amount of Red links demonstrate a lack of notability. It would be a shame to lose the list - however I don't believe it is encylopedic. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel that a list of notable pilots to fly concorde could be included in the main Concorde Article -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - I would list notable Concorde Pilots (probably those that have a WP article) in the main Concorde Article. I would then redirect List of Concorde pilots to Concorde. This would enable the full list to be stored in the page history of List of Concorde pilots if it is needed at a later date. -- Rehnn83 Talk 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary and unencyclopedic list. It implies that flying the Concorde is sufficient grounds for notability, which, frankly, I disagree with. Eusebeus 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated above, having flown the Concorde is not grounds for notability, even if it were verified. Arkyan • (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly I don't see the need for this list, which is mostly nn individuals, so I say the only place it can be put is in the Concorde article so Merge.JForget 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Concorde. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, no merge. Airline pilots are not notable, with very few exceptions. This is just a collection of redlinks; nearly all of the bluelinks are for other people with the same name, or disambiguation pages. Most of those few pilots who have articles should be deleted as well. -R. fiend 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the suggestion of a merger is only to include those of note (e.g. Test Pilot, First Woman etc.. (i.e. those that have a well written WP article). -- Rehnn83 Talk 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Then people should state that more clearly. I still maintain that most of those pilot articles are serious deletion candidates themselves, though I haven't examined them all carefully. I guess being the first woman is somewhat notable, but I don't buy that the first woman [whatever] is notable in and of itself. Is the first female 727 pilot worthy of an article? The first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio? Yeah, the first female concorde pilot beats those, but I'm not sure she's still notable enough for a wikipedia article. I'd have to take a closer look. -R. fiend 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I may be biased as the originator of this list – but here goes:
A few points in its favour:
I don’t agree that this list is comparable to ‘lesser’ lists (“the first female taxi driver in Columbus, Ohio” was mentioned); Concorde was more than an average plane, and with a finite number of pilots, as it is no longer flying.
The list is genuinely useful in an encyclopaedic context, although I confess that it is now longer than I first suspected.
As for notability, I don’t think the existence of the list implies flying Concorde is itself notable – compare List of UML tools; but the aircraft itself certainly is notable, and those interested may have cause to access a list of the pilots. I certainly don’t agree with R. fiend (whom, I note, appears surprised that others find him too quick to delete their work) that “most of those few pilots who have articles should be deleted as well”.
The importance of the topic is head and shoulders above other specialist lists that are easily found (List of Homer Simpson's jobs springs to mind, with rather less encyclopedic merit and non-generic links.)
Finally, and I hesitate to mention it, the notability of being a Concorde pilot, of itself, is rather higher in the UK than it is probably perceived in North America, and one should be careful not to unwittingly enforce a regional bias.
The main point against, distilled from the comments from various people, that is that a large number of individuals are non notable/unlinked. But as commented above, the article provides information not readily found in other sources.
I think Wikipedia would be lessened by the removal of the list. I believe the choice is therefore:
Retain or at the very least Merge notable entries into main Concorde article, using Rehnn83's sensible suggestion. Thank you everyone. Carbonix 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I can see both sides, but my personal opinions are eloquently summed up by Carbonix. Concorde *was* special, & in fact once I saw that the list was tagged for deletion, I immediately archived a copy of it - the first time I've done this for a Wikipedia article. I've added one pilot citing his external obituary by way of reference. I can cite references for the two other pilots I've added (and also a flight engineer, whom I didn't). This list contains actual information, & I'm struck by the contrast that it seems acceptable to pad out many other articles with minutiae or personal opinon that contibute little, & which could be inferred by anyone vaugely familiar with the topics in question. Perhaps only names supported by refrerence should be allowed? TimS00 21:14, 26 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 Speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marc 'No Nonsense Man' Rudov

Marc_'No_Nonsense_Man'_Rudov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Please delete this page. It was created by someone as a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcRudov (talk • contribs) 2007/06/19 13:59:29

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest you tag this article for speedy delete instead of blanking it.--Edtropolis 17:38, 20 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. Sr13 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames for cigarettes

Nicknames for cigarettes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An incomplete list, one without any real encyclopedic use, and one that will always remain incomplete. Jmlk17 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete after discussion I created this article as a stop-gap measure to end the edit wars going on in the first paragraph of Cigarette. I realize that this article is not encyclopedic, but something must be done to prevent the war from starting up again. I would support the deletion of this article, but only after a discussion to figure out a way to prevent an edit war in the Cigarette article. I beg all those involved to submit their ideas as to the best way to prevent this all from starting again at square-one. -- Nemilar 00:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that including a colloquialism sentence in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph of the introduction that would include only the most common nicknames for cigarettes, (e.g. They are colloquially known as cigs, ciggies, coffin nails, cancer sticks, deathsticks, smokes, fags and maybe some others) would be a good idea, but everybody would have to agree not to remove it. Canjth 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's an idea, but it seems to me that it would only lead to a slew of edits over which nicknames 'deserve' to be mentioned and which ones aren't popular enough to be posted. Given the rate at which the nicknames article grew, I would imagine it becoming a problem. Do you think that an individual section in the Cigarette article would be better? Again, the problem is that it will grow into a similar list as the article we're discussing now. -- Nemilar 01:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The Cigarette article is currently semi-protected, which would probably prevent most revert warring on the nicknames. When there was a sentence saying "They are colloquially known as...", it never got longer than 8-10 nicknames. A section would probably grow quite long which is why I wouldn't recommend it. Also, the problem on the article we are discussing now is that people added nicknames in other languages than English, and that many nicknames were listed in several countries, which is why it got very long. I don't think this would happen in a single sentence. The only problem with the sentence in the introduction was that users persisted to remove it. I think that if the Cigarette article remains semi-protected, a colloquialism sentence in the introduction would do the job. Canjth 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Jmlk17 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-- does cite its sources, which is nice, but if nobody has said, "Wikipedia is not a Thesaurus", someone ought to. These aren't nicknames, but synonyms from slang, ranging from "coffin nails" to "stinky turds". A list of synonyms for being drunk would be a lot of fun also, but not really a great addition to Wikipedia. Put the information as a sidebar to the dictionary entry on cigarettes. Mandsford 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mandsford; this is not exactly encyclopedic content. —Anas talk? 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-This is essentially a list of dictionary definitions. Some of the referenced are from urbandictionary, and I doubt we can accept that as a reliable source. Wiktionary might like some of the ones with reliable sources.--Rossheth | Talk to me 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Edtropolis 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I have added references for these perfectly legitimate nicknames and I see no reason to delete them. Remember that wiki is not paper, so deleting articles because they are never going to be complete isn't a valid reason. It is encyclopedic to mention that people will often call a cigarette a cig, coffin nail, deathstick. etc... Also, before this page was created, the Cigarette article was very often edited to add/remove nicknames for cigarettes. Thuis is not a dictionart entry, these are legitimate nicknames for cigarettes that deserve their place on Wikipedia. Canjth 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain why it is not encyclopedic to mention that people will often call a cigarette a coffin nail, deathstick, cancer stick, etc...? Many nicknames are mentioned on Wikipedia and do one tries to get them deleted. Canjth 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Urban Dictionary should not be considered as an attributable source (being user-submitted and voted). A prose article about generational nomenclature for cigarettes would be instead appropriate, drawing from attributable sources who have studied the history of smoking or a related field. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of keyboard shortcuts

Table of keyboard shortcuts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article simply lists some common keyboard shortcuts for various window managers and OSes. There's no accompanying commentary. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This should really be in Wikibooks or some other wiki. —Psychonaut 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki as nominator. —Psychonaut 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment normally, isn't the transwiki first, and the deletion second? Dhaluza 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, once there's consensus to do so. I'm not about to transwiki the article if people overwhelmingly decide to keep it on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep so someone can write the commentary. DGG 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I don't think AfDs should be used as a "articles for transwiking" & there have been no deletion votes. This is a fairly reasonable "list" & I agree with DGG that it could be encyclopedic with commentary. If it should be transwikied, I think the talk page for the article is a better place to start than here. --Karnesky 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep But add significance with commentary, otherwise it's just another user manual. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with keyboard shortcut (or just keep—I'm not fussed) and improve commentary (on OS/package differences and similairities, reasons for letters used, origin and usage history of individual shortcuts (or groups thereof) and modifier keys) —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful, nice use of the list concept. -- Steve Hart 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I started this page and it has improved to become probably the most complete table of keyboard shortcuts anywhere on the web. As of now it has little commentary, but it acts as a table of contents and links to many concepts described with own pages. -- Claesh1 20:48, 27 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. Anas talk? 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Columbia Christian Academy

British Columbia Christian Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned stub of a school that makes no assertion of notability and has no verifiable information. For those of us who generally feel schools are not notable anyway, this may reinforce that view. Eusebeus 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Eusebeus 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom as Schoolcruft. Lacks WP:V, WP:N, contains no WP:RS, and is just some small grade school in the middle of nowhere. Thewinchester (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thanks for being insulting. Article says it's located in Port Coquitlam, 20 minutes from Vancouver. That's not the middle of nowhere. Canuckle 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No footnotes, nothing easily verifiable except with a Web search that other editors shouldn't have to bother with. If the creator or someone with an interest won't improve the article enough, it should be deleted. Noroton 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. MetsFan76 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The school's home page is in sharp contrast to this article -- it's actually good quality. But even it makes no good claim to being notable for Wikipedia purposes. Just a good, small school. Canuckle 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, as there is nothing with sources worth merging; no valid reason has been offered as justification to not redirect. As a relatively new school, the lack of independent reliable sources is not surprising. The overwhelming majority of high schools will have ample sources to demonstrate notability by any reasonable definition of the term, and this is the exception that proves the rule. For those who generally feel schools are not notable anyway, regardless of the number or quality of sources, anything will reinforce that view. Alansohn 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. 932 articles on google tells me that there is a decent chance of notability. But the article's notability and potential for notability are two completely different things. And as the article stands right now, there are no legitimate grounds to keep it. Trusilver 04:16, 25 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, the keep arguments have not been able to present enough evidence to prove that this article does not fail WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josie Murray

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

Subject is certainly not "world kickboxing champion", googling for the subject reveals that he appears to be a blue belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu and former medal holder in over-40s blue belt competition. Non-notable, with no reliable secondary sources. Pathless 09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but especially expand, it really needs some expansion for career and other bio info.--JForget 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - does need to be expanded of course. Couldn't possibly delete such a distinguished sporting figure surely? --Letterkennyboi 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as world champion he's notable per precedent set for other athletes. -- Steve Hart 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment But in which discipline is the subject "world champion"? The only information I was able to find came from a martial arts forum - hardly a reliable secondary source - and here, details were very sketchy. There are no reliable sources indicating the notability of the subject. If he really were world kickboxing champion, this would be a straightforward issue. Can anyone find reliable sources outlining the subject's achievements? Pathless 21:00, 25 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Paula Campbell

I Am Paula Campbell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Two albums being nominated, which I think would be better redirected to the artist's page. Little more than a list of song tracks that fail WP:MUSIC. I suggest Delete and Redirect to Paula Campbell (singer) with no prejudice against their recreation should they attain sufficient notability. Eusebeus 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Who Got Next? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merge with Paula Campbell for now. Her article needs some major expansion in order to completely satisfy WP:BIO as it barely meets it right now.--JForget 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all including Paula Campbell (singer). "Currently working on her debut album" is far from sufficient to qualify under any of the terms of WP:BAND, which is the primary notability guideline for musical acts. Not even one album, let alone the two asked for at WP:BAND, no mention of any awards or national tours, and most important of all, no verifiable citations to reliable sources (which would be needed to back up such claims). Only links are to Artist's personal webpage and to MySpace. Xtifr tälk 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. -- Steve Hart 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all until further notability can be established. Cricket02 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If deleted, please delete Category:Paula Campbell albums as well. Conscious 06:14, 26 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 redirect to Netball and merge as per editorial discretion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netball positions

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

Enencyclopedic mess that doesnt belong on Wikipedia Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:51, 20 June 2007 UTC)

  • Redirect to netball - it's already well-covered there. By the way, an article being poorly-written is never valid grounds for deletion, and the subject clearly is encyclopedic. ~Matticus TC 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
in reply -- you havea point about the poorly written part, but i infact didnt say the subject was unencyclopedic, but the article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:07, 20 June 2007 UTC)
...but you did nominate it for deletion, which implies that you considered the article unworthy of being here, and - as Matticus says - being a mess isn't in itself grounds for deletion (Redirect, BTW) Grutness...wha? 07:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I dont really care to debate this any further. Delete or redirect, I dont mind. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:08, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Hello before you comment think. I am only ten years old and I wrote the netball positions page. I wrote the page because I love netball and i know that netball is well covered on wikipedia but the positions aren't well covered. So if anyone is planning to make a wikipedia page that says mine is bad, I'll be first to put yours up for deletion. Anon

For your age, you seem to show great enthusiasm for the project. I myself am only 2 years older, and understand your concerns. However, your article on Netball positions does not qualify some of the criteria which constitute Wikipedia policy. The information contained within the article is very similar to certain sections within the Netball article, and the actual subject of the article (netball positions) is not (I hesitate to say) important (for want of a better word) enough to actually warrant having its own article. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. Some other editors have said that they would have the article redirected to netball, or a relevant body of text with the netball article, which is not a bad idea either. I hope that I have been able to explain myself well to you. Regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:42, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behavioral Facilitation

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

I am doubting that this is an established academic field or therapeutical school, as the article claims. It seems to have one single protagonist (whose encylopedic notability is in doubt too, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Svarney). As for the references: The 2006 one obviously hasn't appeared yet ("under review"). The publisher given for the next four ("SCS Presentations" in Chicago) doesn't seem to exist. A 1994 workshop on stress management at an adult education center or a seminar talk within a graduate student program are not enough to found an entirely new academic field, they seem not to have been published in print anyway, neither . For all the books, no ISBNs are given and Amazon knows nothing by this author. This leaves the 1989 article (whose existence I didn't verify), obviously published while the author was still a student, and a talk at a statewide conference in 1994, both apparently on a very narrow topic. The 1990 article in the New York Times is really just a letter to the editor, apparently on a very different topic - the abstract on the NYT web site starts To the Editor: As a student of psychology in a world of lawyers, I am sometimes puzzled by a legal mind's description of reality. I do not understand why Robert H. Bork thinks that George Bush, in nominating Judge David H. Souter .... High on a tree 08:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, strongly. This is an article about a style of business consulting that accesses scientific principles of human behavior to solve problems and overcome impediments in achieving goals; in other words, an article promoting a specific business consultant who promises grand things, while this article describes the method in the vaguest possible terms, in a fuzz of soft-focus Latinate words. A more concrete description of what the method entails would involve giving away the product for free. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncertain It does not have to be about a new academic field, just one that is sufficiently distinct to write about and that is known outside its own circle of practitioners. Could some comments be addressed to this? DGG 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
But the article does claim that it is a "field". If that is wrong, I would still not object to a corrected article about the subject if there were several independent reliable sources describing it, but all we have is a string of mostly phony or unverifiable citations all by the same author, who is probably not notable himself. Btw: 0 Google hits outside Wikipedia for '"Behavioral Facilitation" svarney'. Regards, High on a tree 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Furtermore, there is only 60-70 hits for +"Behavioral Facilitation" +business -wikipedia on google [29]. On Amazon there is only one book containg both the words Behavioral and Facilitation in the title, the topic is about Autism ++ [30] -- Steve Hart 16:08, 25 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. Sandahl 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Duhd'u Rahn-Rahn

Prince Duhd'u Rahn-Rahn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN bit-part character in student production. —  MusicMaker 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. Possible hoax. --Edtropolis 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor fictional characters in minor musical not notable. -- Ssilvers 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds a lot like the song Da Doo Ron Ron. I'm with Edtropolis in calling it a hoax. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep. Punkmorten 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ssilvers. Merge any useful information to help expand the fledgling Aladdin, Jr. article. As a side note, I doubt it's a hoax; making the character's name sounds like a 60's song is probably just a joke on Disney's part. —dustmite 16:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:31, 21 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spellbound The Musical

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

NN musical. May become notable. Recreate at that time. —  MusicMaker 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Pathless 11:01, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bubble

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

No assertion of notability. NN. —  MusicMaker 08:29, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Grail - The Rock Musical of the Future

The Grail - The Rock Musical of the Future (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article makes no assertion of notability. NN. —  MusicMaker 08:27, 20 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.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hatpin (musical)

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

NN musical. In the process of being rewritten and may at some point deserve inclusion in WP. —  MusicMaker 08:24, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic Avenger: The Musikill

Toxic Avenger: The Musikill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Pathless 11:00, 20 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. WjBscribe 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a Feeling!

What a Feeling! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Pathless 10:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No verifiable info given. -- Ssilvers 14:02, 20 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 by Blnguyen. WjBscribe 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left Alliance (Australia)

Left Alliance (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the National Broad Left or National Union of Students.--JForget 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry for the same remark x3. I see why these were listed individually, following on from the original AfD, but in my opinion this could have been a group list.Garrie 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if there is any evidence for actual separate existence. I think this the only way of dealing with the possibility of bias. If there really is no evidence at all for this, then merge. I advocate this approach to groups of all political persuasions, including ones I sincerely dislike--its the only way I've found to deal with my own possible bias. DGG 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google News Archive comes up with some relevant hits mainly from the Green Left Weekly. The list of office holders needs to go as well as other material needs to go. The question is whether there is enough material to warrant a stand alone article. [31]. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No secondary sources, therefore not notable per WP:N. Agree with Orderinchaos that GLW isn't a reliable source on its own. Assize 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as articles like this often become a seething mess of speculation and defamation, and are not worth the bother if there is a question of WP:N. Weak because good archived news sources from 10-20 years ago can be difficult to find online, and the sheer amount of press for these guys on GLW suggests they may have been covered by more reliable sources. Aliasd 15:39, 22 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. Sandahl 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Aligned Left

Non-Aligned Left (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are sources from the Green Left Weekly but they may not be enough to warrant an independent article. [32]. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No secondary sources, therefore not notable per WP:N. Agree with Orderinchaos that GLW isn't a reliable source on its own. Assize 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and under such an article title, I would certainly not expect to find a faction of a student association. 132.205.44.134 18:29, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Bill's Wild West Dinner Extravaganza

Wild Bill's Wild West Dinner Extravaganza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Appears to be not more than a dinner theater production. —  MusicMaker 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No verifiable info is given - could even be a hoax. -- Ssilvers 14:03, 20 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar (musical)

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

Article practically asserts its non-notability. Closed after one show in a not otherwise competitive theater town. —  MusicMaker 08:14, 20 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 wasDelete per consensus and the fact that the sources come from GLW, which are not RS.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Broad Left

National Broad Left (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the National Union of Students JForget 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are independent references mainly from the Green Left Weekly. Whether that is enough to sustain a standalone article is another question. [33]. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why would GLW not qualify as a reliable source? --Soman 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. Well possible to rewrite into an encyclopediatic article. [34], [35] deal with NBL. --Soman 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Existing and doing something notable are two different things -- Steve Hart 16:28, 25 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menopositive

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

NN musical. —  MusicMaker 08:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. I think the nominator could have justifiably rolled these nominations into a single group nom. Eusebeus 10:20, 20 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majigeen

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

NN musical. One production in Jacksonville, Fla. —  MusicMaker 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's actually fairly popular in Jax, and has been produced for several years now. I'm sure reliable sources can be found. I say keep.--Cúchullain t/c 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being "fairly popular" in a mid-sized city in Florida does not qualify it for notability. —  MusicMaker 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but surely reliable sources would. I'll see if I can dig anything up.--Cúchullain t/c 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not every entity covered by every source in the universe is notable. Notability is universal: if something is notable in Jacksonville, it has to be notable in Cleveland. This is a local curiosity. —  MusicMaker 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant, it may not be just a "local curiosity", it may be notable; if I find any sources demonstrating this, I'll present them here. But I'm pretty sure reliable sources can be found, so I'd say err on the side of caution and keep the article. That's my opinion, but I don't know much about the play as of yet.--Cúchullain t/c 06:36, 21 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 nomination withdrawn. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just So (musical)

Just So (musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Not much more than a definition. —  MusicMaker 08:00, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry the Tudor Dude

Henry the Tudor Dude (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Publication is not notability. —  MusicMaker 07:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable theatre production. No real assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Caknuck 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A7 No assertation of notability. No-one cares about amateur dramatics. A1octopus 18:13, 27 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. Anas talk? 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate! The Musical

