Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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? 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black magic (programming)

Black magic (programming) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Various reasons here. Biggest one I see is that this entry pretty much constitutes a dictionary definition. We can likely go on a copyvio as this is an almost exact duplicate of the term's entry on the Jargon File, but I'd rather someone else make that call. Finally, there's a lack of citations for this rather sparse entry to Wikipedia's repertoire. As such, I move for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The Jargon File is public domain (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/online-preface.html). However, this is only a dictionary definition. I am a programmer and can't think of anything more interesting about this topic than is already written in the article. I think it's as good as it's going to get. Sancho 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. More of a general observation than slang, even. We're not the Jargon File and don't need to duplicate its content except when necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:58, 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. Peacent 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Way Entertainment

My Way Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article lacks proper references to back up its claims. Outside of My Way’s self-published websites, there are not any other legitimate sources that verify the article’s content., see WP:Attribution and WP:Reliable sources. Further the group it self is hardly notable; Outside of “The Juggernaut Bitch!”, the group itself, or its other videos, fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability — They fail to meet all three fields of Wikipedia:Notability (web), take note the Angry Nintendo Nerd's WP page was also deleted under very similar terms. ►ShadowJester07  13:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• VERY Weak Keep Just a bit notable. ~Crowstar~ 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article was mainly nominated because it fails WP:A, not because of the notability issue. --►ShadowJester07  16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Slightly notable; due to the group's expanding popularity. fhb3 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Kurykh 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There are tons of humorous redubbing groups on YouTube. What makes this one notable? With no reliable sources, there is nothing given to show that they are notable at all. Reads like fancruft. -- Kesh 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, having one notable product does not make you notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:59, 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 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social aggression

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

Original speculative essay. `'Miikka 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An essay (and a pretty badly written one at that), not at all encyclopedic. Calgary 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR - reads as grade school writing assignment. Bigdaddy1981 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename, redirect and rewrite. This seem more related to political science then sociology (we alraedy have a decent article on Relational aggression, where social aggression should redirect to. The current article should be renamed to political aggression and singicantly improved, but the subject seems notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Calgary. Seems like trying to push forward some political agenda, though I didn't quite follow which. Dan Gluck 14:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR essay. Debivort 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an acrimonious debate, with an article that has had deletion and reversion, people who feel very strongly for and against the subject, and where the AFD debate has had to be tagged due to concerns over meatpuppetry and solicitation. In this context it's important to note that AFD debates are based upon policy-based points and evidence presented, both in the article and by contributors in this discussion (deletion policy refers). Arguments quickly covered by policy include:

1. It is geographically limited (user:Shot_info)
   Geographic inadequacies (and other deficiencies common to new stubby articles) are best remedied by expansion, not by deleting the article (WP:DP refers). In general, deletion is not the appropriate treatment for a concern over lack of balance. (If it inherently cannot be written for some reason, due to scope or balance reasons, then deletion may apply, but there is no evidence at all presented in this AFD suggesting that a neutral and geographically appropriate article on the D.C. qualification, based upon verifiable reliable sources, could physically not be written if desired.)
2. "This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting" (user:QuackGuru)
   I concur, per WP:DP, WP:DPR, WP:AFD, etc, (see above). Canvassing and canvassing issues can be ignored, policy-related issues and other evidence regarding the article's AFD debate are what counts here. (Editors referenced also have significant editing history.)
3. Personal views of "promotion" and "trash" (user:QuackGuru)
   These are not policy related matters. Per WP:AFD deletion is decided based upon policy based issues, and evidence, not personal opinion.
4. Delete to give a "clean start" or remove histories (suggestion by user:QuackGuru)
   Wikipedia does not delete pages merely to give them a "clean start" or remove their reference history. Either the subject "Doctor of Chiropractic" is suitable for Wikipedia, in which case new versions overwrite old ones (which are kept for historical reference purposes only) or it is not (in which case it is deleted or changed to a redirect).

Having covered policy, the points made during the discussion are fairly straightforward.

• The degree/qualification, is not the same as the profession, or the practice (user:Scottalter, supported by others) I concur. This doesn't mean that "D.C." is automatically notable; it just means that there is a legitimate case to address whether it is notable.

• Nobody has come forward with a case that D.C. is not notable in degree terms. (ie that some degrees are notable and others are not). There is no notability guide on degrees, but I think it would be a hard case to make, that a "doctor of..." degree which many people could get, or do have, and have worked for, and the details of what is involved, are not of fairly wide interest.

• There is broad consensus that the article is (or was: it's been worked on) deficient - either it contains too much overlap material, or contains material that duplicates others. Significant progress has been made in removing material that was not about the D.C. degree (before AFD current version). Also see nominator's comment before AFD: "Almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic ... very little if any information [of note]" (user:Viridae) However editors are encouraged to improve articles during AFD, and this one is now has a significant and sizeable paragraph on the degree, and much of the off-topic text has been deleted. There's plenty of valid information that could be added - what courses involve, reputable schools, aptitudes needed (if verifiable!), different parties' views on the degree as a qualification, are obvious ones. The article does have paragraphs on post-degree training, and background on the profession which may or may not be relevant to this article, but that's for future editorial discussion. Either way the question here is simply whether the article on D.C. presently meets (or could relatively easily meet) Wikipedia standards for article inclusion. I don't see any evidence suggesting it couldn't, and in its present state it evidences that an article on the degree is viable, even if only in stub form.