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

NN musical. Vague references to a planned professional New York production is the same pipe dream every composer on the planet has.... —  MusicMaker 07:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. Article is almost entirely POV and lists of non-notable actors. Show appears to have had one production in 2005. I think the planned production is in York, England; not NY. -- Ssilvers 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. True. Fixed nom. —  MusicMaker 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable theatre production without prejudice if the article is recreated later (with reliable sources), after its planned run. Caknuck 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as in agreeance with the above points (non-notable actors, only one production and not well received, should be added again once production begins again). --Saaga 03:40, 25 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo: The True Story

Galileo: The True Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. 4 school performances. —  MusicMaker 07:49, 20 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 and re-direct to Fight Club - Members Only. — OcatecirT 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Club (musical)

Fight Club (musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Crystalballism. May or may not be created. —  MusicMaker 07:47, 20 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 redirect all to Energy - there is information in these articles that could merged but AfD isn't a great forum for deciding if this is the case and what info should be merged. I hope everyone can work together in discussing this on the relevant talkpage and in performing any merges onces consensus is reached. WjBscribe 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy (chemistry)

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

Article was created without consensus by User:Hallenrm, who made a big mess by mincing the Energy article and turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation page. As discussion at Talk:Energy and Talk:Energy/Archive 4 shows, there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry). When the Energy article was reconstructed, Energy (chemistry) was turned into a redirect towards Energy, but after further consideration I think that this is not an appropriate redirect for two reasons: 1) the Energy article has a much wider scope; 2) Energy (chemistry) is not a plausible link target or search string. Therefore we should Delete Energy (chemistry). -- Itub 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason, I'm also nominating:

These have all prod'ed, but the prod was reverted by Hallenrm with no explanation. --Itub 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. This article has useful material, and it would not necessarily benefit the length of the main Energy article to reintroduce it there by merging. Hallenrm created these spinoff articles, let's give him a chance to improve them and source them appropriately before making a decision to destroy them, potentially orphaning a number of useful images. Robert K S 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've seen the chemistry page. There is nothing there which does not belong in electromagnetic spectrum or thermodynamics. Since we are talking about the literal (and not figurative form of) "energy", it is one and the same throughout all the physical sciences, even though some may talk of it in electron-volts and others talk about it in joules, calories, and wavenumbers. There is the added problem of WP:FORKing if we keep such separate pages. --Rifleman 82 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment While it can be argued that: there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry), the content of the pages are not totally useless to deserve deletion, perhaps they can be assimiliated with other articles. After all, the same content survived in the Energy article for more than six months59.180.234.124 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as much as the nominator may think that creating this is disruptive, deleting it is also disruptive. At least, the content needs to be merged back in to Energy or elsewhere. But the energy article is already quite long, and it may be useful to split off some sub-topics. Also with a term as generic as "energy", which is used in different context in different fields, having an article that focuses on a particular area, where terminology can be used consistently and in context, is often preferable. Sometimes a one-size-fits-all article does not fit at all. At bottom, this is a content and editing dispute, and does not belong on AfD--there are other dispute resolution methods available that should be used first. Dhaluza 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and merge useful contents back into Energy. This can be discussed on relevant talk pages and we don't need to negotiate content disputes through AfD. If the existence or makeup of these articles causes any user to make a particular fuss during the transition period (e.g. by reverting to a preferred version), we can take care of that separately. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "chemical energy" is simply not broad enough for a separate article. Different energy definitions for different topics. It should be in the article. Horvat Den 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete After careful thought I am of the opinion that the content of these pages can be moved to articles Chemistry (as Chemical Energatics), To Physical cosmology as (Cosmic energy) and Earh science (as Earth's energy). It was perhaps my mistake to name the severed sections as Energy(Chemistry); Energy (cosmology) and Energy( Earth science), they should have been entitles as Chemical energetic, bioenergetics, cosmic energy and eart;s energy respectively, highlighting the application of the energy concept in various sciences, instead of implying that there are different concepts of energy in these sciences. I therefore would have no objection to the deletion if other community members agree. Hallenrm 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    And why wouldnt a redirect do the job? John Vandenberg 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a lot of useful quantitative stuff in energy (earth sciences). What fraction of the earth's heat is from radioactive decay, and how much from contraction, and how do we know? It's basically the section from the old energy article, but there's very little of it in the present article, which is already getting too long. So an "earth sciences" section is needed in energy, with energy (earth sciences) as the main article. Don't delete this one without putting the entire content back into energy (which you probably don't want to do). Same comment for energy (cosmology), though there's not as much unique stuff there. Energy (biology) has largely been covered in the Energy article with a "main article" direct to Thermodynamics of Life, so that one can go, as long as there's no info in it which doesn't appear elsewhere. For example, what fraction of the sun's output is captured by photosynthesis? It's an interesting fact, and has to go *somewhere.* SBHarris 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all; merge and redirect as required. Deletion is not the appropriate way to conclude this. If there is concensus to restore the original structure, then that can be done in the usual manner. Deleting these articles destroys the history, which you will one day want to use to demonstrate that this approach wasnt accepted. Afd has too much work as-is to get into normal structural decisions. John Vandenberg 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The information content of these articles is not even zero, it's actually negative. This is is a clear case of a PoV fork, except that Hallenrm isn't even proposing a seperate PoV. There is absolutely no difference in the way that the term "energy" is used in any of the natural sciences. Such disambiguations should be reserved for cases such as Energy (spirituality), where the term is (obviously) used in a different manner. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative proposal

A lot of this content has already been merged into other articles, but I still think that these are not plausible topics and articles such as Energy (chemistry) shouldn't exist (for energy itself, we have Energy, for a more general article on the role of energy in chemistry, but also including entropy, enthalpy, etc., we have Chemical thermodynamics). How about simply moving these pages into user space, where the content can be kept in case someone wants to rescue some of it for other articles? If that is acceptable to Hallenrm, then we don't need to worry about deletion anymore. --Itub 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal made by John Vandenberg is much more sensible, a redirect is more appropiate (but not a blank redirect to Energy as done earlier by physchim62Hallenrm 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "blank redirect"? --Itub 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
For that, please refer to my talk on the talkpage of physchim62[[36]] regarding the first page, that is Energy (chemistry), proposed to be deleted. It is indeed curious that you initiated the Afd just a day after he threatened to do so.Hallenrm 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I still can't fathom what you mean. A page is either a redirect or it isn't. I have no concept of "blank" redirect. And if I happen to agree with Physchim62, so what? --Itub 07:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Energy (chemistry) into Chemical thermodynamics
Energy (biology) into Biological thermodynamics
Energy (cosmology) into Thermodynamics of the universe
Energy (earth science) is already duplicated in Earth science - delete.

I would agree with User:TimVickers' proposal. --Rifleman 82 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Good work, Rifleman 82 (or was that Tim?) on finding the appropriate main articles, above. In Energy, there's now a small section up front called "Energy in various contexts" where all this stuff goes (as small summaries), each with "main article" directs in each sumarized subsection, to the main articles named above (after which we can delete the energy(blah) stuff as noted- keeping anything we find there which isn't already in the others). We can keep this "ENERGY IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS (OR VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, which it really is) up front where it is, or else move it down to the end, where "Energy and Life" is now. Of course, Energy and Life will be subsumed into the short subsection "Biological thermodynamics," whatever we do in this move.

So, what do you think on where to put this subsection discussing energy in the various sciences? Do we have put this section on energy in the various sciences up front, before the nasty equations, or at the end, after them? The overall structure of the article needs some thinking. The purist will want all the definitions up front, but they are mathematical and off-putting. The encyclopedist might want a more extended "Energy in various contexts/sciences" up front, with the math and definitions relegated to the end, as a sort of math appendix. Or maybe some very simple math up front (no calculus), and all the thermo and EM equations pushed to the end. SBHarris 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

i do not agree with TimVickers when he says that Energy (Chemistry) can be merged with chemical thermodynamics, because the article contains sections which do not belong to chemical thermodynamics viz energy levels and spectroscopic lines. Same is the case with Energy (cosmology), it deals with dark energy which is not a subject under Thermodynamics of the universe. Hallenrm 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It is now. SBHarris 19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spectroscopy should be merged to spectroscopy or electromagnetic spectrum then. When we propose merging, it is an intelligent merge, rather than a dump. --Rifleman 82 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As per that argument, each of the subsections of the present energy page should be merged with pages of that heading. Not much would be left then. Are you suggesting that no subject matter should be repeated in two different articles? Please talk sensibly202.141.141.7 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (Previous comment is from .Hallenrm, recognizable as him, both in 1) coming from Delhi University, and 2) for being insulting. SBHarris 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
See the use of the {{main}} template in Distillation. The point I am making is that we can empty the article, and turn it into a redirect. --Rifleman 82 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't mean you want to completely empty it (indeed this was not done in Distillation), or else then we'd be stuck in the situation we were before. We want to resurrect a nice overall 50 kB summary of the use of energy in the natural sciences, and indeed use the {{main}} template to keep the various sections from overgrowing the article. That's the natural Wiki way things should look. Except here, we're having to do it backwards, because when Energy got too long, instead of summarizing sections and offloading material into {{main}} articles, it instead got nearly gutted and turned into not much more than a redirect. So here we are.SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with th previous post. People like Rifleman 82 should be more careful and understand the nature of wikipedia before they key in their immature opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, a personal insult to Rifleman, and he's only been here a few days! A new record, Charlie. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's indeed fantastic --Rifleman 82, that way we can indeed reduce the volume of wikipedia! Let us start with Energy and merge its various subsections with the related Main articles.Hallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you forget to log in for your previous post and then posted again to agree with yourself? --Itub 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is indeed true, but I really wonder how can I prove that you are a puppet user for User:physchim62 I really suspect thatHallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. Now, Itub (talk · contribs) is my sockpuppet, is that what you're saying? Just as I am supposed to be the sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs)... According to you, there seem to be several other editors who are secretly plotting against you. Hallenrm (talk · contribs), please take a wikibreak before one is forced upon you. Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is true that "several other editors who are secretly plotting against me ." And I have evidence for that, just see the talk page of SBHarris [37] # Suggestions and anybody can see thatHallenrm 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If it was "secret," why the hell would I put it on my TALK page?? It's where it is for a number of very good reasons. One of those reasons is so that you can read it, too. SBHarris 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral on merge. I don't see that there is anything actually to be merged, and Hallenrm (talk · contribs) objects that previous attempts at merging haven't retained "his" material. Make them redirects if you wish to keep the page histories, but I feel that this will only cause problems down the line. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merge. Hallenrm is welcome to add any scientific material he has written on energy to the appropriate pages identified above, so it will not be lost. For example, I really don't care if the article is called Energy (Earth science) or Earth science if it includes the same material. So long as there is a {{main}} template pointer to it as a main energy article in the appropriate subsection of that article, so people can find it, it matters not. I favor the above sub-articles because they pre-date the disasterous energy article dissection and creation of new energy(subscience) articles which were duplicative. But there need be nothing lost if any of new material written for that purpose, is added to the old subscience articles, as needed. Rather than complain about this, Hallenrm, instead, if you find material of yours you want to remain after the energy(subscience) articles are redirected and deleted, just rescue it, and put it where it should be, in the other articles which are destined to remain. If it's science-related, relevant, and adds something, none of us are likly to object. SBHarris 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Energy is an important topic and these alternative treatments of energy risk causing confusion. Any possible benefit of somehow retaining the material that User:Hallenrm has created is exceeded by the difficulties it creates for organizing our articles. Creation of subarticles (like this one) should be supported by a strong consensus of editors working in the area. My brief review of the above discussion and a look at Talk:Energy#Energy articles proposal straw poll suggests that Hallenrm's approach does not have wide support. The closing administrator should decide whether these subarticles have any important history that needs to be preserved. I looked at Energy (cosmology) and it was frankly created by a cut-and-paste so its history is probably not important. EdJohnston 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would really like that the admins while considering a final decision on the deletion would also look at the background of the people who supported the straw poll Talk:Energy#Energy articles proposal straw poll and the history of the events that led to the creation of these pages. Editor User:Sadi Carnot mysteriously disappeared after the proposal. Hallenrm 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You want us to call the police to report a kidnapping? Or are you trying to suggest User:Sadi Carnot is a sockpuppet? SBHarris 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all or Merge. One may add "energy in car mechanics", "energy in aeronautics", etc. There's energy in every field, but it's always the same basic principles, and dividing it to different articles is not a good idea. The content of the different articles belong either to Energy itself, or already appears in other articles, where it belongs. Energy (chemistry) should be merged according to TimVickers's suggestion, but the others should be deleted:
Energy (biology) - delete: already duplicated in Biological thermodynamics.
Energy (cosmology) - delete: already appears, in different forms, in Thermodynamics of the universe and Physical cosmology, except for the concept of the total energy of the universe, which is ill defined, as the article itself states.
Energy (earth science) - delete: see TimVickers's argument.
Dan Gluck 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose, but I'm not sure I like your argument. It's like saying the element iron is the same in every field, so there's no point in having a separate article on (say) iron alloys (steelmaking, etc). But the argument pro is this is a really important use of iron with a huge information base, which would totally overload the iron element page, if we left it all there. The same applies to most uses of energy in various sciences, which all are somewhat idiosyncratic and have different quantitations and effects, and about all of which we know a LOT. Not that I care what these articles are called, really-- just reminding all that there's plenty of useful and specific content to go into each of them, and still stretch length guidelines.SBHarris 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. Redirects are cheap, and as content has been moved about, deletion of the history would violate GFDL. --SmokeyJoe 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there is an issue of copyrights violation with regards to who wrote what in Wikipedia. For a start, most people don't even use their real names. Is there another reason for you to support keeping the articles?Dan Gluck 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dan, I believe you are wrong. GFDL doesn’t discriminate between authorship of real names or pseudonyms. If content has already been merged into other articles, then GFDL requires that authorship information be preserved. So, if the article should not be kept, then it should be converted to a redirect. Content forking should always be remedied by merge and redirect.
    • Do you believe that converting to a redirect constitutes “keeping the article”?
    • As for what I think about the articles (whether to merge or not): It is an editorial decision best left to the editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 01:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Then the GFDL gets violated essentially every time someone pastes something from an article to another! I think that argument is a tempest in a teacup, although I've heard it over and over. Is there a Wikipedia page where that "policy" is discussed? --Itub 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
        • SomkeyJoe is correct that edit histories should be preserved to the extent possible. GFDL is not violated if text that is cut and pasted is traceable to the source by a note in the edit summary. But it is violated every time an article is deleted, when it should just have been redirected. Dhaluza 22:32, 29 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 — Caknuck 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elegies for Angels, Punks and Raging Queens

Elegies for Angels, Punks and Raging Queens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. No assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This production is notable and frequently performed around the world. The New York Professional production featured Alice Ripley and other very notable performers. It may be that it doesn't belong as part of the Musical Theatre project because it is essentially a song cycle. Broadwaygal 15:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think having notable performers necessarily qualifies an entity for notability. —  MusicMaker 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. New information added to article indicates sufficient notablility. -- Ssilvers 16:10, 20 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Willard

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

Non notable individual, with not much noteworthy in his career. Simply being a broadcaster/announcer does not satisfy WP:N. Delete xC | ☎ 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep "Simply being a broadcaster/announcer does not satisfy WP:N" -- true, however being co-host of a nationally syndicated radio show strikes me as easily satisfying WP:N. Maybe ask for more sources and less POV, but don't delete. Capmango 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This show is widely syndicated in a number of major media markets, which contributes to the notability of the broadcaster. Agree that the article could use some sources, however. JavaTenor 20:22, 22 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ducktails and Bobbysox

Ducktails and Bobbysox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN musical. Amateur-only. —  MusicMaker 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.xC | ☎ 07:46, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Grace (musical)

Amazing Grace (musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. One production in Swansea is not notable. —  MusicMaker 07:38, 20 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 deleted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back To The 80's!(musical)

Back To The 80's!(musical) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. This appears to be a minor musical licensed mainly to schools. —  MusicMaker 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Appears not to have had any notable productions. -- Ssilvers 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete to start with the current format of the article belongs at Wikisource not Wikipedia. Secondly, it's unreferenced. Thirdly, it doesn't mention anything encyclopedic. Garrie 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if someone cleans it up. I have a suspicion the content on the page at the moment is plagiarised however, if so, delete in accordance with wikipedia's plagiarism policy. Flage 122.148.36.229 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, large parts of this article seem to be a copyvio from here. Lankiveil 03:56, 24 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. WjBscribe 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonfire Night: A New Musical

Bonfire Night: A New Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Musical has achieved no professional performances. —  MusicMaker 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No notable productions. -- Ssilvers 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy A7 Delete We don't yet have a No one cares about your amateur dramatics production guideline yet, but many more articles like this and we'll probably need one. Anyway this article doesn't even assert any notability. A1octopus 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:43, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart in Manhattan

Mozart in Manhattan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article asserts NN -- 9 professional performances in Germany. —  MusicMaker 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Nine whole performances? Wow. Montco 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Received significant media coverage in Germany; ran for two months in Lower Saxony's largest summer theater festival. Must not have existed internationally to be notable. However was not categorized by the producers as a musical and should perhaps be taken from that page. Robertwalton 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not saying that it has to have existed internationally to be notable. However, the article only claims 9 performances. That, simply, is not notable, and the article doesn't assert such. —  MusicMaker 03:54, 23 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. Punkmorten 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Cass

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

Appears to be someone of only very local interest, not really known beyond his own employers in Pasadena. No suggestion that he has any wider notability. Necrothesp 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: fails WP:V, WP:VAIN and WP:NN. This is the sole Wikipedia activity of User:Thelma Reyna, the article's creator, and User:71.83.183.25, the other major contributor. A directed search of "Victor Cass" + "Pasadena" (minus his personal website and Wiki mirrors) turns up only nine hits total. [38] Somehow I'm not surprised that in a long, self-adulatory article, the only actual news item referencing him (him crashing his car in a drunk-driving incident leading to his suspension and charges of coverup) isn't at all mentioned.  RGTraynor  16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. fails any kind of notability test. csloat 08:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:RGTraynor. Eusebeus 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:NN. Does not appear to me to fail WP:V, and WP:VAIN is not grounds for deletion. But WP:N is sufficient reason. Capmango 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Completely failing WP:NN
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Puff-piece for a NN individual. Resolute 04:40, 21 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. WjBscribe 18:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li Europan lingues

Li Europan lingues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While an interesting piece of computer lore, it is nearly 98% hearsay, failing verifiability criteria. `'юзырь:mikka 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:46, 20 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. Strong arguments have been made on both sides - there were too main arguments for deletion: (1) originial research and (2) non-notable intersection. As to (1), the sourcing seems to be of a reasonable standard and given that all entries can be sourced to confirm (a) their membership of the Royal Society and (b) that they are Jewish (and those without such sources removed), that criticism seems to be one that either has been or can be addressed - especially were a consistent definition of "Jewishness" used. However those arguing to keep this article have failed respond to the second concern - that this is not a non-notable intersection. Without convincing explanation as to why there is something specifically significant about members of the Society being Jewish, which neither the article nor those wishing the article kept address, this is no more suitable a list that one containing "red haired" or "bearded" members of the Royal Society. WjBscribe 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society

  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}}

Unfortunately, there is a evidence that a handful of users were directed to this afd by an email canvassing campaign directed towards inclusionists. As to not single anyone out, I'll keep details light until closure. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't understand this. Suppose some people did have their attention drawn - by either 'side' - to this discussion, what happened to WP:AGF? If they give their comments and arguments, aren't they as good as everybody else's? Bulldog123, you yourself don't seem to keen (or willing) to let other people's discussion resolve this issue without incessantly adding your own comments - let's just let the people speak, they don't need you (or me) to shepherd them.--Smerus 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:CANVASS prohibits selective canvassing. WP:AGF doesn't apply when faith has been numerously broken before. This is a discussion, so if I didn't question people's comments, an AFD would be completely worthless. It's even more warranted when the same questions keep being brought up that have been answered in the nomination rationale such as "why is this up for a 3rd AFD?" For details: Bulldog123 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally.

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)
List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup, the previous afds on this list were vote-stacked by a group of sockpuppets, user(s) who created and maintained the list. They ended in "no consensus" instead of "delete" -likely srongly because of the stacking. To repeat the arguments cast in the nominations: this list is an highly unusual intersection of ethnicity. There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category. However, any divisions by ethnicity in category form would be immediately met with WP:OCAT, and so the list, especially given the hundreds and hundreds of people that fit the parent list, makes no sense, and can easily be used as an excuse to create dozens and dozens of other ethnicity subdivisions completely unnecessarily. Included is a sub-article created by the puppets - List of Jewish Fellows of the British Academy - single contribution. Also plagued by original research - contentious sourcing. Non-notable intersection, agenda-oriented. See the proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom, for all reasons given on the other nominations and above Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Bulldog123 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • no it hasn't - not when I looked just now, anyway.--Smerus 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Much as I hate to just say this, Delete per nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful list for me. --Dezidor 10:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please reference WP:USEFUL. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That essay is not useful. It´s better idea to delete essays like that one than useful article where is no problem with sources. --Dezidor 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Sourcing doesn't matter in this case. Any list, no matter how ridiculous, can be sourced by something. Actually there is a problem with sources on here anyway; many that are linked are either completely unverifiable or straight-up unreliable. Further, useful to you doesn't mean useful to everyone. I'm sure there are many lists that I would find useful that you wouldn't. There are even lists that everyone would find useful but that aren't worthy of wikipedia. For example, a list of cheap current-model laptop computers by price. Bulldog123 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • ...it's not? Seems to have some pretty useful information - particularly, the illogic behind the fallacy of such arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete* I agree with BullDog, WP:OR and sockpuppet stacking? It's too much considering that the list isn't that useful. - Feydakin 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I consider this among the better sourced lists of this type--the repeated questioning seems to have done some good. Now that there are references, readers can decide on the reliability. DGG 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My !vote stands, but given circumstances (it's better referenced now, and I didn't see a single red link on here), I'm thinking this is better served by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason there is no red link (apparently it was almost nothing but red links when it was first made, given comments on the previous AFDs) was because one of the socks spent most of their time making stub articles for all the red links. Usually copying them from Who's who. It's possible some are even copyright violations. Here's an example: Franz Sondheimer. In reality, some of these articles might fail professor-notability standards and should be considered for deletion themselves. As a category, of course, it would be probably speedied as an obvious WP:OCAT violation. Bulldog123 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even though Wikipedia:Overlistification is not yet policy, it discusses two problems this list has; intersection by race, beliefs, ethnicity, and religion; and an agenda-oriented topic. This should be deleted, well sourced or not. I wonder if we can get through this AFD without the usual accusations that are often made in these type of AFDs? Masaruemoto 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm neutral on most lists and on what to do with them, but this doesn't work as a stand-alone article. Why separate people in this way? It is not for wikipedia. Horvat Den 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Why do we need a list of Jewish members of the Royal Society? Long lists of {religion} members of {organization} are not something Wikipedia needs, short of some justification in the specific sense.--Prosfilaes 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question and comment were Jews ever excluded from membership in the Royal Society? I couldn't tell. If so, perhaps there is some merit in an article; if however, they are not different in this regard than Scots, Swedes, Methodists, Quakers, etc., this has gotta go as trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as my research into your question shows, there is no evidence that the Royal Society ever excluded any ethnic or religious group from being a member. Bulldog123 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find any either, so Delete as invalid intersection as per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • These conclusions would appear to be incorrect. See my comment below.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Your conclusions are textbook original research, unsupported by a shred of evidence. Using the logic you present, the reason there haven't been many significant African-American faculty members at MIT is because of slavery a century ago. It doesn't work that way. Bulldog123 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG, and since after this many afds, I suspect systematic or worse, unsystematic bias, give it a break.--Buridan 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you don't understand why there have been this many afds, then you have not read the nomination rationale, because I explained pretty thoroughly why that is there. And secondly, please do not make WP:POINT !votes as you have here. "It's sourced" is not a valid argument for keeping anything. And lecturing people to "give it a break" is not helpful either. Bulldog123 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • yes, 'nominated before and lost' is not valid criteria for nomination either. your other points are also not pertinent. --Buridan 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • True, but "nominated and lost" isn't why it's relisted. Bulldog123 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was asked by Lisa Budd to comment on this AFD; otherwise, I would never have noticed it, since I am not maintaining a watchlist.
This nomination is a perfect example of the ugliness that has driven me away from major participation in Wikipedia. After the previous disputes about this article, which focused mainly on questions about citation, and even though I had no particular interest in the topic, I spent 40-60 hours finding citations for the various members in the list. And while I usually try to extend an assumption of good faith, it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it.
To address the arguments of the same person who calls the article "agenda-oriented":
  • "There is no parent list such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society, though there is a category." Unlike simple membership in the Royal Society (which is extremely easy to determine) the other criterion here - being Jewish - is relatively difficult to cite for. Hence, anything involving such a consideration is difficult to maintain as a category. Now that the citation work has been done it is relatively easy to maintain it as a list. In any case, though, in the earlier dispute that largely drove me away from active participation - the discussion of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 - I was informed in no uncertain terms that the presence or absence of other articles is beside the point. If it is not a valid consideration for preserving an article, then clearly it cannot be a valid consideration for deleting one.
  • "…contentious sourcing… there is a problem with sources on here anyway; many that are linked are either completely unverifiable or straight-up unreliable". Since not one example is given of poor sourcing, this remark is nothing but an irrelevant slap; since I'm the person who did most of the sourcing, it's a slap I take personally.
  • "…might fail professor-notability standards": Oh, please. A member of the Royal Society who doesn't qualify as notable? That's like talking about non-notable winners of the Oscar for Best Actor or non-notable foreign ministers.
I don't have any strong feeling on whether this list is "useful", which is always a subjective criterion. On a different subjective criterion, I personally find it mildly interesting, because it is remarkable that so many people from a relatively small ethnic group have achieved such a distinction. It is certainly of interest to a number of people, it is certainly verifiable, and as far as I can tell, it is at worst harmless (unlike any number of poorly cited, inaccurate, or clearly non-notable articles, which is where I think we should be focusing AFD effort).
However, I think that in general, in the interests of community and organization, we should not be purging well-cited, arguably encyclopedic articles into which a large number of people have put a large amount of work. Wiki is not paper. Removing harmless articles alienates active participants in Wikipedia for no meaningful gain. It has largely alienated me. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Besides being a non-notable intersection, Jmabel's comment has convinced me that this is largely original research: attesting some sort of Jewishness for an individual on the list would be appropriate of the type of research that goes into any biography, but putting them all together like this is OR by synthesis. In addition, putting this information on individual biographies would allow us to include it only where it made some notable difference to their lives, and would allow us to distinguish people Jewish by faith, by ethnicity, or by being called Jewish by others when they made no claim of it or denied it themselves; listing them like this obscures these important differences. —David Eppstein 20:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jmabel, whose remarks I find well reasoned and meritorious. The "sole ethnicity" argument (i.e. "why Jews" and not Scots, Swedes, Methodists, Quakers... as noted in a previous comment here) is in itself no reason for deletion - by all means, let other similarly relevant lists be created. As for the absence of a "parent list" page, i.e. List of Fellows of the Royal Society, this one may well serve as its core content and other editors are welcome to add the non-Jews ad lib. Membership in the Royal Society in itself might well be considered evidence of notability. As for Jews being "singled out" for putative interest: one need only look at the number and nature of questions about Jews directed at the Humanities Reference Desk, let alone world current events and not to mention 20th century history, to form an impression that this particular ethnic group receives attention (wholesome and otherwise) beyond its numbers in the global population and sparking consequent interest that may be served by information loci in Wikipedia such as this and similar lists. The page is adequately encyclopedic; let's not destroy an existing source of information. -- Deborahjay 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I read your comment and can't find your reason for retention. So far, all the keep !votes look like attempts to push this into no consensus rather than actually arguing to keep the list for its own merits. The only real thing I got from JMabel's remarks is that he is not happy seeing a list he spent a long time sourcing go (and since it is "harmless" it shouldn't go). I for one am not going to support the creation of List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Methodist Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Quaker Fellows of the Royal Society purely because of "it's harmless" and "i like it" arguments for keeping this list. Nobody has made a single argument supporting a documented significant article-worthy connection between Jewish people (or any ethnicity) and the Fellows of the Royal Society. No one has thought about the fact that keeping this list completely justifies people to make ethnicity/religious divisions for winners of Darwin Medal, Edison Medal, Gabor Medal...etc. "Jews get a lot of attention so this list if fine" is most certainly not a stronger argument that "This is the only ethnicity division of its kind" There is absolutely no proof this list has any encyclopedic value. Bulldog123 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only serves to reinforce stereotypes. Why would religion be relevant for Royal Society membership? JFW | T@lk 22:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The people and the institution they belong to are notable. If some one wants to do a list of List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Methodist Fellows of the Royal Society, List of Quaker Fellows of the Royal Society, etc. let them do so if they are properly sourced and referenced as is the present one. Religion is not relevant for RS membership as far as I know - but so what? Nationality, religion and/or ethnicity of its members may still be of legitimate encyclopaedic interest. As this is 3rd time round, I get the feeling the nominator has a bee in his bonnet which is rather more substantial than his concern for WP standards. --Smerus 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me. A "bee in my bonnet"? Bulldog123 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, being a generous sort of guy, I excuse you. But I still vote for 'keep'. Regards, --Smerus 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You provide an excellent argument here for the inclusion of the missing parent list, List of Fellows of the Royal Society, but no argument beyond WP:INTERESTING for a pared list based on this one trait (or any other trait, for that matter). The individual articles each have the sourced information that these people are Jewish, right, so no real information is lost in deletion. — Scientizzle 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Given that Jews were expelled from England in 1290, an edict which was only overturned in 1656 (Edict of Expulsion), and that the Royal Academy was founded in 1660, it is noteworthy that it took roughly 170 years for a Jew to be admitted to the Royal Society in 1828. So, it certainly does appear that this list has historic value. I would similarly support such a list for any other group that has a similar history of religious or ethnic persecution in England.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have any sources to conclude your statement has any relevance? Or could it simply be that there were very few Jews in Great Britain before 1828? Otherwise your conclusions are textbook original research Bulldog123 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not an article, so WP:NOR has no relevance. I am commenting solely about notability. And for that matter, Jews were only allowed to become naturalized British citizens in 1753 (Jew Bill of 1753). There is no doubt Britain has a rich history of antisemitism, which further increases the notability of this article.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, you are justifying the list on your original research into the subject, assuming that the reason it took so long for a Jewish person to be inducted had to be because of anti-semitism and not simply because of a small population, or a population at that time not interested in those professions. The once-presence of anti-semitism does not justify every intersection available with the Jewish ethnicity. So because the US has rampant homophobia it is fine to make divisions of award winners by their sexuality? That doesn't make sense. Bulldog123 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I have conducted no original research on this topic. You are raising a red herring. (I'll also suggest you brush up on WP:Civil.) I am simply commenting that I believe the article is notable, based on well documented historic events. And yes, had the U.S. expelled homosexuals for several hundred years and then denied them citizenship, I would certainly support material documenting their eventual inclusion into mainstream institutions.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • For the third time, you have no documented proof that it took so many years for a Jew to be a member because of anti-semitism. Which for the thrid time, means you are relying on your personal view on it. I'm sorry I have to say this but the rationale that because Jews were once expelled in Britain, everything merits a division based on their ethnicity seems utterly ridiculous to me. I already gave you the example of MIT, your school, above. You're also using a straw-man fallacy, because "inclusion into mainstream institutions" is not equivalent to "division by awards." Bulldog123 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Bulldog, you'll have to accept that I think you are simply wrong, as are your arguments. Regardless, I deem this article as notable. The purpose of these discussions is to gather differing opinions and I have offered mine, along with my underlying rationale.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                • RandomHumanoid, it's fine you disagree but I would really like it better if the rationale made a little bit more sense. Either you're just not thinking about it or you haven't explained it well enough. Because right now, it seems to be that slavery and persecution would justify an intersection by nearly all ethnicities. What I'm looking for is a really convincing argument to make me rethink deletion. But unfortunately, the more keep !votes I see, the more I feel deletion is completely warranted. Bulldog123 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • My intent is not to "convince" you of anything. (In the rare cases where that happens, all the better.) Again, I think you need to review WP:Civil. Your tone is needlessly dismissive and provocative, and that rarely lends itself to productive discussion. You are also violating WP:AGF in your original research (WP:OR) theorizing about the outcome of previous AfDs. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • Ok look. Let's not argue here anymore. If you want to get into specifics we can just talk on our userpages. Bulldog123 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is absurd - no religious or ethnic list is more carefully referenced and few deal with such notable people. More, if some body was born as a Jew, than this is a fact, and facts are for Wikipedia and not for personal interpretation.--Gilisa 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That this is the bestest most sourced list ever doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion in this manner. Nobody is disputing that these people are Jewish here (as far as I can tell), but that a list based on a single aspect of a person, with no logical connection towards the obvious parent list, is an unecyclopedic breakdown of trivial or irrelevant information. — Scientizzle 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Note Never has there been any suggestions of "removing" these people from their Fellowship or Jewish categories or other lists like it, so what relevance your last sentence has, I don't know. Perhaps this comment may shed some light on the ambiguousness of the above comment: [39] "I have no real objection for deleting these article- but I vote on the opposite since I think that too many deletions of Jewish categories already been made ." Bulldog123 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: it seems to me that the term "original research" in its disparaging sense is being stretched here beyond all reason. The original reason for the rule against original research was to keep crackpot science out of Wikipedia. Its scope has been gradually extended, but some seem to wish to bring it to the point where it might be called the "no research" rule. Any decent article will contain some synthesis. Even simply juxtaposing quoted passages from more than one source constitutes a synthesis of sorts. Ans writing a useful encyclopedia requires judgment. May I strongly urge upon all concerned that you read Roy Rosenzweig (June 2006). "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History 93 (1): 117–146.  (Center for History and New Media)? (The site in question sometimes has some access problems, but retry a couple of times and you should be able to see it. Probably the best external article about Wikipedia I've ever read.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply This is in part true. People are over-using the phrase "original research" often harping on its meaning towards the way participants act and not on how it applies to article-creation. In a very similar way, you made the comment " it is difficult for me to see why the effort to delete this article should be seen as any less "agenda-oriented" than the effort to preserve it." Here you're not following your own advice. Commenting on "agenda-oriented" participants instead of "agenda-oriented" article-creation. However, the justification for the creation of a list cannot be original research. For example, I can't say "I'm going to make List of African-American billionaries and then justify it by saying slavery is obviously the cause of the small amount of billionaires, making this notable" in the same way as RandomHumanoid suggested "Anti-semitism is clearly the cause for the delay in accepting a Jewish member, making this notable." WP:NOR is completely over-used and misunderstood, but that discussion is not very pertinent here. Bulldog123 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Bulldog, please do not put a statement between quotation marks that I have not said and attribute it to me.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I explicitly put "in the same way as RandomHumanoid suggested." Not that you said it.Bulldog123 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I keep requesting that you review WP:CIVIL, now I'll suggest that you read Quotation marks.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Discussions are not overseen by the manual of style. At this point you might as well stop giving references to user conduct guidelines and instead focus on strengthening your arguments. It's really not helping and wasting text. Bulldog123 07:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We have plenty of other such lists at Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin. The fact is different ethnicities excel in different areas, Jews in the sciences, classical music and in business, people of African descent in sports and popular music, Germans and Russians in classical music, Italians and French in painting and cuisine etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is evidence List of French painters passes notability, there is no evidence List of French painters on the list of 100 greatest painters of all time does. Apply the same thing here. Bulldog123 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Comment, Lets see that list of 100 of the greatest painters of all time, I'll bet there are an awful lot of French painters on that list, what's the point? This list is certainly worth keeping. Modernist 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no evidence the latter list passes notability...as I said. And pray tell, what is your reason for keeping this list? It might be helpful to comment on this list instead of on the French example. Bulldog123 05:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gustav von Humpelschmumpel Mad Jack 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment every person on the list has a page in Wikipedia, no red ink, the list is exceedingly well referenced, per Jmabel, see above, - my original comment speaks for itself. Modernist 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lists of people based on religion is not notable when religion is not part of their notability -- Steve Hart 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Jewish people are an ethnic group and not only a religion. And there is no need to prove any relation of their ethnic origin to their notability. Actually, when it come to Jews there is a grown number of theories that suggests a genetic contribution (others suggests cultural contribution even when it comes to assimilated Jews), but we are not dealing with this. Being Jewish that live in the USA is different from being French that live in the USA because of the different history that these two groups have. Any ways, facts are for mentioning, and I can’t see how mentioning some one Jewishness damaging the Wikipedia standards of quality.--Gilisa 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Response Everyone has heard the "Jewish is an ethnic group" excuse, but it doesn't matter here. Whether an ethnic group, a religious group, a sexuality...this division is a random synthesis. Detailed at the proposal Wikipedia:Overlistification. Despite what some have been saying, deleting this list doesn't lose any information, as all these people are settled nicely in Fellowship and Jewish categories as well as numerous Jewish lists. Repeating "do not remove good informaion" isn't valid here. Bulldog123 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems suspicious that this is the only list of its kind. I strongly suggest that List of Members of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and List of Jewish members of Academies of Sciences, Humanities or Engineering (the only other lists of society members I was able to find, in fact) be included in this nomination. --Eliyak T·C 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH is prohibited by our rules here.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear,  MortonDevonshire please explain us why do you see the list of Jewish fellows of the Royal Society as having position, and what is the position you think it takes. I have the impression that you involve here your subjective opinions. any ways, to many deletions of Jewish categories already been made (regarding your claim, these for itself could be look as a bias) and I don't think that another one is needed, nor that these list taking any offensive position-if you think it is, you must explain it.--Gilisa 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. To keep a list because it is sourced is just as improper as to delete a list because it is unsourced. --Tellerman 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Jmabel. Dahn 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Jmabel. IPSOS (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to the two comments above, it may be better to keep because of the merit of the list than the popularity of one of the keepers. In other words, don't keep just because your wiki-friend wants to keep it. Bulldog123 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is very appropriate that we should have articles for 99% of the Fellows of the Royal Society, and each article would of course include their ethnicity so this list is merely one representation of that information, and it is very well cited. The reason there is no parent list is because it would be too large, hence this sub-list. John Vandenberg 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that last point doesn't make sense -- where a list is too large and is broken down in to sublists, it has to be broken down in a logical, consistant, and relevant way, such as by year of election. Doops | talk 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A break down by period is appropriate; a break down by country of origin is appropriate; a break down by ethnicity is also appropriate where the ethnicity is not predominately based in one country. We have one list here; others can be created at any time. John Vandenberg 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, sure; but it was your 'hence' I was replying to— this list stands or falls on its own merits. It's raison d'etre is clearly not "to fill the gap left by the non-existence of "List of Fellows of the Royal Society." Cheers, Doops | talk 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the list would be too big, but the creation and maintenance of this list was never meant to serve as a sub-list. No other list was ever created or likely ever intended to be created. An in fact, the few similar lists that existed has been deleted, so the idea of this serving as a sub-list was thrown out. Bulldog123 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — I just don't see the notability. "List of left-handed artists" might be notable; but "list of left-handed soccer players" isn't. Doops | talk 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - OK, the argument you give is kind of a non-sequitur, but for what it's worth, "left handed soccer players" seems more counterintuitive than anything. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff)
Well, yes, I don't mean that they play soccer left-handed, just that they're left-handed in everyday life. Doops | talk 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a list of all Royal Society members = good (if too large). A selective list of the former based on a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution = bad. I would similarly support deletion if instead of Jewish it said "colorblind", "social conservative", "bald", "homosexual", "Catholic", "fans of Manchester United"...ad nauseum...no matter how sourced such (hopefully) nonexistent article are. — Scientizzle 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: do you really think that being "Jewish", from the categorial perspective, is some how equal to "homosexual" or even to "Catholic"???- I don’t think so, because Jews are well identified group and this is not true in the same why for Catholics, for example, since if a Catholic person convert to Protestant, than his former religious status have no importance. Unlike these, being Jew mean also to be from certain historical background and from different, well defined, ethnic group. I would have no objection for "Christian" or for "European", "German" and any other category, and I think that Jewish is very much the same.--Gilisa 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Assuming you were responding to me, I indented your comment. I've no interest in debating the relative merits & constructs of "Jewishness" versus any other human descriptive--that's a pointless and insulting exercise. I would reject "German" or "Christian" or "Atheist" or "Male" or anything similar for the clear reason stated: it's a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution. — Scientizzle 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why don't those bent on maintaining this list just sort of "upmerge" it and make it the start of List of Fellows of the Royal Society, which seems a perfectly reasonable list? — Scientizzle 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t know about it. any way, I was responding to you, as you already guessed. And I don’t think that I made any insulting exercise. I just think that nationality, ethnicity and etc can’t be compared to sexual orientation, gender or even sex, for example, which are all part of a personal status, unlike nationality or ethnicity.--Gilisa 07:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess we'll have to disagree on the status of nationality or ethnicity, as I cannot comprehend how they're anything but a "personal status". Nobody has yet to make a compelling case for why there should be a breakdown of Royal Society members by religion or ethnicity besides the fact that it's already here. — Scientizzle 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced and encyclopedic, for the reasons so eloquently stated above. Epson291 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, well-referenced has nothing to do with it, and "encyclopedic" needs to be proven. As it appears, many valid attempts have been made to disprove it but none to prove it. Simply saying it is because it is won't work. Bulldog123 11:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Those references belong in the main articles for sure--and it's a great thing that such reference work has been done. Kudos to those who did the work. But just because you can break down a large list into a smaller list based on what is effectively an arbitrary division (because, again, no logical reason has been proffered for one's status as a Jew having any impact on one's status as a Royal Society member, or vice versa) does not mean that one should create such a sublist. — Scientizzle 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR issues and little chance for improvement.--MONGO 14:17, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sakaru Awazaki