• "The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete" (user:QuackGuru) I don't agree that this is a good representation of the views of keep voters. A more common viewpoint is that the article, if trimmed back and started from a stub, could work. User:Antelan, user:Shot_info, user:DGG, user:Scottalter, user:Justanother, and others have expressed this view one way or another. User:Levine2112] makes the suggestion that the article on D.M.might be a good guide. Even user:QuackGuru states "Let the current article be deleted and start a new article" (no obvious need for waiting a "month or two")
  
  The first paragraph as it stands tends to show that an article or encyclopedic stub on the degree is possible. Deletion policy strongly encourages improvement of poor articles rather than deletion where practical and there is reasonable potential for an encyclopedic article.

• There is potential duplication with Chiropractic education. Views divide whether this should be a separate article, or the latter article fully covers this one too (which should be merged into it). The point is well made that there is a distinction between "Chiropractic education" (the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor) and "Doctor of Chiropractic" (the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it). Scottalder This also covers the question of POV forking (does it cover material which is properly the subject of another article). See below on this one.

On the basis of the above points, it seems there is evidence or consensus that 1/ the qualification per se is encyclopedic in its own right as a degree, 2/ the article (when originally AFD'ed) was badly deficient and may well have been off topic and slanted or even a POV fork, but this has greatly been improved now. 3/ There is a good case that an encyclopedic article or stub on the D.C. degree is achievable, and a good paragraph on that degree (if not more) as a starting point. 4/ Editorial consensus seems to have formed that the article can be made more to the point by trimming back and writing specifically about the degree. 5/ Limitations related to geography and the like are not policy related deletion grounds if they can be rectified and an encyclopedic article or stub is reasonably practical to achieve (which it clearly is).

The only remaining question is whether this article is bound to be a rehash of Chiropractic education, or whether two articles should exist (for the degree, and for the professional training). There are good grounds to think it might not be a rehash, and a number of editors have stated an intent or wish to recast this as an article about the degree, separate from the professional training. Given effort to date, I'm not prepared to conclude right now, that it's doomed to be a rehash. It is more in line with policy's encouragement of improvement to support the cleaning up of this one, and set this concern aside until we actually see whether or not it is a duplicate and rehash. (Future relisting or merge discussion would be reasonable responses if so, or dispute resolution if roadblocked by dispute.) For now, this discussion has not provided sufficient evidence for deletion, and it's premature to prejudge that outcome.

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}}

[edit] Doctor of Chiropractic

Doctor of Chiropractic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is an almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic. I tried just redirecting it a couple of weeks ago, but that was objected to so it comes here. There is very little if any information that can be merged as far as I can see, so I see no harm in deleting this article and replacing it with a redirect. Viridae^Talk 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Keep and stubbify - While I agree that the current Doctor of Chiropractic is not a great article, there needs to be an article on the D.C. degree separate from the field of Chiropractic. Consider any other field in which one can earn a degree. There are usually 3 articles - one about the degree required, one about the field itself, and one about the occupation. Compare this to Doctor of Medicine/Medicine/Physician(/Surgeon), Registered nurse/Nursing/Nurse, Juris Doctor/Law/Lawyer, Master of Business Administration/Business/Businessperson, etc. All fields that require degrees to practice are in this format. Doctor of Chiropractic needs to be heavily edited and referenced, but not deleted. Chiropractic is a very long article. Possibly, the sections of "Chiropractic’s approach to healthcare" and "Education, licensing, and regulation" could be moved into "Doctor of Chiropractic" to help the article. Also, if there is enough content, some parts could be moved to a new article, Chiropractor, to go along with the schema above. --Scott Alter 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Scott Alter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levine2112 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Viridae, and not only is it just recycled (POVFORK?) it appears to concentrate just on the DC in the US to the exclusion to the rest of the world, something other articles at least have attempted to address (in varying degrees of success). Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473 Levine2112 made this comment to canvas for votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=next&oldid=141078473 Here is the reply by Scott Alter.

This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Now really, this behaviour is aytpical of Levine. Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not my opinion was canvased, you should consider my argument instead of outright dismissing it. Just because the article is bad doesn't mean it should be deleted. It needs to be expanded in content and it needs a world-wide view. Also, polling is not a substitute for discussion. No one has brought up the points I mentioned yet, and they should be addressed before the article would be deleted or merged. Also, not that it should matter, but I wrote my comments here before reading http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473.. It took me more that 4 minutes to look up the references and write my opinion above. --Scott Alter 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Scott Alter. We plan on revamping the medically related articles systematically, and Scott has laid this plan out nicely in Talk:Osteopathic medicine. I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen for chiropractic. The degree and the field are distinct; both can have informative articles. Antelan ^talk 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Doesn't matter - It's going to get rewritten entirely either way. An article by this title should exist, but this isn't it. Antelan ^talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As it stands the article is not about the degree at all, so that point is moot. If you wanted to create a degree article over the top of this one if this closes as delete then noone is going to stop you, but this article is pretty damn bad and not worth keeping at the moment. Viridae^Talk 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed that it's not really about the DC degree, but that doesn't mean that an article about the degree by this title shouldn't exist. Also, this article isn't totally without merit (though almost overwhelmingly, I admit), so I believe some of the material could be salvaged to script a better article. Antelan ^talk 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but as it stands the article is worthy of deletion (or rather a merging and redirection). However if the advocates for a keep acutally improve the article, then there is hope for it. Until then the reasoning for a keep is at odds with policy. Shot info 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There already is an article covering degrees in chiro.[1] We don't keep trash in mainspace. Wikipedia is not a trash dumpster. QuackGuru 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Scott Alter, but rewrite.--Hughgr 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the present article; Certainly keep an article on the DC degree, but the present article is not on the degree. It's a general article on chiro., of distinctly lower quality than the main WP one. And I do not see a single word in it about chiro. education. I see nothing here that would be of help beyond what we have on the original article. I was in some doubt whether I should not have instead said Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afreshDGG 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not "Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afresh? I think we are all in agreement that:

1. Most of this article is irrelevant to the D.C. degree
2. Most of this article is duplicated elsewhere
3. There should be an article about the D.C. degree

Since those for deletion have suggested that those against deletion should try to salvage it, would anyone mind if I gut the article? I would delete most of it, only leaving the relevant parts, and call it a stub for now. I have a feeling that if the article is simply redirected to Chiropractic, then no one will ever get around to writing the article on D.C. Also, for those who think Chiropractic education can take the place of Doctor of Chiropractic, my analogy to other professions can extend to this too. See Doctor of Medicine/Medical education/Medical school, Registered Nurse/Nurse education/Nursing school, Juris Doctor/Legal education/Law school, Master of Business Administration/Business education/Business school. If there are no objections by the end of the day, I'll start on this. --Scott Alter 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment Do you get a free 'doctor of voodoo' bundled in with this free? How about a BSc in Fairy Spotting while we're at it? Nick mallory 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Scott, there already is a Doctor of Chiro type article. The Chiropractic education article covers the Doctor of Chiro article. Do you understand my point? That means all the keep votes are essentially nullified. Frankly, I can't see any valid reason to have this article. I have no idea what do you want to turn this article into. Moreover, we don't have article titled, Chiropractic 2. Two articles covering the same topic is very weird. As it stands, the keep votes are completely irrelevant. I recommend you reconsider your vote or come up with something that actually makes a little sense. I do not know what is the point in salvaging nothing worth salvaging. Everything is already covered elsewhere. What do you suggest the new stub article be called and what would it be about. Please explain. Anyhow, this article seems more like a promotional ad than a real article. Wikipedia is not a promotional machine. Agreed? QuackGuru 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • QuackGuru, I see your point, but I do not think you see mine (otherwise you wouldn't have questioned the relevancy of "votes" in favor of keeping the article). Here is a breakdown of the points raised:

1. You say "Wikipedia is not a promotional machine".

   I agree.

2. You think the Doctor of Chiropractic article is "trash" and "a promotional ad".

   I agree with you that it is. We all seem to be in agreement about this.

3. I think there should be an article solely about the D.C. degree.

   Your counter point is that an article mentioning the degree exists as Chiropractic education, so an article about the D.C. degree is redundant.

   My counter counter point is that almost every other degree has its own article, in addition to an article about the education. See Academic degree#Examples of degrees and my examples from above. I am a big proponent of consistency and standardization. Even a few paragraphs about the degree could be sufficient. It doesn't need to duplicate information elsewhere. Surely there is more information about the D.C. degree than what is written at Chiropractic education. If content in "Chiropractic education" sufficiently describes the degree (which I'm not sure it does), maybe it is in the wrong place. "Chiropractic education" should describe the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor. "Doctor of Chiropractic" should be about the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it. There is a difference between the two topics. Almost all the other professions and degrees on Wikipedia use this distinction to have separate articles about the education and degree(s) needed to perform the profession.

4. You want the article deleted because the content is "trash" and "a promotional ad".

   I want to revise the article to describe the D.C. degree, keeping the name Doctor of Chiropractic.

   You still want the article deleted because the degree is mentioned in Chiropractic education.

   I still want to revise the article so it describes the D.C. degree. I would rather use the existing content as a starting point than starting again from scratch - even if it is just a sentence or two. For those who want to delete the article and then recreate an article of the same article but with a different topic, what's the point? If the article is just going to be recreated as soon as this one is deleted, why bother with deleting it at all? Shouldn't the content just be changed to reflect the title and desired focus of the article?