Sakaru Awazaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Sakaru Akazawa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hoax characters created for a non-existent Naruto spin-off. No reliable sources, no information to verify these characters exist, and fan-made characters fail WP:FICT notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:51, 20 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 due to insufficient reliable references.-Wafulz 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PET Aliens

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

I know for a fact that the content of this article is true, but it is impossible to verify. Negligible Google hits relevant to the subject, as there are other things that share the same name. Manufactured by this company but as a corporate website it only features products which are currently being sold, not this phased out brand of figurines.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I did find one single source.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Make that two sources now, but they are probably not WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Considering that there are other articles that link to Vivid Imaginations, a merger into that article might be a good idea if someone more knowledgeable about the subject wants to create it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Those are some lame references. Only a staunch inclusionist would want to keep an article about a trivial toy from the depths of childhood. YechielMan 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, they are lame, but no better sources are known to exist. I wouldn't know how to gauge the notability for this category of article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep label me a staunch inclusionist if you must, but I figure somebody might come here looking for info about toys remembered from childhood. I'd search for the toys from my (1960s) childhood, if I could remember what any of them were called. Capmango 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd like more feedback for this AFD, but looking at the pictures of P.E.T. Aliens again, it's amazing how much they seem to resemble Pokemon.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I remember these from my childhood (mid 1990s), and while they are nostalgic, ultimately there aren't enough references online to establish any kind of notability. I'm surprised this AFD hasn't been closed yet.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:27, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelinpala

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

Non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. No references or sources. Videmus Omnia 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom.--Edtropolis 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderlining on A7. No assertions of why he meets WP:BAND; if the record labels on which his albums are released are notable, then he does meet the guidelines, but said labels aren't named. Furthermore this is full of unverifiable information. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:11, 23 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 Speedy deleted as a recreated deleted article. -- Longhair\talk 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Good Ass Job

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/A Good Ass Job Articles for deletion/A Good Ass Job (2nd nomination)
A Good Ass Job (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just like the previous 2 AfDs for this article, the article is clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps prevent the article from being created until more sources come out? Douglasr007 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hedging a Speedy Delete G4, as this is recreated - even if it's a year later. I'll defer if there are sufficient sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, no reliable sources cited, and per WP:CBALL. Spellcast 07:44, 20 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. Sr13 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Bernacca

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

Apparent resume for a non-notable film editor. Videmus Omnia 05:23, 20 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. After weighing all the arguments against each other, I come to the conclusion that the keep arguments largely seem based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one has heard of something does not make it notable. Ultimately the notability of the subject is weak and cannot be adequately established. Riana (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InspIRCd

  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}}
InspIRCd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Actually, in the enwiki-archive, this page was not created by the development team. Instead it was restored and enhanced by the development team after being deleted for non-notability. Would it make any difference if it were deleted and then restored by someone outside the project? The argument is weak. --nenolod (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~Update~ I have rewritten the article with the initial guidance and help from User:USER-cacophony both from his contributions to the article itself, and his excellent comments on this Afd. Thank you heaps! Being new to wikipedia it's always nice to receive guidance from more experienced editors. I think I've included every worthwhile reference I could find, and look forward to seeing how other editors judge the notability of this article. If it does not cut it, too bad, if it does, fine. Either way it goes, thank you again for all the time you have spent on this Afd, the article itself and research of the article's references. -- 83.88.224.53 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • extremely large discussion boldly moved to the talk page, continue it there please.
Reply - ee other products written by the same developer: WinBot, IRC Defender etc etc. All of these are notable (one of these projects is over eight years old).

Braindigitalis 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - You say it is a very well known piece of software with many references, yet you have yet to prove that it meets notability requirements. Regarding searchirc, your argument against it is positively absurd. It's a verifiable source of notability, and to say that it needs to be notable to be verifiable is like saying every single news reporter has to be notable to be verifiable. Regarding your last point, the software is not among the core products of a notable software developer. Contrary to what you may believe, you are not notable. That clause is reserved for such developers as Microsoft or Symantec. Therefore, InspIRCd does not meet that notability guideline.
  • Reply - Searchirc is not a written publication, it is a forum, and until a few weeks ago its ircd statistics were broken. What exactly makes searchirc notable, please point out how this is notable within wikipedia's rules. If only large developers such as symantec and microsoft are notable, then most of wikipedias software articles must be removed, and if this removal goes ahead, i will be nominating most of them for RfD to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Again, SearchIRC does NOT have to be notable, nor does any source have to be notable, to be used as a source. That you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point will not change my actions on this AfD. cacophony ◄► 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Considering that all such articles i will submit for RfD will be non-notable and matching the criteria for deletion, and that i will do each one at a time by hand, i do not see how this is disruption, only tidying of non-notable irrelevent information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Do, or threaten to do, whatever you want, it won't affect my actions in this AfD. I will stand firm against your terroristic threats. cacophony ◄► 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Pardon? Please keep the emotive words and name calling out of this. Calling people 'vain' without knowing them, 'terrorists' without seeming to have any comprehension of what a terrorist is..? Keep the debate to the merits. Unless you have more in this than enhancing wikipedia. 83.100.194.63 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The user in question is using intimidation and the threat of force to get his way, that's terrorism. Also, I might note that I have never called anybody "vain". cacophony ◄► 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where as, of course, your motives and interactions are perfectly clean. None the less, don't rise to the bait yourself. Also: In addition, vanity, as article was created by W00teh, seems to refute that. 83.100.194.63 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Trying to defend actions with policy doesn't quite cut it. That was a personal attack. If you'd left names out of it and said 'the development team', I think it would have sufficed. That having been said, who knows an IRCd better than IRCd authors? 83.100.194.63 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You can claim it was a personal attack till the cows come home, but the fact remains that WP:Vanity is a policy, and to cite it in a brief AfD discussion, you say "vanity". cacophony ◄► 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Then claim I will. Because I don't call policy grounds for public attack on an individual. Nor would I call 'intimidation' reason to start calling someone a terrorist. That word should stay reserved for the scum that kill people. Not someone who disagrees with you. 83.100.194.63 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard of it, I've not heard of a lot of other IRCDs, and I'm not someone who runs one or who knows a huge amount about them. I've also never heard of the searchirc site cacophony keeps referring to to demonstrate non-notability, and I can't see how a non-notable site can demonstrate notability or a lack of it. J-Deeks 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - CLARIFICATION IS OBVIOUSLY NEEDED HERE - I am not using SearchIRC to demonstrate non-notability. Non-notability is assumed. It is the burden of those wishing to keep this article to demonstrate notability. I am merely using SearchIRC as a statistic to show usage. cacophony ◄► 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This project is very notable for an IRC Server ohloh report. Also bearing the discussion, cacophony refrains from taking any notice to hard facts presented to him other than then coming up with new reasons to delete. I do not understand that behaviour. I conclude his motives are not in the interest of wikipedia and attribute it to some unknown personal agenda since the educational hard fact comments would make a neutral person go, "Oh I did not know, my bad, sorry". And not try to dig up 5 other reasons to delete a page. Wikipedia is not a pissing contest, I move cacophony finds other places to fulfill this obvious need for competition. 83.88.224.53 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — 83.88.224.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. yes I forgot the tildes, but added them as soon as I realised. Also, I see no comments here not making a real argument. I also did not follow a link from any source, was not asked to participate on this discussion, and I do not have an account on here, but I did want to give my observations as I perceive them. 83.88.224.53 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article has been proven notable as per requirements on linked page, and relevant to the IRC community as it has initiated a number of changed that are now being taken up by other development teams. non notable site with inaccurate statistics is irrelevant 220.233.225.111 — 220.233.225.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - SearchIRC currently indexes 7,538 servers on 4,242 networks, well in excess of the standard survey sample size is 1,000 units. It is an accurate statistic, whether you like it or not. cacophony ◄► 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - SearchIRC's ircd statistics do not properly represent number of installed IRC servers of each particular version. Lets look into for example the fact that other ircd software releases maybe once or twice a year. This means that in a five year period they may have released 10 different versions. InspIRCd subscribes to the 'release early, release often' principal (see 'cathederal and the bazaar') which means that in a year we may put out fifty releases. With many irc networks running InspIRCd versions spread across 50 releases, these are unlikely to show on stats, which seperate by version number. Therefore the data you are using for your idea of notability is flawed and not fit for this use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The SearchIRC page indexes IRCds seen in the past 2 months. How many releases have you put out in the past 2 months? cacophony ◄► 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Users may be using a release from over a year ago on their network to date. the number of releases in the last 2 months (probably 4 or more for reference) is irrelevant Users may be using 1.0.7, 1.1.1, 1.1.2 through 1.1.9 all released in the last 2 years vrs software being released once a year. Just because it released doesnt mean people upgrade to it. 220.233.225.111
  • Comment You still aren't reading this. There are people running servers that haven't been rebooted for nearly -a year-. That is, 1.0.6 or whatever. I'd estimate the total usage to be around 100-120 servers, based on 2-3 per network. There are currently 75-85 people in the development channel. Come and visit sometime. 83.100.194.63 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Fair enough, regardless of our differing opinions on that. FreeBSD and Gentoo ports have still not been addressed. These are sources for determining notability according to the policy. 220.233.225.111
Comment - They have been addressed previously and the discussion was moved to the talk page, but I will summarize it here: The policy states that is a possibility that the software is notable if it is included in a major software distribution. To be included in the distribution means to be on the disk, to be in the default install, etc. Examples of this are GCC or Glibc. To be in an external package management system, simply available for download and install, does not count as being in the distribution, because anybody can simply add any software to the package management system. Indeed, InspIRCd was added to the FreeBSD ports system by none other than the InspIRCd project's lead developer, Braindigitalis, which counts as self-promotion and thus discounts it from notability anyways. cacophony ◄► 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Incorrect. He submitted a port to the freebsd team, and they included it. Furthermore, the Gentoo port wasn't even created by someone on the team - it's created and maintained by nenolod. BuildSmart is working on getting a package included with OS X server. 83.100.194.63 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - That he submitted the port himself is also self promotion. Regardless, you failed to read the other part of my post - that is, just because a package is in a package management system does not mean it is in the software distribution. For a package to be in the software distribution it has to be on the normal install disk, and installed by default. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see any possible reason for installing an IRCd by default at all. No IRCd is installed by default anywhere. And in case of gentoo, yes, it does mean it is included in software distribution, because the ebuild is included in a portage snapshot on CD, same as kernel or any system tool. 195.131.148.102 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well then perhaps you should consider the possibility that InspIRCd does not meet that notability requirement, as you previously believed. By the way, an ebuild, in case anybody is wondering, is simply a file that lists such things as where to download the software, and how to install it. When one wishes to install a package on Gentoo, it reads the ebuild, downloads the actual program, and installs it. You wanted to get into semantics, so here it is - that doesn't count. cacophony ◄► 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - But it does indeed count per notability guidelines. You cannot treat the ebuild differently than an RPM. They are both package metadata. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, sorry, but you are wrong. As per precedent, inclusion in the Gentoo metadata does count the package as being part of a distribution. Where and when the package gets compiled is not important - whats interesting is that the metadata for the package is managed by the distribution package manager and made available to you. I'm afraid this particular thread of the argument is moot. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And where exactly is this precedent cited on Wikipedia? cacophony ◄► 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How about [41], and [42], and [43], and [44]. These are all keep or no consensus, and all reference Gentoo as a legitimate distribution. You'll note that I commented on several of these. I do generally agree with you about the relatively notability of any given Gentoo package, but what I think doesn't matter. Its very clear that the community has spoken. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You are confusing correlation with causation. In none of those AfDs did a decision of notability depend on the fact that the software in question was available for download in a package management system. cacophony ◄► 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not. However you may want to note that the very guidelines you reference make no such distinction. 83.100.194.63 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to this, Gentoo's portage is included on it's CD. Which does include InspIRCd. 83.100.194.63 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have little need to edit articles, my main use of wikipedia is for finding information for myself, so yes I rarely edit articles, I spend my time elsewhere. I have however made a number of points that I feel valid, and my vote, above, is a very brief summary. I did not follow a link from a forum, was not asked to come here etc. so I do not know why you think it is a SPA. but oh well. 220.233.225.111
  • Weak Delete - it has a few sources, but don't think it quite meets the notability guidelines because they're fairly trivial. If some more reliable sources can be found I'll change my vote. --Darksun 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - based on the new sources. Not the strongest case for notability, but I think it just about passes. --Darksun 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see nothing that sets this IRCd apart from any other out there. Sources or not, it's not notable. ^demon[omg plz] 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would like to see a reasoning behind your conclusions. Simply stating WP:JNN or WP:APATHY as a reason is not a helpful argument. Please expand on your views as to clarify your position. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - InspIRCd is notable for having an entirely modularized approach (even SSL support is modular). Every config of InspIRCd can be entirely unique from every other. There is an entirely new level of choice in configurability available to the administrators running InspIRCd. That in itself makes it notable. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No it doesn't, please refer to the notability guidelines to find out what makes something notable. cacophony ◄► 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have been following InspIRCd in it's development, while it may not be notable right now, it is one of the most interesting (and successful) recodes and re-thinking of IRCd, with fresh ideas. If we were to delete this due to non-notability we ought to delete, definately, the UltimateIRCd article, and if we were to be nitpicky, remove all IRCds based on the argument "Reserved for Microsoft and Symantec and such". I agree there has been some degree of self-promotion that has a tendancy to be biased, but I honestly think this article should be kept, researched by independent people and documented - as this is an interesting project (even though it's a direct "competitor" of my project, UnrealIRCd). InspIRCd also discusses with other development teams and has a proper impact in the IRC community. For the sake of Notability, UnrealIRCd is also on speed-track to deletion - and if anything, UnrealIRCd sure as hell has some degree of Notability in the IRC world (prove me wrong?), for better or worse, and the discussion should take place on the other "IRCd" articles as well if so. --Stskeeps 84.238.9.161 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
comment I agree it does seem a little biased in writing and agree with the earlier suggestion by nenolod that it be cleaned up and sourced correctly rather than deleted 220.233.225.111
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles can't be kept on the grounds that they may be notable in the future. Wikipedia is not the place for independant original research either. The research and documentation must take place away from Wikipedia, in reliable sources. If this is the case, then those sources can be cited to assert notability. --Darksun 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article is already on watch, by nenolod. If it isn't cleaned up properly and cited, then remove it in, say a week or two's time, or nominate it for AfD then. Nominating for AfD without doing this seems rather destructive. 83.100.194.63 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you have any additional sources, I suggest you cite them here and now, rather than waiting a week or two. cacophony ◄► 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have a job, and a life. I'm already having to take time out of my schedule to participate in this stupid debate. That in addition to my interests would not make it a good idea for me to do anything on this article. 83.100.194.63 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Well then, if you can't find any additional sources, which I couldn't, then I don't see any reason to keep this article, as it is non-notable. cacophony ◄► 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment My point was that it should be put on notice for myself or others to try and find time to actually work on the article, rather than emulating the bull in the china shop and deleting an article, removing something which has made modest contributions to the IRC landscape. But, whatever. I think Carlo Wood had a point on IRCd:Talk. I'm done with Wikipedia also. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This AfD lasts five days, from the beginning to the end. That even extends into the weekend, giving everybody ample time to find reliable sources. If none can be found in five days, then chances are they don't exist. cacophony ◄► 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It's in hot water already as far as WP:NOT, and for me the WP:VAIN-esque nature of the article clinches it. It reads like a feature list. I'd also like to point out that 67k Google hits is quite poor for something that is available on SourceForge... you're going to get thousands of hits just by being on SourceForge, heh... --Jaysweet 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment My guess is you've never worked with IRC related software. Take a look at google hits for UltimateIRCd, which has existed for a lot longer than InspIRCd. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can you please explain why you feel this article is WP:NOT, I'm trying to guess your argument, but I would rather you explained it. Just quoting policy WP:JUSTAPOLICY with no explanation does not really help further the resolution of this hearing. Same goes for the search engine. How do you conclude notability or lack of same from that number? 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though, 67k Google hits does mean more than just that it's on sourceforge. Looking at the first few pages of Google results for inspircd, though, I see inspircd's websites, its svn, lots of download pages, freshmeat-like sites, and advertisements in various wikis. I think those 67k Google hits don't show that inspircd is used very much, but rather that the inspircd community is very good at advertising.eigenlambda 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
reply To be fair take a look at the most used IRCD at the moment, according to searchirc, and its google results, Exactly the same, UnrealIRCD site, Forums, Download Mirrors, and Wiki entries. The community tends to exist within itself, offering support through its self maintained forums (listed in results) and its own IRC channels. Currently there are 350+ registered members, the only reason for someone to register is due to their own usage of such an application. 220.233.225.111
reply A search engine's results WP:GHITS says only little about notability under which this article is marked for deletion. I do not think this can be used as a criteria either way for this particular review. But please give more argumentation. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see the notability here and, unless this can be clearly shown, the article should be deleted. It also seems to me this debate is getting bogged down on unecessary points and personal attacks which are unhelpful and uncalled for. Please could all parties just get back to the issue at hand. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since there is references in the article to sources can you please extend on your argumentation. See WP:JNN for more information. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply: I can indeed - there is only one reference in the article, for a start (there are a few external links - if these are to be taken as references they need to be included with the text of the article and be "referenced" more precisely). Secondly, the references alone, do not necessarily confer notability - in today's world a link on an internet page does not make something notable. If you can show that it is with some more references (which don't just "mention" the software in question) and which, in themselves, are of sufficiant notability then the article might be worth keeping. At the moment I cannot see it, as such I felt that the article should be deleted as it has had sufficient time to find these. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I wholly agree to your observations of the references, and have utilised my sparse editorial skills to try and rectify the situation. I am not claiming the article is still not non noteable but now it reads more like a proper wikipedia article according to article guidelines. 83.88.224.53 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The issue isn't how it "reads", the issue is, among other things, a lack of sources. In attempting to address Michael's reservations about the article, you have wholly ignored his main complaint - a lack of sources, and thus have not added a single one. cacophony ◄► 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply: I agree on that, I did add another source I found by using google book finder. I apologise for my previous comment about your motives, I made those faulty conclusions before having read any official wikipedia policies and was going by my own convictions. Again, I am truly sorry for that. Based on my experience with IRC and IRC servers, it's a very small community, bringing alot of value to a big community (the ppl that chat on the servers). I find it remarkable that this IRC Server is mentioned in 2 paper books, and is defended by the lead of what seems to be the most popular IRCD right now, namely Stskeeps of UnrealIRCd. In the narrow context of IRC Server Software, I think InspIRCd cuts the mustard for notability and I believe the notability rules should consider the scope too. For IRC Servers you will have to in my opinion. 83.88.224.53 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Please keep in mind two things - first of all, that all users on Wikipedia are equal. That "stskeeps" contributes to UnrealIRCd has no bearing on the value of his opinion - that is, it is as valuable as everybody else's, and no more. Second of all, we are judging the notability of this article among all other Wikipedia articles, which is to say, it's notability is to be judged not among IRCds, but among every article in Wikipedia. If we simply allowed every article that was notable in it's own context, then anything could get it's own Wikipedia article, regardless of it's actual, individual notability. cacophony ◄► 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although the article in some ways may read like an advertisement, it is a well thought out article, and judging from the sources, and my experiences of ircds, this article has more then enough sources. Mentions in two book publications is way more then enough to make an article on a particular ircd noteable(as well as a bunch of internet sources). The irc community is quite small, not as large as it used to be, and inspircd is truly innovative, and deserves place in the wikipedia. I would also like to note that I participate in QA team, and help with some tech support in the channel, but I do that with other projects and ircds as well, and does not directly mean I am biased as to what I say. Dmbtech 16:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverse my last comment, as the article has been changed, and believe it fully goes along with wikipedia policy now. Dmbtech 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in "Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise", by Syngress;
  • "The most efficient way to deal with these bots is via server-side filtering, for example the filtering systems of IRC server software such as UnrealIRCd and InspIRCd."
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in '"Emerging Threat Analysis : From Mischief to Malicious", by Syngress;
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
Sorry, but just having your name dropped as a passing reference in a couple books does not make something notable. Also please note that we are to judge InspIRCd's notability in general, among everything, rather than simply among IRCds. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if thats the case, I suppose any article relating to irc should be deleted from the wikipedia and considered not notable. Dmbtech 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As I have already addressed this, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. cacophony ◄► 02:02, 24 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. Straight from the policy: "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." If the terms are notable, say the show has notable terms- don't painstakingly define and list them.-Wafulz 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Junkies Lingo