I think this should address all of the points raised so far. Do I correctly understand your point of view? Is everything now clear, in terms of my point of view? As an aside, I also think there should be an article about the MChiro degree. What makes this UK degree different from the US D.C. degree? I don't know. There are no articles on either degree. --Scott Alter 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, some DC's persue specialties in Neurology and Orthopedics, which should be mentioned.--Hughgr 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The term Doctor of Chiro seems to be an American term. The article Chiro of education article covers the "degrees" - internationally. The current article (Doctor of Chiro) is not specifically about the degree. Its a general (promotional) article on chiros. Note. > The criticism section was deleted. You can start with the Chiro of education article which is about degrees. There is no reason to have a forked article of Doctor of Chiro when the education article is the place to start. Do you want to change the content and start over? You have not pointed out anything worth keeping. If you remove all information that is not pertaining to degrees, you will have successfully deleted the article. I recommend you be bold. Delete eveything that is not relevant to the title. You will have nothing left. Maybe just a sentence or two that may need some rewording. That is essentially deleting the article. We should not keep the page history. Someone could revert back to the promotional nonsense again. That is why we have AFDs. Do you agree? Who knows what could happen five years from now with one simple revert. The best move is to delete now. Write whatever you want and start fresh. Though, it may be wiser to start at the Chiro of education article. If and when the Doctor of chiro content gets too long and is notable it can have its own page. Now then, do you understand?* QuackGuru 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the chiro edu article should be merged with this one then.--Hughgr 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. Wrong idea. This article (Doctor of Chiro) is poorly written and is not about degrees. Question. Is there anything in the current article worth merging into the education article or worth keeping as a stub. Any thoughts. Without a valid answer to the many questions* we have outlined, this entire article will be met with a red link. QuackGuru 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The intro contains a useful link, and the wording is only somewhat problematic (wow, that should never be a compliment). I don't care anymore - either this will get redlinked and totally rewritten, or it will just get totally rewritten. I know you've raised a "no history is good" point, but I don't really think it matters either way. Antelan ^talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• What are you saying? It does matter. The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete. Its nonsense and is not about degrees. This is easy to understand. Am I wrong? QuackGuru 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm saying I changed my vote. You convinced me (which is probably rare on Wikipedia) so relish in this. Antelan ^talk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion. The current Doctor of Chiropractic article be tagged with the appropriate label that the article reads poorly (essay, et cetera) and those with an active interest in it takes steps to rewrite it in a fashion similar to other doctor degrees. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We all agree that the article is poorly written. None of us like the content. QuackGuru, I see that this is why you want the article deleted. The opposite side is saying that the text of the current article needs to be deleted, but there should be an article about the D.C. degree. People are becoming indifferent because that are tired of arguing with you. Despite the outcome of this AfD, there will ultimately be an article created, entitled "Doctor of Chiropractic", which will be about the degree. So the question becomes, if an article's content is inappropriate for the title, do you delete the entire article and then recreate a new one with the exact same name, or do you essentially blank the inappropriate article and just start with a new one? I would vote to just blank the current one and create new content - rather than deleting the article completely. For this reason, I just added {{Cleanup-rewrite}} and {{Incomplete}} to the article. Levine2112, if you can think of other tags appropriate to be added, then please add them. Once that aspect of the article has been fixed, we can remove the tag. Once all of the tags are gone, the article should be good. The reason QuackGuru currently gives to delete the article is solely to prevent someone in the future from reverting to the current (bad) version. Wikipedia does not work this way. The history is there for a reason. When any article is massively restructured (as this one will be), the prior history is not deleted. I will begin to edit the article to focus on the degree in the near future. --Scott Alter 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your response is a declaration the current article is nonsensical. Am I wrong? There is no reason to have a forked article. As I said before, the chiro education article covers the doctor of chiro. There is no purpose to keeping this article. You have admitted the current version is poor. In fact, it is very poor. Lets delete it now. If the education article on doctor of chiro grows too big then another article is appropriate. You have not demonstratd any reason to keep the current article or explained why you need a forked article. Its already covered elsewhere. Nothing is worth keeping. If the article was kept, it would still be an unnecessary fork. Once all the tags would be removed in the future, you still would have two articles covering the same subject. Currently, if you deleted everything not related to the doctor of chiro, you may have next to nothing left. Please delete evey last word not related to the title of the article. What is doctor of chiro? Is it about the degrees? So, delete everything else. I mean. What are you waiting for? Be very bold. The article is tagged for clean up. Go for it. Lets see what we have to work with. Nothing but garbage. (One poorly written sentence or two?) Agreed? QuackGuru 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, chillout... Shot info 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've made a start back to the lede paragraph. Feel free to revert if people think consensus has not been achieved or if it's the incorrect (too early?) approach. Ta Shot info 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of the lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the Doctor of chiro. QuackGuru 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but there's always tomorrow :-) Shot info 02:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you deleted everything not related to the Doctor of chiro, you would have blanked the page. This is silly. Can anyone out there tell us what if anything is worth keeping. Be specific. Which sentence is about the title? The answer is, nothing. We have nothing to work with. QuackGuru 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but we are here to edit an encyclopedia, so lets edit ;-) Shot info

Maybe we should all look at Doctor of Medicine and try to make the Doctor of Chiropractic article mimic its content in terms of format and what it covers. Sound like a plan? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Now its time for the editors who voted keep (and delete) to start a new article. I still want the page history to be deleted to start fresh. Let the current article be deleted and start a new article in a month or two. Create a subuserpage for editors to contribute to. Will this idea work? QuackGuru 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Any sort of degree type article format is suitable (IMHO). I am of the thinking that perhaps a paragraph should be started within Chiropractic_education (even if it is called Doctor of Chiropractic) and when it hits more than two paragraphs, then breaking it out into an article of its own (ie/ the normal Wikipedia proceedure). In the mean time DC can redirect to Chiro Ed. The only reason I suggest this at this point is that I have had a closer read thru Chiro Ed, and my mind sees it as a "better fit", especially the first three paragraphs, which really duplicate in my mind what this DC article should be (obviously this is my opinion, so feel free to flame away :-) Shot info 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this as an apparent POV fork. There is pretty much nothing to be said about this degree that is not redundant to doctorate and chiropractic, other than attempts to bolster the perceived of qualifications in a controversial discipline. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up - Keep per logic of Scott Alter. --Justanother 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red army crimes in Lithuania

Red army crimes in Lithuania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events involving Red Army. If any, the crimes are that of the Soviet Union. Army was but its instrument. We don't write articles "crimes committed by Maxim Gun". `'Miikka 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CONTRA against Mikalaj from Belorussia - (not Mikka from Finland).

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Every soldier had a chance (little) not to shoot at lithuanians in 1918 - (lots of lithuanians escaped from russian army and returned to homeland) or leave the army. But for someone there was better to make bandit activities against civil. Not Maxim-gun was guilty, but those who supported Trocky, Stalin, Lenin - all the marasmatic company. Don't be demagogic.

Ttturbo 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Occupation of Baltic states - the topic might be notable but the article itself is completly useless Alex Bakharev 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CONTRA against Petersburg student A Bakcharev. For U studying physics this article gives no any profit, but for history students looking at the Baltic problem of their 'Grand neighbour" it is valuable source.Ttturbo 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking at the map I see no common border between Lithuania and any country that can be viewed upon as "great". But thanks for the compliment anyway ;)--Kuban Cossack 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and rewrite. It's obviously a direct translation from a Latvian article, by someone who doesn't know colloquial English. I'd like to give it a fix-up before it's deleted, including finding citations. A lot of Soviet history went unreported prior to the end of the Cold War. I agree the title should be fixed to something else... suggestions? Mandsford 00:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'v seen recently that the total of nazi victims was 20 million but of comunism -100 mln. It shocked me and I've started research. I think this is only aproximately figures and possibly the real ratio is 30:80. Where is this described correctly? Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Before you dive headlong into rewriting I suggest you to ponder over the idea that the whole Soviet state was kind of criminal. How will you separate crimes of Red Army per se from its ingamous activities resulting from esecution of state orders? the current article is a mess and nothing to keep. If you know where to start, please start a new one, and with correct title, too: Red Army crimes in Lithuania. You may also want to read Red Army atrocities. And since you seem cannot tell Latvia from Lithuania, you better stay away from the topic. A cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus is a dangerous mixture. `'Miikka 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

State orders are governmental orders. If they are criminals - they are according to constitution and international law. Every Army chief has the possibility not to agree to prime minister or president (history knows such facts) like every soldier has a chance not to fight. This chance makes them guilty at a humanistic pacifistic moral field and in the case of crimes against civil - makes them guilty according to the law system.Ttturbo 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed... we won't cooperate on anything for the time being; I admit I am kind of hateful. I disagree with your assertion that the whole Soviet state was criminal... there were atrocities, and a great deal of secrecy until recently. In wasn't until 1988 that Moscow acknowledged the Katyn Forest massacre. However, you're right... I said Latvian instead of Lithuanian. I almost said "Latveria" which was the fictional kingdom ruled by Dr. Viktor Von Doom in the Fantastic Four comics. My lame excuse is... that I thought that the article (about Lithuania, of course) was written in Latvian. Dang thing is that I accused the writer of not knowing colloquial English, and turns out that I don't know the Lithuanian language. Mandsford 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM - Latvia and Lithuania are brother Baltic countries and even russian occupants often maDde such mistakes. Thank You for support.Ttturbo 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I must intervene here: Miikka never accused you of being hateful. "Cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus" meant "Cooperation of User:Ttturbo and you". I suppose you mixed up the words cooperation and combination. Note by the way that if this is a literal translation (via some translation site on the internet) as you suggested it is arguably a copy violation, and qualifies for speedy deletion. --Pan Gerwazy 10:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Who allowed to pan Gerwaz to remove my debate from here? according to wiki rules the debate is not only the voting! You hide the traces of crimes and support red bandits. Ttturbo 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Baltic states occupation is the darkest period in all the history of Baltic states, who lost huge amount of their best citisens. So let us to express our point of wiev not worrying about some kb memory on disk. 20 thousand killed by Red army young Lithuanian partisans fighting for freedom in 1944-1952 can't support me, working for their memory.Ttturbo 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to intervene here. Mansford looks like a smart guy: he cleverly turned the table to say that it is me who is ignoramus :-) `'Miikka 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after merging with Red Army atrocities or Red Army atrocities (WWII) ( and I must be forgetting some) which is where this belongs. Note that the author of this article, first tried to insert this "info" (I am using a neutral term here) in Red Army, was told that there were other places to do that, but did not seem to like that advice. --Pan Gerwazy 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It was computer problem -sometimes U use comp and U are kicked out from Your user name to anonymous. Don't be so paranoyed. I had no idea about 3RR.Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII) . Bigdaddy1981 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about the period after I WW - the first Red army attack against independent Lithuania? For Lithuania second world war finished in 1952!!!Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, hopelessly biased. MaxSem 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but stick anything which can be sourced (the fact that there are sources means that a Lithuanian-speaking editor might be able to find something in them) in any of the articles mentioned above, assuming they're not there at the moment. I don't see a good reason to have a bunch of articles about the Red Army doing nasty things in Country X, Country Y and Country Z. If the list were unusually long, there might be a point, but this doesn't seem to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Collection of loosely related events assembled here (or on Lithuanian Wiki) in a way fitting someone's ideological predispositions. Some events (mandatory service in Soviet Army is not crime unless the term is extended to cover almost everything). Last but not least - during wars massacres and other actions labeled as war crimes are rather norm than an exception. Wikipedia should cover this by overview articles, not by endless lists. Pavel Vozenilek 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For Russians they are. For Baltic states -no. It depends.