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

Page is a list of definitions for slang used on a radio show. The primary issue is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but there are also issues of notability and verifiability. Chunky Rice 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Honestly, as the page creator I really don't care what happens here one way or the other. The only reason I created it is because it was overcoming The Junkies article. The only defense that I can see for this article is that a new listener would have a great deal of difficulty understanding what these guys are talking about and may find this article helpful. Angrymansr 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably a worthy cause, but this isn't the place for it. - Richfife 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. See this Google News Archive for reliable sources such as the Washington Times saying "the Junkies are known for their wacky lingo", a Washington Post interview in which the Junkies talk about their lingo, and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune mentioning that the website "(www.junkiesradio.com) also has a glossary of Junkies' lingo". Although the website no longer seems to have that page, there is an archive of it (note that, due to problems in the archiving process, the text appears invisible unless you select it). I've never listened to their show, but I can see how this list can be informative to someone researching it. And while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we certainly do have glossaries of terms of specialized use. DHowell 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've added a few references to the article. DHowell 01:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.This entry is definitely helpful and since the show replies heavily on wikipedia this would seem the appropriate avenue for the definition and more encyclopedia like entries explaining the terminology.-Mike {{unsigned|76.111.66.130} — 76.111.66.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The proper response to trivia overwhelming an article is to delete the trivia, not dump it into a separate article. Otto4711 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal. On the surface your argument sounds fine but there's three points here:
1. Their dialect is different from the average person which merits it just as worthy as this article:Klingon Language. This article just needs some back story to make it look less dictionary-like.
2. This is not a form of trivia. Trivia is random unorganized facts about a broad topic, this is neither random or unorganized, concerning one specific item (language usage).
3. Why are lists (List_of_download_managers) ok, but attach usage to the list and it's all of the sudden forbidden? In that case, let's just delete the definition portion!!!
Angrymansr 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) Klingon language is a developed encyclopedic article on the creation of a relatively fully-functioning artificial language. This article is a glossary of slang like the recently-deleted List of Firefly slang words. 2) This is trivia. It is all trivia about the same thing, but it is trivia nonetheless. 3) The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not justify the existence of this article. Otto4711 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither does the fact that other stuff was deleted justify the deletion of this article. I've cited sources, and these sources can be used to improve the article further. Perhaps if you found a few reliable sources about the use of slang on Firefly, you could use them to create an article on Firefly slang, since I notice you were the sole voice to keep that list. DHowell 05:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't change the fact that this article is strictly against policy. The only way to keep it would be if it also met WP:LIST, which it does not. -Chunky Rice 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge some of the more-used entries to the main article fuzzy510 22:27, 20 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. Prodego talk 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning Articles for deletion/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (second nomination)
List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've been taking another look at the original rationales that defeated this list's first AfD in late 2005. Wikipedia's standards are always evolving, and this list's survival seems to have been the product of a different era in Wikipedia's history. An example of what was said in the article's defense: "Watching for links here turning blue is actually a useful way to monitor the creation of new articles on diploma mills, provided they are in the list to begin with; if the creator is particularly clumsy, he will also try to remove the name from the list." And this one: "Very interesting page."

Wikipedia articles are not dashboards for editors, and using "interesting" as a criterion for inclusion is more in line with Encyclopedia Dramatica's standards than with Wikipedia's.

There are a few major problems I have noticed with this article:

  1. It is not exhaustive and in all likelihood can never be, and a "List of some unaccredited institutions of higher education" will never be truly encyclopedic.
  2. As has been pointed out on the article's Talk page, this list seems to drift very close to being original research. This perception is occurring primarily because the list is original research, explicitly synthesizing new knowledge -- which disqualifies it from inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:OR, one of the three core content tenets.
  3. With the myriad jurisdictions around the world with their own standards for accreditation, creating this list necessitates taking one point of view, whether it be from the US state lists of unaccredited institutions, the British government listings or what have you. One jurisdiction or set of jurisdictions' standards will hve to be taken as canonical. This inherently grates againstWP:NPOV -- which makes it two of the three core content tenets this list runs afoul of. It also traps the list's maintainers in the strict, arbitrary logic they make up amongst themselves, and that kind of self-created othodoxy will regularly lead to problems, whether it be labeling the Esalen Institute as an unaccredited college, getting into the recent fracas over a religious school that's been dominating the Talk page, etc.
  4. Whether the editors involved want to admit it or not, they and we know that "unaccredited institution" is used primarily as a pejorative term in everyday parlance, and we are labeling all institutions swept up onto this list as such, the diploma mills that fake their accreditation and religious schools which publicly resist accreditation alike. This fact alone makes the list worse than useless to what I suppose was its original intended audience: people trying to figure out if they're being scammed by a rip-off school or by somebody wielding a dodgy credential. What other purpose would this list have, besides being "neat" and a good indicator of red links turning blue? --Dynaflow babble 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This list is a mess that can't be cleaned up for all of the reasons outlined by Dynaflow. --ElKevbo 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the list can be split into different lists to avoid tarring religious institutions with the same brush, but this list can be comprised of verified entries. John Vandenberg 08:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. and WP:NOT#DIR and also the fact that some of the institutions listed in the redirected article are currently actively seeking accreditation and some are institutions in jurisdictions that do not currently officially accredit the disciplines that those institutions offer (ie. Christian theology in Muslim-majority states or Syariah in non-Muslim majority states). To lump them in with institutions that are known diploma mills as is currently done is problematic. Due to the various guidelines and regulations governing accreditation in the various countries worldwide and also the fact that it is not impossible to set up a diploma mill overnight, this list can never be exhaustive and as it currently stands, cannot be deemed as encyclopaedic. The article Diploma mill and School accreditation already exists which provides ample information about this issue. If necessary, a non-exhaustive list of known and verified diploma mills can be included to these articles for reference. Bob K 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is one of the few lists that seems to have any redeeming value. It provides information, no not as a directory, but as a reference list for educational institutions that have a particular property. The sole problem i see with the list is that it cannot be complete..., but what list that describes institutions can be complete? none, because things change. As for the perjorative issue, it is not perjorative, it is merely factual, if some people read it as perjorative, it is their judgment that is misaligned and not the facts of the matter. People get ripped off all the time going to diploma mills, this list helps resolve that in an encyclopedic way. It's encyclopedic value is clear, and I've think I have seen lists of such institutions in educational encyclopedias or reference works. The notability of the list is well established, I don't think anyone can doubt that given the amount of citations and references it could use. I can see the merit of including a separation between diploma mill and not, that would be the sole justification for deletion that i see above, but I am afraid that is not a valid deletion reason, that is an improvement reason.--Buridan 10:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Buridan and Jayvdb. Anyone who has ever had to read a resume', or decide where to spend their tuition money, appreciates a list of schools to watch out for. I suggest adding some redirects from terms like "Diploma mills". Caution: One does need to be careful about adding to the list; this one cites sources from the press.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
Comment: Of course such a list should exist. Charlatans deserve all the exposure the Internet can afford. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, and indeed, this is not a list of "schools to watch out for". — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: why isn't wikipedia the place for it? it is encyclopedic and refers to important knowledge about the world as we know it. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
When someone is reading a resume' or deciding where to spend their tuition money they should/would/likely look it up in Wikipedia by the institution name. That will provide the information that they need. Bill Huffman 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete:
    1. This list does not have a definable set of contents. Neither "institution of higher learning" nor "accreditation" is adequately defined; it is therefore impossible to determine whether an institution is a potential member of the list or not. Inclusion criteria on the list itself include an unacceptable self reference to WP:RS.
    2. This list is inherently POV. It has been moved to its current location from such POV and sloppy titles as List of diploma mills and List of institutions of higher learning which may not be accepted by civil service or other employers. "Accreditation" is a term of art within the context of U.S. higher education, and not a neutral, verifiable quality.
    3. This list is inherently unencyclopedic. A majority of the list's members are non-notable.
For these reasons, and the reasons given by User:Dynaflow above, I would delete the list. — mholland (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The attempt to claim "unaccredited" is POV is bollocks. See List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning. John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you citing another Wikipedia article (which happens to have been worked on by a lot of the major contributors to this list) as a source? --Dynaflow babble 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
FFS: no, don't be ridiculous. I am using the article to quickly demonstrate that "unaccredited" is not POV; there are accrediting bodies, and they are authoritative sources. John Vandenberg 04:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that POV is not the key problem here. OR is the key problem. Wikipedia editors can not go searching through all of the relevant accreditation documents and lists to see if a particular institution is not listed in any of them. --ElKevbo 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment The concept of accreditation is international, but operates in different ways in different contexts. u.n. and oecd documents use the term accreditation in regards to education. It is not inherently POV, it is neutral, it is only if you make the claim that calling something unaccredited is not a statement of fact, which is or is not supportable with evidence. in this case, it is supportable with evidence, how is it then pov? if it is included in other reference works or encyclopedias, then it is encyclopedic. the first encyclopedia had lists that were far worse than this... things like 'tools you find in a blacksmith shop'. --Buridan 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The way this list construes accreditation, it is an inherently POV term. If the test this list applies were as simple as "Does institution appear on Official Register X (Y/N) ?", I'd agree that the list would be neutral, verifiable and valid.
Unfortunately, the test currently goes a little like this: "Does the institution grant post-secondary degrees? ... Has the institution been labelled unaccredited? ... Do we trust the source that says this institution is unaccredited? ... If yes to all, then add institution to list". Quite apart from the unnecessary complexity of this test, it excludes from the list institutions which have not been accused by a third party of handing out non-accredited degrees (be they ever so unaccredited). So it winds up being a List of diploma mills by another name. This list is a refuge for POV, unencyclopedic content. — mholland (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What POV, unencyclopedic content hides here? John Vandenberg 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
so cited and sourced articles will not work here? what if we applied that policy to other articles? the inclusion policy of cited materials seems central to wikipedia to me. --Buridan 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There should be an article on the institution or it shouldn't be in the list, IMHO. Putting it on this list when there's an existing article serves no real purpose that I see. Putting it on the list when there is no article is problematic. If there's good enough sources to put it on the list then I think an article should be created for it. Bill Huffman 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Opinion - Instead of the list, an article should be created for each red linked school. Then all the school related articles would have a section regarding accreditation. Perhaps a table containing associations, affiliated schools, governing bodies and of course, refs. If people are researching an institution, they will find this important information on that open, NPOV page. If a list should continue to exist, it would do better by being sectioned and categorized. --travisthurston 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The list is useful for people who are curious about some potential underdog schools. --Feydakin 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep no list can be complete, so that's no objection, but I agree that an articles should be created for each red-linked school. The nom. himself says that it was implied at the first AfD that some of the pressure on this article might be from those who want to keep their favorite institutions from being listed. The qualification for listing are perfectly clear in most cases, and the documentation sufficient. DGG 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that, and that motivation does not appear to have played any role in the first AfD. What I said was that a rationale for keeping the article was that Wikipedia editors could watch the redlinks for articles on (presumably) diploma mills that had been speedied or AfD'ed to turn blue again, which would allow the editors to then pursue the redeletion or co-option of that article. While it seems like a good idea, that is not a reason for a page to exist in article space. If anything, such a page should be in project space, though it would run into problems there too.
The documentation is sufficient for the small number of entries left on the list because we stripped out all the other entries, comprising the bulk of the list, without sufficient sources. The list as it stands (and as it has been for a long, long time) is effectively an [[Arbitrary list of some institutions of post-secondary education whose diplomas may or may not be accepted in certain jurisdictions (see Talk page for which ones!) because they may or may not be accredited by the appropriate accrediting body, as defined in another Wikipedia article, for said jurisdictions]]. A list like that cannot be encyclopedic, no matter how interesting or useful to the corps of editors who watch school articles it may be. --Dynaflow babble 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Dynaflow. Given our prohibition against original research, this list is doomed to be pathetically incomplete. On that merit alone it's a disservice to readers looking for this information. Add in the immense difficulty of creating and maintaining a realistic and generalizable criteria and that seems to clearly point to deletion.
I wish we could do this list justice - I really do. My background and education are in higher education and I understand how important it is for students, parents, and others to make accurate judgments about the quality and qualifications of institutions and the degrees they purport to award. But I think that many people underestimate the complexity of higher education; I assume this underestimation and confusion is heightened by the widespread incidence of college education among Wikipedia editors who wrongly believe their isolated experiences can be generalized. If we were to limit this list to one jurisdiction (state, country, etc.) then we might have a hope of making it worthwhile. But a generalized, one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work. It's an admirable and understandable goal but it's completely unrealistic and doomed to be very incomplete and fundamentally flawed. --ElKevbo 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and the need for constant maintenance. Is it also so vastly incomplete as to be of any questionable utility.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise. Many of the articles that have been written about individual institutions have been deleted based on assertions of lack of notability, often with attributes such as "diploma mill", "bible college," and "unaccredited" cited as evidence of lack of notability and the existence of this list cited as a reason why the institution-specific article is unnecessary. For some examples, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Berkley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northcentral University (although the decision was "Keep," the article was deleted about 10 days later), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colton University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitefield College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buxton University. Recently, this list, which included many more entries than it has now, was trimmed to remove about 300 institutions that were not annotated with one or more references documenting the school's lack of accreditation. Many of these removed institutions had once had articles that contained source citations, but those citations were not added to the list when the articles were deleted. Many other institutions that were removed from the list have well-sourced articles that clearly document the lack of accreditation (in many cases, even the institution freely states that it is not accredited), but these institutions were removed from the list because someone decided that this particular list requires an individual reference citation for every item on the list (even if the linked article has 15 relevant citations). Now that the "list" article has been thoroughly eviscerated, there is a hue and cry for the list to be deleted, in part due to its woefully incomplete nature. Can you hear me banging my head against the computer screen? --orlady 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I still have a CRT rather than a flat panel monitor, all that head banging would destroy a flat panel monitor. Most unaccredited institutions are understandably very secretive about their particulars. This means that articles on them are frequently going to be stubs. As long as there's a WP:RS for the fact that they are unaccredited then they should have an article, IMHO, even if it is just a perpetual stub. Of course, it also requires responsible editors to watch list these articles because the "alumni" (and sometimes owners I suspect) like to remove any derogatory information like the unaccredited status. So it takes a special breed of editor that can handle "Writing and editing Wikipedia articles about unaccredited institutions, unrecognized accreditation agencies, etc., is a frustrating enterprise." A breed of editor that owns a CRT rather than flat panel monitor and has a thick skull. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom and WP:NOT#DIR 172.190.202.149 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While the article had been abused in the past as part of an effort to deprecate unaccredited institutions, I think that we are on our way to an objective definition that can be met with appropriate sources for any institution listed, showing that it is 1) a degree-granting institution AND 2) it is not accredited. As long as tehse criteria are strictly observed, there is no reason that the article can't usefully remain on Wikipedia. Alansohn 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepI believe it is important to have this page as fraud is increasingly common with people using online methods to establish educational institutions without the proper accreditation.--Bud 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we need to add "not a college guide" to the list? I thought it was self-evident but I guess I'm wrong. --ElKevbo 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a guide-for-schools-to-avoid. The argument that academic fraud is increasingly common should make the delete argument even stronger not weaker. Just because a diploma mill doesn't show up on the list it can't mean that it is a good school. These academic fraudsters can create a new diploma mill in less than a day. There's no way that this list can ever be anywhere near complete. I argue that the way to fight academic fraud is let people read the articles about accreditation and diploma mills. This article is misleading in my opinion because it implies that the school might be good if it doesn't show up on this misleading list. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unaccredited by whom? for what? and where's the School of Hard Knocks, unless somebody has accredited it. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Article is too confusing, downright misleading. It's relatively small number of schools tarnishes by association the name of any good institutions unlucky enough to be on the list, and on the flipside gives the bad schools NOT on the list a cover, kind of validation by omission. I agree the whole thing should be scrapped and start from scratch as BobK said above. And as another editor said, leave religious schools off this time. A whole 'nother kettle of worms. --KatiaRoma 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: The vast majority of religious schools are accredited. The exemption in some jurisdiction applies to government licensing to operate a school, which is not the same thing as accreditation. The state of Texas has attempted to explain the distinction (as well as other aspects of the general issue) in this FAQ. Religious schools that choose not to seek accreditation are equally as "unaccredited" as any other unaccredited school; furthermore, unfortunately, some diploma mill scams claim to be religion-based and use their status to try to avoid scrutiny.--orlady 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. List seems well-sourced (40+ refs). Arguments that the list "isn't complete" ring hollow given orlady's above comments: the list is as complete as verifiable sources allow at this point. With this criterion, OR is eliminated (if you have a reliable source, then its not OR). -- MarcoTolo 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Original research cites reliable sources all the time. Just look at any journal article. What makes this original research is the way in which the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new. Again, an arbitrary sampling of some institutions of post-secondary education which dedicated editors' tireless research indicates may not be accredited in certain jurisdictions is a noble undertaking, but it is original research and thus not appropriate to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear—I was using "original research" in the Wikipedia sense of "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." As a referenced list, this entry simply provides an index-of-sorts: I'm unclear as to how "the cited sources are being used to synthesize something new". If you mean "new" as in "this exact list hasn't been published by a reliable source", I suppose that's true.... -- MarcoTolo 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
With this kind of reasoning, Dynaflow, you actually should be very doubtful about the entire wikipedia project. As far as I see, wikipedia aims at and has succeeded in collecting a substantial amount of already established knowledge, in interrelated and easy to grasp manners. If you really meant what you write as a general principe, you could start by critisising the existence of cross references, categories, and navigation boxes in wikipedia. Of course all of this in an abstract sense synthesises something new, namely, an easy and collected access and overview of disparate facts. Wikipedia lists in general are not different from categories or navigation boxes in this respect. JoergenB 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between putting together an encyclopedic summary from secondary sources (with contextual references to primary sources) and just plowing almost exclusively through primary sources to synthesize a new piece of research. While the latter approach is inestimably valuable to the advancement of knowledge, its direct results are not appropriate to a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this list pretty much requires its compilers to take that latter approach, which dooms it as an encyclopedia article. Almost every element on the list (after the scores of unreferenced entries were removed) is based first and foremost on editorial judgement-calls on primary sources. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of the first twenty references, at least ten are secondary sources: here, here, here, here, and here. Wait, there's also this one, and this other one, as well as another one here, here, and here. The majority of the other references in this sample are mostly state departments of education (DOEs)—I suppose these fall into the "primary sources" category. I checked WP:NOR: in all the examples I checked, the references were using these DOEs to establish that a given institution on the list was so classified:no "interpretation" was involved. -- MarcoTolo 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Those refs to state departments of education are not primary sources. Those lists are secondary, or even tertiary, sources -- they are compilations of information that state officials gleaned from various primary and secondary sources. The closest we get to primary sources in articles like this one are (1) the findings in court documents such as those at http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp/udgi/lawsuits/ and (2) materials published by the institutions themselves (or their founders), indicating that they are not accredited (for example, http://www.vision.edu/institutions/viu/authorization.asp).--orlady 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I was trying to see in what model the various DOEs might be considered primaries—thinking of them as 2° or 3° fits the situation much better. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. Arbitrary sampling and OR say enough. 172.133.25.97 05:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) EricG.
  • Keep (with some doubts). There is a reasonable alternative, namely, to list links to the various existing lists (governemental, by US states et cetera, and CHEAn) of institutions from which degrees are not to be accepted at applications for positions. Those lists are probably updated faster and more accurately than our lists. However, otherwise the wiki project tries to avoid being a collection of links. Moreover, some of the arguments supra for deletion actually tend to underline the necessity of such lists (whether ours or link collections). There seems to be a relativist kind of criticism against lists based on official agencies reactions to the threats posed by the bogus degree sellings. It does remind me of our own bogus degree affair a short while ago. If there really are a number of wikipedians who think that referring to lack of legal licensing or even direct official listings on lists such as this one from Michigan (based on CHEA information) as "POV", or that institutes which abuse rhe religious exemption from accreditaition for issuing non-licenced degrees in non-religious subjects should not be listed with other unaccredited institutions, then such lists may be necessary also for our own sake (not just as a warning to anyone thinking of applying for a civil service position in Michigan).
There is nothing POV in recognising that some "degrees" are bogus and others clearly valid; nor in presenting lists based on objective criteria (like the lack of accreditation). Nor is it OR. It would be POV if the article wrote someting like the following:"These institutes are blacklisted by US governmental or state agencies, and hence are proved to be criminal". We must present the grounds for listings carefully, and then let people draw their own conclusions. Similarly, institutes invoking the religious exemption should be marked doing so. JoergenB 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename, and cleanup rename to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning in the United States, and remove the few that aren't in the US, perhaps into a separate list. 132.205.44.134 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That recommendation is not workable. Many "distance learning" diploma mills have (or claim to have) a physical location in a country where they do not solicit or enroll students. Often these are small countries such as Dominica or Turks and Caicos, while solicitations target students in North America. In other cases, the school's official location is in the United States, but it targets students in Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, many of these institutions move around frequently, or else have no identifiable physical location. For some examples, see Saint Regis University (it and its affiliated institutions had or claimed to have locations in Liberia, India, the principality of Seborga, and the U.S. state of Washington), Rushmore University (apparent locations in two U.S. states and the Cayman Islands; Google their name and you will find personal pages by enrolled students living all over the world), and Bronte International University (which also discusses Trinity College and University, apparently another name for the same institution; locations or alleged locations include several U.S. states, Spain, and the British Virgin Islands). --orlady 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is sourced and neutral. Accreditation is not a trivial aspect of a school. Arguably it is the single most important qualification a school has. A list is better than a category for two reasons: categories are navigation tools and I don't see why anyone would want to navigate among the entries; and clists can be annotated and sourced more easily than categories. The list is incomplete because it is (or should be) limited to notable schools, i.e. those with articles. Many lists have the same criteria, implicitly or explicitly, or notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The problems raised by the nom should be addressed by the editors of that page, but are not sufficient for deleting the list. These kinds of lists are common and are maintained by many institutions. The page collects a lot of useful sources that would be needed in case the list is restructured so as to solve the issues. nadav (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Highly Emphatic Keep as per DGG 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC). Although it has been stated already, the list might not be entirely encyclopedic but the nature of this list is such that you can never list everyone. The beauty of wikipedia is that it is an evolving entity, constantly able to be modified and updated with events. As such the list is important, notable, and valuable. It is very messy though. I suggest a major restyling so it is not so abominably ugly... I'll freely admit that merely based on its appearance I wanted to delete it, but having looked at the article and the arguments for and against I vote keep it. Cazza411 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
But as per Bill Huffman 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC) , I think it is important that this page comes with a caveat emptor - a strong note that this is an INCOMPLETE list. Additionally, a useful reference to checking the accreditation status of someone NOT on the list, even if just a weblink to a page of listed accreditors.Cazza411 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - highly useful resource to prevent people from throwing their money away on useless diplomas. bd2412 T 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - some people here have noted that the encyclopaedic justification is providing information about fake or plain non-accreited institutions. However, as others pointed out, sometimes that can be a hard decision, as unaccredited does not automatically mean fake, nor does unaccredited according to one standard/body mean unaccredited in general. People are better off looking at the list of accreditition bodies they trust (and about which we have/can have articles linked to from accredition articles). So delete this as per the flaws pointed out. MadMaxDog 06:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely - the article helped me to avoid studying at an unaccredited "university" and saved my money. thank Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.32.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete For reasons given in the original post. Mostly, original research has no place here. I think if someone really needs to know of such a list, a link to lists of such institutions can be posted in the accredition article. Piercetp 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, sorry to spoil your party, but the article contents are not based on original research. --orlady 02:54, 28 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 all to List of Star Wars ground vehicles. --VS talk 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AT-PT