One russian told me for example, that Khatyn massacre in 1939 was commited having the memory how polish troops shooted russians in 1919. So I don't agree that mentioning of crimes in 1919 and in 1940 are loosely related events assembled here. The study of aggression reasons must involve historical memory too Mr Pavel! When I've met Vaclav Havel - I told him THANKS. Do U understand WHY?Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete perhaps some of this information could be put in relevant sections of the relevant articles, but with this set of information, it does not warrant its own article. Bassgoonist 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

United forces made some reconstruction! Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, nothing but a Propaganda piece. No mention of the fact that the Lithuanians actively supported the German invasion of Russia. Tovojolo 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lithuanian Activist front started the rebbel against soviets who deported 10 thousand of Lithuanian intelectuals, politicians and farmers (kids, women, grand people) to Siberia - cold death the week before, on the 22th of June. Real battle started, LAF deceived russians, phoning, that in Kaunas threre is German desant ant using the radio proclaimed othe independent Lithuania again and formed the government. german troops entered capital the next day and found it free, but after 43 days they stopped all the activities of Lithuania government. If You want, You can try to right the article how lithuanians supported naci invasion -and U'll be deleted by historical facts immediately. EU started the new investigation about the crimes of comunism. About the nazzi crimes we have got much more than propaganda, but about the comunists there is no enough information.Ttturbo 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events - yep. --Fredrick day 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The crimes everytime appear more orrless chaotic - this is the style of hell!Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that Ttturbo has also just created Category:Red Army crimes and several unsourced stub articles within that category. Should they be considered in this AfD, or tagged seperately? If nothing else, a warning about WP:POINT seems to be in order. -- Kesh 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some have some sources. What is your point of wiev about military crimes of any army?Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!The attackers of Red army crimes... article and fans of Red army do not made any real comments in the disccusion page of article, so I am forced to dispute HERE! This is antidemocratic to start deleting attack urgently. Some part of turbo comment was moved by kesh somwhere - who allowed u to edit my comment?Ttturbo 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

mv to Talk page - most of this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and is a repost of material already moved to Talk, so off-topic to the AfD -- Kesh

Do the newcomer understand your mv. This is not teenagers' chat! It's your opinion not waiting any answer of opponents. This is not polite! And don't edit my comments insurting yours in the middle of mine!Ttturbo 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to the talk page for this AfD. In case you hadn't noticed, your previous discussion had already been moved there. It is commonly accepted that discussions that are not directly related to the deletion of the article are to be moved to the talk page. None of your comments actually addressed any Wikipedia policy reasons for keeping the article. In fact, they all sound like a desire to have a memorial enshrined in the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kesh's concept is not true - my answers were directly related to opponents sometimes even absurd ideas. U are false! Your activitie looks like construction of assylum for military crimes comittments. I speak in my article about THE CRIMES not about the the HEROES or suffered civils! Your common practice is not the rule. I accuse you Kesh in disruption - this is persecuted in wiki -u r dictator. In your editing 02:57, 29 June 2007 Kesh (Talk | contribs) (6,804 bytes) (mv off-topic portion to Talk page you simply deleted my text from this page giving no understanding about my possition and only after my protest you left some trace o this. I don't ask to do this. So you comitted the crime colaborating with criminal military elements -look for the lawyer and study geneva convention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:16, June 29, 2007

First, please respond directly below the post you are replying to. You keep inserting new comments into other places which makes it difficult to follow. And please remember to sign your new comments with four ~ signs.

Second, I suggest you calm down. I left quite explicit information of where the information went for anyone to read.

Third, remain civil. Accusing me of a crime is absurd, and recommending I get a lawyer is over-the-top. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to conversations on a notice board. If you want to complain about my actions, you may. However, legal threats are not welcome here and you can be blocked for making them.

Your position can be read on this AfD's Talk page, which I clearly indicated when moving your comments. Again, your comments do not address Wikipedia's policies, which are what we use to decide if an article should be kept or not. If you wish to make an argument, please see the relevant policies: WP:V WP:N and WP:NPOV. -- Kesh 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some red bandits murdered my grandmother and the others in 1945 and I must be calm when u are hiding those crimes?!. For the first time You deleted my answers with no trace of this and only after my protest made changes. If I go to the street or to sleep...You comitted real crime - consult the layer about the crimes using computers so u must be responsible for your action. The Geneva convention gives the understanding about international military crimes - u hAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THEM I SEE.Ttturbo 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you've made your POV quite clear. For the record, I did not "delete (your) answers with no trace," and anyone who looks in the history can see this. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the first time U left no link giving some remark about not understandable talk(which?) and Afd(will everyone understand this abreviation) ? This is not teenagers' chat! Ttturbo 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge, but latter option is only applicable to bits that can be both sourced properly, and phrased as not to violate WP:NPOV in blatant manner, as the article now does. The name of the article per se strongly pushes the same POV; there is absolutely no mentioning of any events that might explain the "crimes", or even give context. There is also no mention of any opposing POVs, or any events fitting the latter (such as per Tovojolo). IgorSF 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How u could stay neutral when speaking about military crimes?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:28, June 29, 2007