AT-PT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Of little importance, not every Star Wars character/vehicle/concept needs its own page, specially if its from the Expanded Universe.

I am also nominating the following related pages, same reasson as above, none of these vehicles are notable outside the Star Wars fandom.

A5 Juggernaut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
TIE crawler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
AT-TE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
AT-PT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kessingler 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all but AT-TE. The AT-TE is from the second two movies of the prequel trilogy, not the expanded universe. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, do not delete the AT-TE article. --Paladin 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki all to Wookiepedia.--Edtropolis 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment They're probably all there already. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Wars ground vehicles 132.205.44.134 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • comment Id merge the most important ones in one page (the one we've seen in movies, incluiding the AT-AT, which is probably pretty famous by now), the ones for the expanded universe should belong in Wookiepedia. But theres also several other ships and vehicles in the expanded universe, and they all have their own pages, merging all of them in one page might do it.Kessingler 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Star Wars ground vehicles or some such. All, including AT-TE. Just because it appears in movies, it is not automatically worth keeping. I find more compelling for its retention the notion that there is real-world material out there to cite about it serving as a precursor to the AT-AT -- designed the evoke the "feel" of that vehicle and come across as a distinct predecessor. But even that is just a snippet of a couple of sentences, and not enough to sustain an article. It might even be worthwhile to redirect AT-TE to AT-AT and include a section on that page (which needs out-of-universeing) about this other vehicle's relationship to its more-notable cousin. --EEMeltonIV 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Star Wars ground vehicles, there's no real reason to keep this here. There are far to many StarWars pages as it is. Canadianboywest 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep for AT-TE and A5 Juggernaut - As mentioned above, AT-TE featured in cinema. A5 featured on television in Cartoon Network's Star Wars: Clone Wars, and appears to have shown up in film as well. As such, notable and worthy of coverage. Merge any vehicles without a similar case for note to List of Star Wars ground vehicles per anon. MrZaiustalk 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just because they appeared in a movie and a cartoon series does not make it worth of a page IMO, specially if they were just vehicles without even a memorable mention within the movie or the cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs)
Perhaps not, although in this case the fact that it was negates the initial rationale stated for the listing and, combined with their coverage in the expanded universe, it certainly seems like they warrant greater consideration than the rest of the list. MrZaiustalk 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but then again, both vehicles only appeared in the movie, nothing more, they didnt had any cultural impact beyond that, unlike, for example, the millenium falcon or the blade runner spinner, etc. As far as i recall the vehicles even had a very small part in the movies, to keep both articles in here would be nothing but fancruft as it would be only of interest to those who want to know more about star wars (and thats where wookiepedia is supposed to show up!)Kessingler 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Transiwiki then Merge wouldn't be all that bad - If that's the result, let me know and I'll help. MrZaiustalk 15:24, 26 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of political parties in the Marshall Islands

List of political parties in the Marshall Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Badly written, badly linked and uninformative stub, and all this for a list of two (2) parties? All this is already found on Politics of the Marshall Islands. Targeman 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - redundant to the linked article. --Haemo 05:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the article: "There are no legally incorporated political parties in Marshall Islands." So what the hell are we doing with a list? --Dynaflow babble 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Politics of the Marshall Islands. "List of political parties..." articles are fairly common for all sorts of countries and places. By placing a redirect to an article where the topic is covered we have greater consistency and point the reader to a place where they can find the information they are looking for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Part of a series on political parties in all states of the world so should be kept for consistency, there are two political parties listed so it does have content. However a merge with Elections in the Marshall Islands similar to Elections and parties in Tuvalu could be useful provided was kept as a redirect. Davewild 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Davewild. This is a standard article for just about all nations that have political parties, and could in fact be expanded. The template points people to articles with more information. Turning this into a redirect sends the bad message that the political parties in the Marshall Islands are somehow beneath notice. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, part of series. --Soman 17:22, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadiqabad Chak 152P

Sadiqabad Chak 152P (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Ab initio statement Chak/village 152/P is a small area itself shows that it isnt exactly noteworthy, while the population estimate also carries no ref. Not verifiable, not notable. Regards, xC | ☎ 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per above reasons. Search of the internet only finds links to mirrors of Wikipedia. Even if the settlement does exist, it probably is still not notable. --Hdt83 Chat 05:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All towns are inherently notable. But there is no non-Wiki web verification anywhere that this place exists. --Oakshade 17:59, 20 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 concensus reached, default to Keep. -- Coren (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am not an admin, and am the originator of the AfD. -- Coren (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahim Yadel

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

Try as I might, I can't see any way this individual prisoner at Gitmo can pass WP:BIO. All news articles I can find are, at best, trivial coverage and none of the other notability criterion are met. Coren 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed !vote to neutral after article edits, see below. Coren 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, score one for the highly specific deletion sorting categories. Not every prisoner in Gitmo is notable. I hit a few random articles from the relevant category, and they were much better developed than this one. I think the word nontrivial in WP:N should be emphasized, especially with WP:BLP lurking in the background. YechielMan 04:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you overlooked that the nominator did not comply with WP:CFD and WP:CSD, placing his or her orginal {{db}} less than half an hour after the first draft was placed. Why don't you reserve your judgement, and wait for the article to be more complete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs).
  • Keep -- Geo Swan 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Disclaimer -- I started this article.
    • Guantanamo captives merit coverage on the wikipedia because they are at the focus of important events.
      • Close to twenty of the 400 plus articles on Guantanamo captives have been nominated for deletion. The same arguments come up again and again. I find that many of those who argue for deletion base that judgement on serious misconceptions -- like that the Guantanamo captives are just prisoners, like the millions of convicts in US penitentiaries, If you share this idea, I encourage you to read: Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
    • Brahim Yadel is particularly notable, as he is suspected of organizing jihadist training camps in France.
  • Keep In my opinion, all of the Guantanamo Bay captives are notable because of the nature, scale and historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. The nomination referes to "trivial coverage". Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. WP:BIO is only a guideline, not policy, for a very good reason: each case needs to judged on its merits. Nevertheless, contrary to the claim in the nomination, the subject meets the very first standard for determining notability of people: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article may need work and expansion, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. The AfD template was placed a mere two hours after the article was first created for goodness sake. It may be a stub at present, but it is well sourced and fully compliant with our core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, that justifies an article on Gitmo, and on the events going on there. That probably might justify an article giving a short blurb on each non-notable prisonner (not a list, please!). But an article about every single prisoner we can get a name for? Coren 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I explained above. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In my rough notes I have a list I use that gives a short blurb on each captive -- [[48]]. I encourage you to go take a look at it. It is about 430K long. It is incomplete. I largely stopped working on it, when it was around two thirds finished, because it became just too large to edit. It may also be too large to be useful to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. So, this article you propose, that gives a short blurb on each "non-notable" captive, please tell us what you think it would look like. How do you think it would differ from the list in my rough notes?
  • You realize that this union list you propose would require at least several hundred hours of work? Will you commit yourself to a share of that work?
  • During earlier {{afd}} fora when some wikipedians made essentially the same suggestion you just did, that the article in question be merged to a big omnibus article, other wikipedians said they would agree, once the big omnibus article was in place.
  • I can't help noticing that you haven't addressed my earlier point, that Brahim Yadel is suspected of organizing jihadist training camps. Perhaps you should explain how you think we should draw the line between the captives you will acknowledge are notable, and those you would classify as non-notable? Perhaps you could explain why the allegation that an EU citizen organized jihaidst training, in an EU country, fails to make that individual "notable"?
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do realize that would be work. Although, if it got to 430K long then some pruning would need to be done; regardless of how notable their treatment is/was, not every detainee would even be slightly notable enough for even a blurb.
I don't agree with the need or usefulness for such a list/article in the first place (although I wouldn't contest it collectively meeting WP:NN), but if that work is the only thing that stops cluttering the Wiki with hundreds of non-notable articles no one will ever search for by name, then I'm willing to give a hand with it. Coren 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 430K -- How much of a review do you think a fair minded person would need to do to reach the conclusion that "pruning would need to be done"? Can I ask how much time you spent reviewing those 430K before you reached your conlcusion? Did you reach this conclusion merely based on the size, without reviewing it at all?
  • Let's do the math. There are 500 or so captives for whom we have authoritative, verifiable references. Each reference is about 200 bytes long, what with the URL, title, date, publication, author. That is 100K right there. Some captives have multiple authoritative, verifiable references. Over half that 430K is references. We could cut the size in half, if we abandoned the references. But I don't think that is a good solution.
  • You said you weren't being personal. But, in fact you are being personal. You can't imagine that these individual articles could ever be useful? That is you being personal, in that you are relying on your personal judgement and imagination.
    • I know that these articles are useful, are, in fact, being used. The Jurist is a good site I came across as I started writing articles about the captives. I found it to be a very pleasant surprise when they started referencing the wikipedia's articles that I was a big contributor. Here is a recent instance: US military investigating apparent suicide of Guantanamo detainee.
    • About a month ago I wrote to one of the Guantanamo captive's lawyers. He was a former police officer, who became a public defender after twenty years as a police officer. The DoD threw up incredible roadblocks to him meeting his clients. He couldn't meet with them, phone them, or write them. So he decided to travel to Afghanistan, and seek out their friends, relatives and acquaintances, to see whether their accounts would confirm or dispute the DoD's detemination that they were enemy combatants. That was extremely courageous of him. I wrote him, and told him so. I also asked for his help in updating the articles about his clients. He wrote me a very nice reply telling me that he regularly counted on looking up his clients on the wikipedia, anytime he was away from the office, and needed to consult their Tribunal transcripts.
  • So, that your imagination fails to see how the articles could be useful does not, IMO really counter the demonstrable fact that these article are already proving useful.
  • I can't help noticing you still haven't addressed my point that Brahim Yadel was accused of organizing jihadist training camps in France. I continue to hope you will explain why you do not consider this makes him "notable".
  • I am mystified by your characterization of these articles "cluttering up" the wikipedia. Would you reconsider characterizing any contributions that fully comply with the core wikipolicies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER as "clutter"? Do you think that the wikipedia is at risk for of running out of hard drive space?
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees or to the article about the Gitmo detention camp. Seems like a directory listing based on trivial coverage. The policies which lead to long-term imprisonment of claimed "unlawful combatants" are highly encyclopedic, but not every individual affected by the policies needs a stubby article. Edison 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep So far from these articles cluttering up WP, the presence of these articles demonstrates our integrity as an information source. For all those where there is enough information to write an article, one should be written.Finally there is becoming enough information to do so properly. DGG 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete being a prisoner in Gitmo doesn't make you notable; Gitmo is notable, the detentions are notable, being one of a slew of bit players in the drama doesn't make you notable. If the argument of the keepers were followed every coalition serviceman who served in Iraq would be notable, because Iraq is notable, the war is notable, and without soldiers (marines, etc.) we couldn't have a war, so these guys are all players in this international drama. Wrong! Carlossuarez46 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you arguing there shouldn't be an article about every GI who was KIA, for whom there are authoritative, verifiable sources, which supply something meaningful to say?
    • We have articles about Pat Tillman, and Lori Piestewa, because there are authoritative, verifiable sources we can reference, that have something interesting to say about them. If there aren't articles about the other casualties of these wars wouldn't that be because:
      1. There are no authoritative, verifiable sources.
      2. There are authoritative, verifiable sources, but all they say is, thing like: lived a good life, died bravely, will be missed. There is no controversy around the circumstances of their death, as there is for Tillman and Leger.
      3. No wikipedian has gotten around to compiling the sources for the casualty yet.
    • Like Tillman and Piestewa, there are authoritative, verifiable source that support building articles that cover the unique controversies that surround their cases. The Guantanamo captives aren't notable merely because Guantanamo is notable. The Guantanamo captives who have had the allegations against them each have a unique set of allegations.
      • Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have characterized the Guantanamo captives as "the worst of the worst"; they have claimed they all "were captured on the battlefield". Do the allegations against the captives support the "captured on the battlefield" claim? WP:NPOV prohibits any of us stating an opinion on this in article space, but, if you go through all the allegations: Summary of Evidence (CSRT) for a couple of dozen captives. I think it is possible for the wikipedia to contain articles that fully comply with WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I believe the existing articles do comply with those three core policies.
      • It is clear to me that a significant faction of the public accepts some or all of the DoD and Bush administrations account that the Guantanamo captives were "the worst of the worst", that they were "terrorists". But do the documents the DoD has released just don't support that interpretation?
    • No offense, but I think your comment actually supports the importance of these articles, because, excuse me, your comment suggests you are laboring under misconceptions about the captives, that, while you accept that the conditions of their detention may be,in general, questionable, and that the "extended interrogation techniques" some of the captives were subjected to, were questionable, it hasn't occurred to you to ask whether the allegations against the captives were credibile, and, if they were credible, whether they supported those key claims of the Bush administration, "committed terrorists", "worst of the worst", "captured on the battlefield". No offense, but, if my guess is correct, and your "delete" is based on misconceptions, if you think you are sufficiently informed, but you aren't really informed, that reinforces the necessity for these articles.
    • Some of the captives not only weren't considered "enemy combatants" because they were "captured on the battlefield", weren't accused of engaging in hostilities post 9-11; weren't accused of engaging in hostilities during the lead-up to 9-11, but were accused of fighting Afghanistan's Soviet invaders during the 1980s. No. I am not making this up.
    • Leaving aside the other captives, as I have pointed out before, Brahim Yadel is accused of orgainzing jihadist training camps in Europe. Why don'es this make him as notable as, let's say, a 9-11 hijacker?
    • To return to your comment about articles about casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I support creating one for every casualty for whom there are authoritative, verifiable sources, that support WP:NPOV coverage of something interesting. I'll help with this.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Guantanamo is notable, as are the pretexts for its existence (WoT). Simply being a prisoner there is not notable. Simply being accused of a crime, even terrorism, is not notable. The man is innocent unless or until proven guilty, regardless of what a government may believe or assert. List the man on the Guantanamo page or on a Guantanamo list page with brief details. Hu 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Trial postponed -- his trial was postponed to allow an investigation of official lies by the Government. Noteworthy? Cheers Geo Swan 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, few of the prisoners are notable of their own doing, but this one has been the cause of political tension between to UN SC members. -- Steve Hart 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I'm still rather ambivalent on the suitability of the article, but enough meat has been edited into it that it no longer clearly fails to meet WP:BIO. Coren 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. If the United states government feels that he is 1 of 400 persons in the entire world that should be held indefinately and deny them any rights under US or International law, well I think that makes them notable. Callelinea 20:27, 27 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 - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elections in the Marshall Islands

Elections in the Marshall Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Same reason as for Legislature of the Marshall Islands: badly linked, no new info beyond Politics of the Marshall Islands, and no need for a separate article. Targeman 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is nothing about elections in the Politics of the Marshall Islands article. Elections in a sovereign albeit small country are every bit as notable as elections elsewhere in the World. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The articles forms also part of a series of articles on elections by country. Targeman is welcome to add more information. Electionworld Talk? 07:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Elections in every country are notable and deserve articles. Davewild 07:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK guys, you've convinced me. It's a keeper then. I just wish there were someone from the RMI who could expand on this; info on the subject is scarce, this should be an insider's job. --Targeman 09:00, 20 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 - Nomination withdrawn (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legislature of the Marshall Islands