Our policy on neutral point of view requires us to stay neutral on all topics. -- Kesh 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Was your attempt to hide my answers neutral? U ewen not appologised. Ttturbo 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no attempt to "hide" your answers, as I believe I have adequately shown. If other editors feel I was incorrect, they may undo my changes and I will not object. My only intention here was to keep the AfD flowing smoothly. If you will note, I have not registered a keep/delete opinion here and have no intention of doing so. My only contribution to this AfD was a desire to keep it on-topic and formatted for clarity. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Was MY position clear after yours mysterious changes? Ttturbo 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear as crystal. -- Kesh 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. For newcomers your "language - mv Adf .." is not understandable.From wiki rules - These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. Who allowed u to make my position not direct reachable? I would like to know about rules but not common general practice?! Why u don't try to transport posts of the other users? Why do You attcked the whole category? Why U made false conclusion in help desk giving comment to my asking?Ttturbo 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's prevent this from getting even more ridiculous than it already is. All User:Kesh has done was moving extraneous comments on the talk page. I, for one, agree with this move. The rules you quoted mean that every vote on a deletion page like this should be cast with a reason stated, rather than simply "yes" or "no". They do not mean, however, that every user, or any user, should reply to every vote with his own rebuttal, especially when such rebuttal consists of essentially the same arguments repeated over and over. This is why User:Kesh didn't "transport" posts of other users - they put a single vote, with at most a single paragraph of argumentation behind it. IgorSF 06:22, 29 June 2007

(UTC)

The main problem was how it was made for the first time and he placed his text in the middle of my comment! It was done not understandably for me and some others using teenagers chating and abbreviating style. Well, I could start to split his comments and to remove them from here saying -those are about shrines, not about victims and murders. I suppose - every one has right to make comment on any remark in democratic structure.Ttturbo 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment (after edit conflict, and re-indenting): Agree in principle with IgorSF, but I have to state that [[User:Kesh] did not move the threaded comment to the tlk page, I did. I also deleted my own comment here on my vote [the one stating that User:Ttturbo was edit-warring on Red Army ], so he is wrong to say here (and on my talk page) that there was some kind of bias because I did not transport other people's comments. I kept the interchange between Miikka and Mandsford because that was about possible collaboration to keep the article alive. In hindsight, I should perhaps not have done that. I repeat that the way User:Ttturbo is commenting on every single vote and comment - even Kesh's, which was completely neutral, is disruptive and makes this AfD impossible to follow. I would advise anyone who votes here to come back later and, if appropriate, to move Ttturbo's comment on their vote to the talk page. --Pan Gerwazy 07:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Belorussian fighter Mikalaj Miikka attacks all the articles from category Red army crimes. I would like to research how there appeared 100 000 000 victims of comunism (less then nazzi) and what was the role of Red army giving sequencies of facts and knolidge according to wiki definition. But Mikalaj giving no comments started deleting procedures on my articles, so he wants to hide horrible crimes (including my grandma murdering). To delete knowledge from wiki is equal to vandalism. The crimes must be presented, discussed, understood and persecuted finally - for never repeating!

Your comment pan Gerwaz is not equal to the answers of the author, so better not to try repeat your DISRUPTIVE act of "mess" gathering by other hands. Is position to hide the crimes attacking all the category- 100 million murderings neutral? You voted to delete crimes and now cleaned your vote.

Well, it is possible to create single article about total Red Army crimes but how this will be used in the history of every country? If pan Gervaz wants to see the clear sequence of delete delete delete removing my answers and debate (debate is not only voting - wiki rules), this does not mean that the administrator who wil read after five days has the same opinion.Ttturbo 08:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you got it wrong: I did not just vote "delete" on this article. I agree that it is very difficult to note that because someone here is continually putting comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote. And I did not delete my vote. I did move (not delete!) my threaded comment on my vote, which was perfectly proper because I did that to all the threaded comment. I gave a reason for my vote, and that should still be visible, but with extreme difficulty because "someone put comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote". I have indeed voted "speedy delete" on the other (attack) pages you have just created. WP:POINT and WP:Beans.--Pan Gerwazy 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is real reason at court of history. Why U don't answer -what about the crimes of Red army in 1918-1921? 15 million of victims in Russian civil war and what about victims in Poland?. What about 20 thousand Lithuanian partisans murdered by reds 1944-1952? And U propose to merge ewerything to WWII history deleting the other periods crimes?. I think your knowledge about recent war history shown in this debate is awfull.