Legislature of the Marshall Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This badly linked and superfluous article only repeates a few sentences from Politics_of_the_Marshall_Islands. Plus, a legislature of such small size and next to no international influence does not need a separate article. Targeman 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete concur with nom. If much more is added to it to justify a separate article from Politics_of_the_Marshall_Islands, it could change, but for now it's unneeded. JJL 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have pages for every national legislature in the world, regardless of what you perceive as its "international influence" or lack of. Expanding an article is much more useful than deleting it. —Sesel 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm all in favor of an egalitarian approach towards all countries, however small. But as long as there just isn't enough to write about politics in microstates such as RMI, maintaining separate articles all stating the same is making readers walk in circles. I say expand only when needed, because such inevitably long-term stubs don't look good and are simply not informative. --Targeman 04:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of information. It takes effort to look for it, though. —Sesel 05:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deleting national legislatures just because the country is small is a recipe for extreme systematic bias. The Marshall Islands is a sovereign nation, and the legislative bodies of sovereign nations deserve an article just as much as the UK parliament or US congress. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs expanding but it would be bias if this was the only state on which we do not have an article on the legislature. Davewild 07:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK guys, you win. For the sake of consistency, let's keep this article. --Targeman 09:07, 20 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. — Scientizzle 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue

Starfighters: The Praetorian Issue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, possible hoax. Website for project exists, but Google search on title brings up on 38 unique returns. No reliable sources found in search or article. Article claims involvement of several known names, but the official sites of those names do not list the project. Google search also brings up concerns about hoax nature of project. Delete. MikeWazowski 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Interesting. If a hoax, they seem to have infiltrated Virgina Hey's site, at least. This page is linked from the Starfighters site, but not from the rest of Hey's blog. When I started the Starfighters article, I'm pretty sure it was still part of the rest of the blog, and was why I decided it was a legit project (though "Hey" does sound overly excited, no?) But I have no horse in this race. Let them be judged on the content of their characters. -- Yamara 04:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pilot that I'm not even sure has been picked up yet. It's been in the pilot stage since early 2006. At one point, Lee Majors was attached. No prejudice to recreating the article once (if) it premieres on SciFi.--Ispy1981 05:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The studio website was apparently just put up, or at least has been coming soon for some time. No information available other than what's here. It's not even in production at this point. If it goes live, OK, I'll be all for keeping it, but until Scifi picks it up, no. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 21 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. Sr13 01:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to Be Rich, Nigga

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/How to Be Rich, Nigga Articles for deletion/How to Be Rich, Nigga (second nomination)
How to Be Rich, Nigga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mostly procedural nomination. This is an expired prod but since it has (barely) survived AfD once, it should go through AfD again. As Chick Bowen (talk · contribs) noted in his prod, little if anything has changed in the article since that Sept. 2005 debate. I should also note that there seems to be a complete absence of reliable sources about the author or about the books proclaimed success. All Google can find seems to com from prweb.com which is about as unreliable a source as one can imagine. Pascal.Tesson 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sales numbers at individual chains of stores don't make for very reliable information on just how notable a book is, and an ISBN doesn't constitute notability either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete same reasons as I voted to delete last time, with the additional concern that it hasn't been fixed even after well more than a year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pascal's summary of my PROD nomination. Yes, I should have brought it here, but it seemed like a no-brainer. I voted keep last time pending verification of the sales claims, but despite my best efforts (I e-mailed his distributor and got no response) I could not verify them. Chick Bowen 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even it had sold well that doesn't automatically make a book notable per WP:BOOK, but as not even sales can be verified there really is no basis to keep. A1octopus 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Browsing through the last debate, it seems that the book was self-published by a (presumably, since he doesn't have his own page) non-notable person, and only sold a handful of copies. The page has not changed much and the unsubstantiated claims of sales "success" (which is a relative term, of course) at one bookstore chain don't do much. SliceNYC (Talk) 18:27, 23 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, no support for deletion and merging is an editorial decision that can seek consensus on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikigroaning

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

Neologism, only weeks old; needs at least merge and redirect... but to where?

Delete - Seems to be spam for the site of the same name. --BenBurch 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep -- read the article, and then the accompanying articles from the WSJ, the Guardian, the Toronto Globe & Mail. It ain't about the website, it's about US. And they're right. This time, voting to delete won't make it go away Mandsford 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- My God! How dare they besmirch our beloved Wikipedia with these slanderous yet wholly accurate criticisms! When the Great Asperger's Council rules mankind in 100 years time, I shall scoff from my mighty hoverbike at those fools who thought that we should be writing more about the tangible universe and less about Transformers and furries. Because they will have been wrong![citation needed] Then we shall see the heights that humanity can reach when it has a full and comprehensive 20,000+ word profile of every anime character in the universe! --FuegoFish 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Though a fairly new concept, its gainning strenght as one of the most shameful aspects of wikipedia (and one that we know perhaps TOO well), deleting the article seems like censorship more than anything else.
  • Keep - look like a notable term, and has some good sources. The game makes me sad, because it doesn't count sub-pages, or linked articles that fork section :( --Haemo 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - term is notable with good sources but it is not good thing for Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For now, keep. Needs to be better developed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to delete. In further research, this seems to be little more than a phenomenon from Something Awful. SA may be popular, but that doesn't constitute notability of this concept. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep this article, it has become a well known term and since it is a concept you cannot delete it on the grounds that it could be offensive to wikipedia --Getalifebud 08:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia does have a 'bias toward things that don't matter'. The task is to write better articles about serious things, not suppress that fact. The term has taken off in the media because it's true. Nick mallory 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - verifiable sources; time limit does not impact on notability Think outside the box 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per FuegoFish. east.718 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Haha. Keep --HanzoHattori 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Although pretty young neologism, has adequate refrences, such as the one in The Globe:""Love" is worth 6,486 words in Wikipedia; "masturbation", 10,487." Maybe change the name to "Wankerpedia?" Edison 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A Wikigroan for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigroaning versus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) gives 17,066 points for the Daniel Brandt AFD versus 18,532 points for this AFD. I think their scoring algorithm needs some work. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a hilarious concept but writing an article about it looks like we are trying to be in on the joke. Why bother? It's kind of pathetic really. Adam Bishop 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets the noteability guidelines easily. I see no reason why it should be deleted simply because some editors find it offensive. Jtrainor 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep God forbid Wikipedia contain anything that could cast Wikipedia in a negative light. Lacerta 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable term, provides adequate third-party references. Hard to see how you delete this except just out of spite. Xihr 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A new concept which shouldn't be deleted. I read SA occasionally, and the popularity of this idea seems to be growing. Remember also that neologisms need time to develop in popularity- compare truthiness, which has gone through AfD 3 times (and was voted to deletion the first time), and is now a GA.--C.Logan 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I suppose, or possibly Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. I think my favorite one so far is Voltaire vs. Voltron, although Heavy metals vs. Heavy metal umlaut is pretty solid too, and Archaeology vs. Indiana Jones is one that has received some media commentary. For one that hasn't received much notice, I suggest this Academy Award-winning film vs. this deleted scene from Star Wars. JavaTenor 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It might be something to merge later on, but right now the notability is high enough and there is enough verification that it should be kept. I'm not sure why we're linking to the site though, it barely works and doesn't give any information. Xtreme680 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A true measure of maturity is the ability to laugh at oneself. --MichaelLinnear 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and widly discussed. Probably merge if (when) the hubbub dies down. --Candre23 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Come on, it's online culture. If you're going to have OMGWTFBBQ, you gotta have Wikigroaning there too. I for one think it's quite an entertaining concept, yet one that highlights the vast potential of Wikipedia rather than degrading the lack of questionably-nominated 'legitimate' content. Davers 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Quasi-protest delete Consensus is already with us, but I just don't see the point in having an article about this slang neologism, despite the ample sources. Okay, you can all shout me down now. YechielMan 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I shall join Yechiel in being a tomato target. This is a protologism, not a neologism. Avoid neologisms suggests that protologisms are almost always deleted, for good reason. The term is not, IMVHO, nearly as much in popular usage as thought - we are being blinded by one blog entry that's gotten a little bit of press coupled with our tendency to overemphasize the importance of anything wiki-connected. Oh, well. Guess I'll renom it 5 years 1 year from now when nobody can remember it. LaughingVulcan 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entirely new word, and there is no way of determining if this term will have any significance in the long term. Wikipedia is not a news service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge, insufficiently notable to have an independent article. Perhaps worth a sentence or two in Criticism of Wikipedia or somewhere like that. Everyking 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly this 132-word article describing a valid criticism is besmirching the good name of our little Lightsaber Facts and Pop Culture Trivia Repository. --Rubber cat 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This AfD may be broken on the grounds that this was recently linked to by Something Awful, the website that appears to be popularizing the term. Furthermore, no evidence that this is in widespread usage - the fact that all of the sources are dated within the past month virtually guarantees that this is a protologism. - Chardish 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Eight of the keep !votes contain implications that the people who want this article deleted are trying to avoid casting Wikipedia in a negative light. This is a false premise, as the article was nominated for lacking notability per WP:NEO, and I haven't seen a single Delete !vote that suggests that we try to silence criticism. - Chardish 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NEO basically states that there should not be an article on a neologism unless there's reliable secondary sources, which this article does. WP:N is also met in my opinion. east.718 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It also requires that the term be in widespread use. I don't think that after two weeks of existence that it's possible to verify that the term is in widespread use. - Chardish 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Either I'm missing something (more than likely) or your interpretation of WP:NEO is incorrect, as I've just gone over it three times. It's probably me though, as it's 4AM over here. east.718 07:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Something Awful did not popularize the term. Something Awful invented the term], and then someone else made a website about it. And it has subsequently hit the mainstream media. At least it's a "non-destructive Wikipedia game", as opposed to "hiding a clue to the supposed sexuality of your high school nemesis in the article about Lieutenant Worf". Also, Fuego Fish, GB2FYAD (well, 2BSS, really). Or HD2KV2. DS 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable neologism. And no, I'm not arguing for deletion because I disagree with the "wikigroaning" concept. I'm against fancruft on Wikipedia, for the same reasons I'm against this article. Korny O'Near 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable, non-biased article. Needs expansion, though. 71.126.192.8 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all we know this concept could disappear back into obscurity over the next few months, it is therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. WP:WINAD, WP:ASR. Sandstein 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Besides the fact that it is less than a week old, it has sources attributed to it and already has some notability Greg Birdsall 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia as long as no information is lost.--T. Anthony 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A neologism with growing, but still insufficient, notability. That a few mainstream media sources have chosen to write about it doesn't mean it's not a neologism. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's about Wikipedia, except to note that this article probably wouldn't exist here if it wasn't. =) Powers T 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You figure anyone else is Wikigroaning right now about how much attention this AfD is getting in comparison to others?  :) LaughingVulcan 01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is more referenced than some articles no one question here. It should not be deleted because it is a critic of Wikipedia. It should be kept as a motivation to improve this place. Youkai no unmei 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Something Awful or, barring that, delete. Cumulus Clouds 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the name may be a Something Awful-ism, the concept is not, and has been pointed out in numerous articles and on national television (Stephen Colbert, comparing the length of Truthiness to Lutherans).- Primal Chaos 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a legitimate criticism, and humorous at that. --75.209.252.179 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was on the main page of the online Globe and Mail, if I recall correctly. Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia and chainsaw-trim. Yes, it's a visible topic. Yes, there's documented use and sources. No, it's not a topic that needs a giant article about it, it can and should be covered by articles with wider scope. Heck, the point of the phrase is that we should not give minor trivial topics undue weight. Let's not dig our own grave, people. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good thinking. I can get behind this. --Rubber cat (meows/purrs) 08:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable concept. If it falls back into obscurity in a few months time we may always reconsider. That's what AFD second nominations are for. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's backwards. If it falls back into obscurity in just a few months, it was never notable to begin with. We should delete it now and wait to see if it ever becomes anything more than a cute neologism; that's what AFD first nominations are for. Powers T 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Deleting an article now because it may turn out to be non-notable comes awfully close to crystalballing. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I understand why you might say that, but that argument could be used to include any neologism at all, completely invalidating the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. "You can't say it won't be notable 10 years from now, so you have to keep this article!" wouldn't fly on any other neologism's deletion discussion; why is it being used here? On the contrary to your suggestion, my argument is that the word is not notable. If it were notable, it wouldn't be a neologism anymore. Powers T 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Neologism and notability are not mutually exclusive. A neologism can most definitely be notable, and judging from the sources it seems that this is a notable neologism. AecisBrievenbus 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You're right; I overstated that a bit. I just think it's backwards to create an article and delete it later if it "becomes non-notable", rather than wait to create an article and create it later if it "becomes notable". Powers T 03:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Painfully self-referential neologism. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redo AFD Someone made the AFD and then the article I'm not sure it lost the AFD tag through most of the AFD. Several days ago I heard about the AFD and then I looked at the article and saw no tag and couldn't find anything in the history, but it looked like the AFD was a keep. But now it appears somebody removed the AFD tag from the article. SakotGrimshine 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's okay. It was only off for a day or so. There are still many days left, and if we need to, it can be extended a bit. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. clear attempt at self-aggrandizement--Divise 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand this article with loads and loads of cruft, per Wwwwolf's excellent reasoning. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And I was just writing an educational science fiction story that is a thinly-veiled satire of Wikipedia cargo-cult rule-following - too bad I only had a good idea and the science fiction side ended up too cliched, so I ignored the thing for a while. =) Look, just because the rules say We Can Do This it doesn't mean we should do this. Nothing changes the fact that this is a tiny topic that can be covered adequately in a very compact form. And on an unrelated note, if I say "bring out the chainsaws", it usually doesn't mean "add some more cruft to be chainsawed", it usually means "remove the cruft with the chainsaws". An encouragement of a different kind of participation in the exact same event, see. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignore the AFD and do the right thing which probably means a minimal merge in this case. Criticisms of Wikipedia is a good place for this. Friday (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Definitely notable. Although the phrase is new, it has already been mentioned in various reputable sources. --Potato dude42 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but it's only one paragraph of information. Is there anything else worth saying about it? The existence of various reputable sources tells us that the content is notable, but does not necessarily mean that it warrants an individual article. Criticism of Wikipedia seems like an ideal home for this bit of information. Everyking 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- at the very least, merge into and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. The concept deserves to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. And, uh, verifiability isn't really a concern for this one. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with Criticism of Wikipedia and possibly mention in Something Awful. As has been mentioned above, most people that are suggesting delete are not wanting to silence all Criticism of Wikipedia, and many of us (myself included) would !vote keep on that article. But this is a protologism, and is probably bordering on WP:SELF, too. --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism_of_wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage. There are about two useful sentences here. It's ridiculous how as soon as Wikipedia is mentioned in any context, the mention's significance is magnified exponentially.--Wafulz 03:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; the mention in Criticism_of_wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage is more than sufficient. The only independent use of this word in notable works is [49]. 50 real hits on google wouldnt even justify a wiktionary article on this word. John Vandenberg 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It may be considered mean-spirited, but it's not strictly criticism of Wikipedia. It's more of an observation on systemic bias, with a disparaging title that mentions the arena. Neologism or not, people have been doing things like this for a long time, and it's at least helpful that somebody has invented a name, irrespective of how long specific rules will be remembered. --ToobMug 10:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that there are no reliable sources to indicate that this "invented name" has been widely accepted. - Chardish 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That simply doesn't matter. The article documents the practice. It's incidental that it borrows heavily from the site that tries to promote the name. Frankly, I think the name is stupid, but formalisation of the practice is interesting. Criticism of Wikipedia cites a Guardian article from 2004 with somebody doing essentially the same thing. The only contentious point, here, is the name. I could get into a semantic war on the interpretation of WP:NEO, but instead I'll skip to assuming that the rules are flexible (otherwise, why wouldn't pages like John Locke (Lost) be deleted for having no references whatsoever, and being about something than will be entirely unnotable in a few years?). The practice itself is notable. It's been happening for a long time. It is not criticism of Wikipedia, and so moving the content there is inappropriate. In general it would be ridiculous to delete content simply because there's no approved title for it to be shown under. Why not just roll with the neologism and see how the article turns out? --ToobMug 22:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • If, as you say, it does not matter that the term is not in widespread use, then by that logic we can use Wikipedia to coin our own terms as long as the term refers to an unnamed practice that is common. There is a reason that Wikipedia's guideline for neologisms is "avoid neologisms." Please visit UrbanDictionary.com if you like the idea of people being able to coin terms based on their whims. - Chardish 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The word is "avoid", not "refuse". The page gives specific reasons for them to be avoided, and wikigroaning fails to meet them. This is a diversion, though. You appear to be deliberately missing my point so as to ensure that you have an argument to make. --ToobMug 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non notable piece in a newspaper and if there is anything useful put it in Criticisms of Wikipedia. Very reminiscent of the recently deleted First World Problems, SqueakBox 18:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Keep or Merge Wikigroaning is something we've all done - it just hadn't been given a name yet. Why delete an article about a useful reality check? Comparing topics is a simple way to identify Wikipedia's weaknesses, and humorously points out where we need to focus our efforts. It's worth remembering. Redshift9 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If its value is in its utility in the creation of the encyclopedia, then it belongs in the Wikipedia: name space, not in articlespace. Powers T 02:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Good suggestion. I've changed my vote.Redshift9 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with something awful article. I think this page is extremely important to Wikipedia but not really important to anyone else. I think it should be improved upon, it is very well referenced and there is plenty of information to "de-stub" it. I've always believed that wikipedia should contain all information even mildly important and this article goes beyond mildly important for wikipedia users. TostitosAreGross 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if Colbert said it, this wouldn't even be an issue. Deltaattack2go 69:82, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we really need to keep every non-notable thing that Colbert might have mentioned. : / - Chardish 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • On top of that, if Colbert had said it, it would have a lot more widespread media coverage than it currently does. Truthiness gets G-hits of 827,000, while Wikigroaning gets much less. And as for Wikiality, that is a redirect, now. And is this more notable than Wikiality? --Dreaded Walrus t c 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. For example the article for Usonians doesn't exist and a Usonian is a redirect. Notability is greater for Usonian in my opinion, if John Dos Passos wrote a book using this term (as it is stated at Usonia article). And now, this could be a great occasion for another process of w*groaning. <grin>. It seems to me that if the deletion happens though it can get more attention and become quite notable. Google now gives 155,000 results for a simple search for the term. --Biblbroks's talk 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia until more material crops up. Circeus 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a sourced article about a notable fallacious argument against the concept of wikipedia. Mieciu K 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it. I have personally heard and discussed this concept from multiple sources. I believe the term 'wikigroaning' is a quickly becoming part of our accepted lingo and reflects necessary commentary on technology and our (US) society. JasonHoekstra 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sceptical of the "merge with Criticism of Wikipedia" arguments. Not just because I don't believe that it is simply criticism (as I've already stated), but because I suspect that merges are frequently used as a method to stifle development or discussion of a topic. When inappropriately placed in the context of another article, it becomes much harder to elaborate on the original topic because the new content is off-topic for that article. Even the original transplant can be deleted or destroyed through a Chinese whispers process because it was inappropriate for the article. Moving this page to Criticism of Wikipedia kills any chance of the article developing discussion of, for example, motives, observations, consequences, similar practices and the like. This amounts to a vote for deletion, but under the pretence of compromise. If the content can be accepted as having notability, but the name is entirely unacceptable, then it needs to find a better parent or a new name. Perhaps one of the original contributors could restart the article with a more relevant focus and merge into that. --ToobMug 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Placing a redirect at this page may alleviate that. Editors interested in contributing to knowledge on this topic will simply know where the right place to go is. Deletion of content is absolutely different than a merge. - Chardish 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yet again you're completely ignoring my point. Could you please reserve responses for comments that you have read and understood. --ToobMug 10:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Assuming that this topic belongs to the field 'Criticism of Wikipedia' (and I know not everyone here does): If this article is not good or notable enough to survive as a subsection in a parent topic, then why should it survive as its own article? Discussion of motives, etc. seems to me that it belongs in an article only if the topic itself is worthy of standing on its' own. You fail to mention the opposite - that a subsection might survive (will if it is notable,) and be expanded upon to the point where it must be its' own summary-style article. But at any rate, "If later..." arguments aren't all that appealing as you could postulate whatever you like, as I just did. LaughingVulcan 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A good read, and it has reliable sources and does not appear to fail notability. Should be kept Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. A new word for a long-recognized concept. May deserve an article if it turns out to be more than the latest "look, Wikipedia is weird!"-spate of articles, but that will become apparent in time. - BanyanTree 03:18, 26 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. Straightforward BLP deletion, this person is known for a single event which was newsworthy at the time--but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't write biographies based on a single event. A mention at List of internet phenomena should be sufficient.

As a procedural note, I gave less weight to two keep "votes", because one was from an IP user with very few edits, and another was from a user who's a relative newcomer. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksey Vayner

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

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, subject not notable per WP:Bio, subject is utterly unimportant and therefore this is not encyclopedic. BenBurch 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --BenBurch 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article is well-sourced, also subject's video was a well-known Internet meme similar to Numa Numa and the Star Wars Kid. The article is not a biography of the individual but concerns his video (in fact all attempts to change it to a bio [possibly by the individual himself] has been reverted), and in any case seems to fit the first condition "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Tendancer 03:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Now here's a real WP:BLP issue. Normally, in cases like this, we write about the incident, not the person -- but in this case, his biography is intimately associated with the incident. I don't really know how to act on this one, but this definitely shouldn't be his biographical article. Frankly, I don't think this is encyclopedic content, and internet memetics are dodgy to begin with. Given that the subject of the article apparently does not wish it to exist, I say we should err on the side of removal. However, I'm not sure of this enough to go with a bold recommendation. --Haemo 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The video resume was an internet meme, but we have no real notability guideline for same, with WP:MEME marked as rejected, and this AFD is about a bio article. He does not satisfy WP:BIO, so delete the bio article. If it were moved to an article about the meme, that would be a different AFD. If it is viewed as a WP:BLP issue, then there is recent precedent for deletion. Edison 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you think then of renaming the article to e.g. "Aleksey Vayner Video Resume". That should address the WP:BIO concerns to make it clear it's not a biography about the individual per se, and it's the only the video resume-caused internet meme that is being discussed/notable. Cheers. Tendancer 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a high quality, well sourced article about a real event that was covered by many major media outlets, and was clearly of interest to many people. That some feel that the individual himself is "utterly unimportant" seems irrelevant to me. We all have personal opinions about the importance or unimportance of many different historical events, but as we are constantly reminded: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that this article does not fit (or only fits with difficulty) into existing categories speaks to the need for possible changes to those categories, not to whether the article itself should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.76.108 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep I agree with all else that was said in support of keeping. The article has intrinsic worth for a study of how information disseminates through the modern internet, a study on modern college student psychology, and on Ivy League admissions criteria. Plumsforsale 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:54, 21 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. Sr13 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electro estate

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

Speedy declined by admin who says that listing of albums asserts notability. Google search for "Electro Estate" and "Pajama Records," however, turns up nothing but MySpace and forum material. Nonnotable "music collaborative." Deor 02:35, 20 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. Sr13 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isla Muerta (series)

Isla Muerta (series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable machinima series. Would qualify for CSD-A7, but asserts its microscopic notability. Being popular on Youtube is not a reason for an article to exist. 100 subscribers?!? So what? I'm sure the Bengal cat breeder Richard Norton has more (can't be sure right now, at work). Give reliable independent, non-trivial sources, or delete. Drat (Talk) 02:23, 20 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 - KrakatoaKatie 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perry Nickelodeon

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

The article is completely unreferenced, and there are no Google hits for him. At the very least, the founder of the Nickelodeon TV network would have some web presence.I suspect it was an invention of the author's Hamsterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): a known vandal who has had other AfD problems in the past. Silly rabbit 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No ghits at all for either name in article. (Jim Perry is VP sales at Nickelodeon. --per google.) Pretty obvious WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Now I have that Teresa Brewer song on my mind... --Charlene 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. If we can't get that, if Hamsterman is a vandal, then as vandalism. This article is utter WP:BOLLOCKS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 20 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. Wizardman 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alvarado Road Show

Alvarado Road Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A band that might become notable someday, but as of now they don't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 02:05, 20 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. Sr13 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital day care

Digital day care (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism; I can't find any significant usage of this term online to support this definition. greenrd 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. There might be barely enough sources to write an article on a completely different meaning of this phrase. Anywho, neologism, we don't need an article on every phrase that gets coined on the internet. Someguy1221 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms & above users. --Hdt83 Chat 05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, smells of unverifiability and unnotability. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:21, 23 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. Sr13 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Brainfuck

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

This article has no WP:RS and gets zero ghits. Appears to be completely WP:OR. Evb-wiki 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What else can be added in terms of research, as it is a relatively new drink. -Zephyrus408
  • Delete. First of all, it's a recipe, and belongs in WikiBooks - in the cookbook, or the mixed drink book if they have one. So at the least it needs to be TransWiki'd. But that's assuming that it's for real. We aren't going to just take the writer's word for it that it is. If there are no articles or other third-party references then it is probably not notable enough anyway. Herostratus 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In the very least can I have a few days to allow it to grow?
  • Delete. Looking at the IBA Official Cocktail page, there isn't a set-in-stone list of criteria for for why cocktails on that page are notable, but I can discern two things- that the cocktails are "selected by the International Bartenders Association ("IBA") for use in the annual World Cocktail Competition (WCC)", and they had some kind of cultural significance immediately outside the world of fine alcohol- vodka martini being James Bond's favorite drink, Pina Colada being referenced in a Rupert Holmes song, etc. I'm sure that there are loads more criterion for what makes a drink notable and that the ones I mentioned are nowhere near the most important- but this particular drink fulfills neither.
As far as the AFD goes, you have five days from when it was started to add sources and clean up the article. AFDs aren't concerned with an article's potential- only about the condition of the page when it's tagged, and it will not be stopped to allow you to clean it up. 68.186.51.190 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per CSD#G3. ~ Wikihermit 03:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Sure, there's no place for this page on Wikipedia but this quite clearly is not pure vandalism unless you can demonstrate that the creator's sole purpose was vandalism. I see no reason not to assume good faith here so let's let this AfD run its course. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not famous enough (a quick Google gave me practically zilch).--Targeman 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. JJL 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — No notability, probable WP:OR JodyB talk 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wiki not a recipe book Bulldog123 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per discusssion. If it weren't for the fact that I hated 151, I'd be inclined to try it, but despite my bias against booze with flammability warnings, we're not a recipe book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment From looking at the user's talk page, the user already tried to create this article under "Caribbean brainfuck" (no capitalization on "brainfuck"), and it was speedied under A7. 68.186.51.190 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:04, 21 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. Sr13 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zero cipher

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

No references or sources established notability per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND, as it provides no WP:RS and does not assert notability. --Evb-wiki 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, most likely non-notable band using Wikipedia to advertise their music. 68.186.51.190 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — No WP:RS that I discern, is not notable. JodyB talk 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete page created and written by a user named "zerocipher", i think thats enough for a speedy delete.
  • Delete - no sources / no notability Think outside the box 09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No reliable sources, reads like it was written by the band (page history suggests same). No notability. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:23, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jess Hartley

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

No references or sources (except for a single commercial website) establishing notability per WP:BIO. The tone seems autobiographical and self-promotional. Videmus Omnia 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The entire contribution logs of User:Technoboggan and User:66.189.69.16 should be reviewed for conflict of interest, but I'm too tired to do it now. YechielMan 04:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- Steve Hart 17:20, 25 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. Information is already in Marshall Islands#Government. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Municipalities of the Marshall Islands

Municipalities of the Marshall Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not provide a shred of information beyond what is already written on Marshall Islands#Administrative divisions. Targeman 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I cannot find the section quoted in the nomination. This list provides information on a significant aspect of Marshall Islands geography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Marshall Islands#Administrative divisions by Marshall Islands#Government. There are no municipalities, the country is divided in electoral districts. All 24 of them, plus all the uninhabited atolls, are already listed in the main article. --Targeman 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The items in this list are already listed in the Marshall Islands article. Also, several items in this list are only described as atolls in the linked article pages. Sancho 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs work, but a valid topic. Please remember to avoid a systemic bias. --Hemlock Martinis 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Fraser

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

This person does not seem notable, with a few music videos and TV appearances to his credit. The article is mostly composed of fancruft, and User:Bearian has noted a conflict of interest because User:Kirk fraser has submitted much of that content. YechielMan 01:31, 20 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 nom withdrawn. Sr13 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turanian Tribes

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

A crank theory from a hundred years ago. Although someone has inserted a weak disclaimer that we're dealing with 19th century "racial ethnology", the rest of the text keeps merrily pretending like it was real science. The only relevance I can recognize is in influencing today's Pan-Turanism, and a notice there about the origin of the idea wouldn't hurt. The concept as such is sufficiently explained and contextualized in Turan. --Latebird 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • weak keep or failing that merge as suggested at the top of the article, but needs massive rewrite to make it clear that this is not a currently accepted theory. Just because it was a crank theory, as you put it, doesn't mean that it didn't get enough circulation to be worthy of an article. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom that Turan covers anything that's encyclopedic here. Deor 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think some contributions would be useful and this page can be improved. Turan is a mystical country described in Shahnameh and also one of the historical designation for Central Asia, while Turanian tribes are an ethno-linguistic domain, related to definition of Ural-Altaic language group. Atabek 08:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • move to Turanians and keep there as a disambiguation page. The cranky material belongs on Turanism. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That might work. However, Hurro-Urartian languages (redirected from your entry Hurro-Urartian) doesn't mention the term Turan[ian] at all. I also don't think that the Ural-Altaic entry should be expanded to mention individual peoples (too much detail for a disambig page). --Latebird 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
regarding Hurro-Urartian, you are right, this could be added. It is, likewise, obsolete terminology used in the early 1900s. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915, for example, calls the Urartians "Turanian Armenians"[50]
the mention of Turks, Huns and Mongols is not a random collection of Ural-Altaic peoples, but a list of those people associated with the term Turanian in particular (much more than, say, Finns or Japanese) dab (𒁳) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but a disambig entry should only contain one link, not a list of examples. --Latebird 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - outdated non-scientific theory that is already explained in Turan (as far as I know).Hajji Piruz 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - Fixed it up a little bit, I'm fine with keeping it now.Hajji Piruz 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I can't see the reason why this page should be deleted if it is already disambiguation [51]. Ateshi-Baghavan 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that it has been converted that way, I happen to agree with you. I hereby withdraw my nomination. --Latebird 22:41, 20 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 redirect. Sr13 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Frasier

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

This page was mistakenly redirected to Kirk Fraser. I reverted the change, but the underlying biography fails WP:BIO. YechielMan 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Kirk Fraser as a plausible misspelling; I'm not entirely sure if that's what User:Kirk fraser was intending when he made the redirect, but as long as Fraser is deemed notable enough for an article and Frasier isn't, it makes sense to redirect there. Propaniac 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 21 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 Article was redirected. -- Longhair\talk 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan keilar

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Captain panda 01:26, 20 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 redirect to Epic Movie. Prodego talk 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Jack Swallows

Captain Jack Swallows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Short article about a spoof character who appears in a single and relatively minor movie. Unexpandable. No pages link here. dustmite 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge the information into Epic Movie. I don't think this is the first time this article has been created. Useight 01:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Epic Movie. Salt if recreation. Doczilla 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any useful info. as indicated above. JJL 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Epic Movie 132.205.44.134 18:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect it to Jack Sparrow. After all he's the one that's being spoofed. TheBlazikenMaster 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Epic Movie - people looking up this name will expect to find information on the Epic Movie character. bd2412 T 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to movie page. Being a minor character, he's not notable enough to say much about.--Kylohk 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Why doesn't anyone agree with my targeted page? After all Sparrow's being spoofed. TheBlazikenMaster 21:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It seems to be standard practice to redirect a minor spoof character to the movie he/she appears in (ex. Dark Helmet or White Bitch). This makes sense, as the inquirer will first find out the context of the spoof character and then be able to furhter explore the character/person being spoofed through links in the movie's article. —dustmite 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Epic Movie, per above comments.--JayJasper 12:57, 27 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. Sr13 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nosgoth timeline

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

It's unsourced, contains speculations, is not written in a Neutral Point-of-View, and is overall very unencyclopedic. The Clawed One 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an original synthesis; note the last line: "Some of the above dates are speculation based on passing references in the games. Others are estimates..." I have not played the games from which this information is drawn; however, I understand that the games rely heavily on time travel as a plot element, making a single timeline (such as this one) more a matter of opinion than fact. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's correct. And due to the confusing nature of such time travel, it's highly likely several events and times are incorrect. The Clawed One 03:39, 20 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. Sr13 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isis Nile

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its about as informative as most of the other pornstar "articles" --Art8641 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are no references, and the major assertion of notability for being number 28 of 100 pornstars for whatever show doesn't amount to much. YechielMan 04:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not appear to pass any criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Assertions of notability are weak. Ohconfucius 09:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 21 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. Sr13 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British industrial mission

British industrial mission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The sources linked do not contain the words "British industrial misssion", casting doubt that the topic as presently organized is notable. None of the statements in the article are currently backed up by sources, at it reeks of being written from the point-of-view of the mission itself to the extent that even the facts lurking beneath the pov-y tone and structure are not reported in independent sources. Tagged with {notability} since September 06. Savidan 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep since GRBerry found excellent sources. *delete as essay, or unsourced POV, which comes to the same thing, unless someone wants to rewrite it & can find some sources. DGG 03:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere relevant. The topic seems notable, not the content as a separate article. -- Futurano 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that one of the dead tree sources (which are legitimate) uses "British Industrial Mission" (caps in citation in article) as part of its title. Digging further I found this guidePDF which is a 15 page index to the catalog of source documents held by a single library on the topic. At least three more less extensive archives exist, see this listing. 22 books useful for a bibliography are found here. I conclude that sourcing exists. (Although the library archive contents may be too primary for us to use them, the 22 books appear a solid case in and of themselves.) With reason to believe that a decent article is possible, though it may take a UK based editor spending some library time, and with no obvious merge target visible, I think the article should be kept. GRBerry 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Futurano. Diez2 21:29, 22 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. Sr13 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entertainment in Delhi

Entertainment in Delhi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a completely unreferenced article on a subject that is probably in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO Number 2, travel guide. I don't see much hope of it being anything but a travel guide. If somebody wants to spinoff an article, then I'd suggest starting from Delhi#Culture instead, which is a section complete with several references and a more encyclopedic focus. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Taprobanus 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; Wikipedia is not a tourism guide. I don't see how the article can be rescued without rewriting it from scratch. YechielMan 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:09, 21 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. — OcatecirT 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heidenreich (band)

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

NN band. Also nominating Heidenreich(band) (redirect page). Guroadrunner 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; unremarkable band. Two comments: (1) It is unnecessary to nominate associate redirects; the closing admin knows to look for them, and if he misses them, the bot will nail them and they get deleted per CSD R1. (2) The primary author, User:Grayor, has created some other articles of similarly sketchy nn bands. YechielMan 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Band has a bio on AMG and I was easily able to find some record reviews and interviews that go some way to establish the band's notability within the genre of black metal ([52], [53], [54]). Plus, the band released two albums on Napalm Records, which appears to be a notable label in Europe's metal community. Caknuck 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, might just pass WP:MUSIC if Napalm Records can be considered a major label or important indie label, but not in my view. -- Steve Hart 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a notable group. Only passes WP:MUSIC by a stretch, and a stretch isn't good enough. ♠PMC♠ 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, weak as the article will need to be rewritten. Caknuck's links have provided some room for expansion, and as far as WP:MUSIC's definition of "one of the more important independant record labels" goes, it seems Napalm Records does qualify, as they've been running 15 years and have a roster of notable bands, perhaps only notable within the black metal scene, but using that as a reason to delete would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:34, 27 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. Sr13 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ho Chi Minh City Model United Nations

Ho Chi Minh City Model United Nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN student group. No claim at notability, no verifiability. Prod removed because location makes it notable. I tend to disagree. Mystache 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - probably speedy, since there is no notability asserted. --Haemo
  • Speedy delete per above, and these things are always deleted when they come up at AfD anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are lots of MUNs and this is no more notable than others. Bein gin Ho Chi Minh City doesn't intrinsicially make anything notable anyway, any more than if it were in any other city. -- Mithent 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain, - I wish to register abstention from this vote as impartiality, but I do agree with delete, and keep maintenance of vigilance, this group is concerning the monitors. Wen Hsing 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • week Keep I brought it here to see the opinions; I consider holding one of these typically-US events an interesting manifestation of the general acceptance of US -style educational institutions. DGG 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem to be unique or even unusual, according to the MUN article they're in 48 countries and every continent. Besides, even if it were the only one, does doing something outside the area where it is usually done necessarily qualify it for an article? Would a taco stand in Massachusetts be any more notable than a similar one in Mexico city? Novelty and notability sometimes concur but aren't necessarily synonyms. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, what is notable with this particular MUN? Punkmorten 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Hellfire Club

Electric Hellfire Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

doesn't provide any sources and the only claim to notability in the article is being interviewed by Bob Larson Will (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • KEEP I don't think so, buddy.

This band was at one time, the flagship band of, and one of the biggest selling original acts on Cleopatra records, during the early to late 1990's. I hardly think a 16 year old kid (The user who marked this article for deletion) is qualified to determine the band's level "notability", as he was a toddler when the band started, and was in elementary school when the band experienced its peak level of popularity. User:RivetheadX

  • weak keep few searches around does show a little notability. Rivethead, do keep in mind that a lot of 16 year olds here do read a lot of the project pages such as WP:MUSIC. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETE for no assertion of Notability as per WP:MUSIC. Reading the article tells me that this is an underground band which has a large myspace presence. RivetheadX, "It was big on Cleopatra Records once," gives me hope that it may meet a notability guideline -- 2, 8, or 11 seem most likely. Has EHC won a major music award, had a single that was in the rotation nationally on a radio network, or charted on ANY national music chart? If not, and there is no assertion of such in the article, it is not a notable band.

Further, a 16-year-old kid who can read the notability requirements is doing just fine by marking this for deletion. For the record, I'm 31 and have never heard of this lot either. Deltopia 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the article says the band went defunct in 2002. Therefore, "being" (present tense) a band with a large presence on MySpace (founded 2003) is not possible. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Zeibura's rationale and cleanup. I didn't follow the Thrill Kill section before, and I (carelessly) assumed Cleopatra was minor because it wasn't linked in the article. I (lazily) failed to look it up myself. A learning experience for me; thanks for the lesson :) Deltopia 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. a 16-year old user always follows guidelines of WP:NOTE and having good nom faith.--Edtropolis 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Nobody scream WP:PERNOM at me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • YOU CAN'T USE WP:PERNOM! (you asked for it you know.) Kwsn(Ni!) 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable per WP:MUSIC - but also this is just a poorly done article. I have no idea why there's a "WHERE ARE THEY NOW" section - but there are also absolutely no citations whatsoever. I'm usually the last person who says "this article isn't written well enough - delete" - and if it wasn't for it seriously failing to meet notability guidelines I would probably take a stab at fixing it up myself, but the combo of the two is just overwhelming --danielfolsom 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but the band is notable. For the record, I am 19 and I have heard of this band; WP:IDONTKNOWIT is as poor an argument as making a generalisation based on a contributor's age in any discussion. Anyway, aside from being completely unreferenced and full of original research, this article has serious WP:BLP concerns, unreferenced statements such as the "celebrations of evil, violence, sex, devil worship, and mass murder" sentence in the opening para, and all the stuff about Thrill Kill Kult, could be seen as libelious unless attributed to reliable sources. This band does appear to meet criteria 4 and 5 in WP:MUSIC, so if it can be rewritten without any unreferenced controversial statements and with reliable sources to verify notability, then I'd be for keeping it. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Another note: The band also asserts that it meets criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC, as Thrill Kill Kult are a notable band. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The EHC were at the forefront of the industrial music genre during the 1990's. Citing a lack of mainstream airplay or a lack of a "Major Award" is dubious at best. There's a plethora music out there, with loyal followings that don't conform to "mainstream". The remark about unreferenced statements like "unreferenced statements such as the "celebrations of evil, violence, sex, devil worship, and mass murder" sentence in the opening para..." are sort of moot, as the citations are from the band's lyrics.(User Bsg75)1838 21 june 2007
That's all well and good, but there were no citations. What I was being told by that sentence was that the band celebrated violence and mass murder. The most you can say for that is to say the band's lyrical content made references to those things, saying they celebrate them based on their lyrics is an unfair assumption on a controversial issue. Also, I couldn't find any mention of the "I put the 'Kill' back in Thrill Kill Kult" quote anywhere, it gave me 2 google hits, both from Wikipedia. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've just done some clean up on this article, removing the libelious content and unnecessary sections, and have added a reference to the band's discography, which alone is enough for it to meet the notability guidelines. Criterion 5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Cleopatra Records has a history dating back to 1992, and has a roster of twelve bluelinked bands including Gary Numan. Furthermore, notability is "inherited" in this case from My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult, per criterion 6. This band are notable. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of sources available to expand the article. John Vandenberg 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:Music with the extensive discography alone listed at Discogs. Cricket02 05:35, 26 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. Sr13 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendell Fairley

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 20:47, 20 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.