I would like that users better vote here not looking at the other opinions staying neutral, but if they want -they can study positions of both sides. There is some responsiblility for politicians too and sometimes they trie to accuse troops, sometimes generals accuses. They must SHARE responsibilities (for Mikalaj Miikka)Ttturbo 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment articles deals with crimes committed by Soviet Army at multiple points in history and both during and after the period that it was known as the Red Army - any merging or redirecting should take this into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. The subject is notable but does not justify an article of its own, and it's far better to develop one article (at least until its size justifies splitting). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Update I hope this article can survive deletion. I've done some fixup to make it sound "more American" for those of you who have made fun of the author. I'd say his English is better than your Lithuanian. The article has citations and refers to notable events. It can continue to be improved. I say, keep it around for awhile longer, give the author an opportunity to learn the Wikipedia style. Mandsford 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this; however, whether this article is deleted or kept depends mostly not on its style or level of English, but content and (alleged) violation of WP:NPOV, as evidenced by the arguments presented thus far on this page. I also don't think keeping an article that otherwise should be deleted merely to give its author an opportunity to learn is a good suggestion; first, Wikipedia articles have no authors; second, and perhaps more importantly, the relationship between editors and articles is - in my opinion at least - exactly the opposite: the editors serve articles, rather than articles serving editors. An article that should not be here, should not be here even for the sake for editors contributed to it. IgorSF 03:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this faeces per WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The text is faeces as it is. How is the fact that Lithunians took part in the Afganistan constitute a crime of the Red Army? Is having ethnic Native American Indians serve as part of the US occupation force in Iraq also make this a crime against the Native American population? Also fyi since 1946 the Red Army was not Red anymore as the name was changed to Soviet Army... Lack of knowledge supported by nationalist paranoia is a tumour that must be amputated from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 10:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Kuban Cossack raises a good point - the Soviet Army was no longer known as the Red Army after 1946. As I suggested earlier, any merging or redirecting that admins decide upon should take this fact into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've stressed, that this circimstamce is discussed in the beginning af the articele Red Army. Becouse of wide spreading of the original name in lots of countries, it is understandable as the same noun. In the beginning of every article of this category I've once more time streesd this circumstance. This could be only formal reason to make chaos in the difficult theme.Ttturbo 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Geneva convention the crime is to recruit citizens of occupated country and use them in military campaings. Secondly, it is explained in the beginning od Red Army article that "From 1946, the Red Army was officially renamed the Soviet Army, though people in the West commonly used the term Red Army to refer also to the Soviet military after that date." Don't be so suspicious propagandist! Tell better about crimes against Cossack. Every army commits crimes, so why red one must be the great exeption?Ttturbo 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Lithuanian SSR was an integral Soviet Republic so don't see a crime in recruiting its own people, finally the lead says about the 1919 and 1920 assaults on Vilnius by the USSR, well fyi the USSR was not formed until 1922. WRT crimes against Cossacks, sure they took place, but alas not by the Red Army, but the internal police, namely the NKVD. Actually the Red Army's record for one is quite clear of any crimes, but then you did say that every army commits crimes, so why don't you write one about the Lithuanian one? --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lithuania was occupated country and according to Geneva convention recruiting is a crime. I havn't seen any literature about Lithuania Army crimes, only know some stories about participating of some officers in conspiracy and revolt. Thank you for remebering of 1922. Do you know the town were during Chrushchev regime there was shooting at the workers demonstration? And what about red Army crimes against Kozak during civil war? Ttturbo 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relocate appropriate material and then Delete. It appears some of this information is notable (although more reliable sources in English are needed) and should be moved to appropriate articles, such as Red Army and Soviet war crimes. There are suitable places in those articles, but the information should be sourced before moving it.
  Jim Dunning | talk 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Weinberger

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

Non notable actor Bigdaddy1981 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy - fails WP:BIO. Rklawton 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-- in a Wikipedia where no movie or TV-show goes unnoticed, poor Ben doesn't even have a blue-link to his credit. There's still law...Mandsford 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, right on the speedy line for me, but no real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately, too minor an actor. His roles seem to be from 2000-2001, so he doesn't seem to have momentum working for him at this time. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Can the article name what roles he has had? Was he in starring roles or supporting, or even bit parts? Articles about actors and musicians must assert notability -- e.g., "Smith played Hamlet in the Shakespeare Company's 2002 production" or "Jones headlined at the Stratford Music Centre".... I have no way of knowing if this Ben Weinberger is notable or not. See WP:HOLE. Bearian 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete. this is his CV. Kripto 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I also think Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive, but not ad absurdum this is just the CV of a non-notable actor - lose it.Elmo 21:16, 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 Delete. Repeated input from IP addresses hailing from the same general region were discounted, so there is a clear consensus that this article doesn't meet community standards. — Scientizzle 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid entropy

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody 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 amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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

Incoherent ramblings Ϙ 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to mention something in particular? Then I can try to explain. You can also provide us some sources to valid your opinion. I mentioned my sources and bibliography, where is yours?! --LidiaFourdraine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User Q - I would suggest you to improve the article. Your remarks are too general ("ramblings") so they do not really help me to verify the article.

Please notice also: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations 0with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD". --LidiaFourdraine 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Keep. Gets a ton of hits on Google Scholar, seems to be a valid term. It is kinda rambling however, and may need to be tagged with {{expert}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to keep per User:Mandsford. I have no doubt of the term's notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • :::^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Those google hits are referring to the entropy of a fluid, not the pseudoscience on the fluid entropy page. "solid entropy" and "gas entropy" return similar numbers of hits. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way: User Q has made 19 editions since 28 June 2006, 7 of them consider "Fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Just because neither I nor the nominator understand this, doesn't make it incoherent. It's cited, TenPound has verified that it's notable, and there is some attempt to put it into plain English. I get the idea that it's about loss of energy efficiency in a liquid. The author cites to an article called "Entropy issues in aviation," but misses the obvious next step... which is to give us an example of why we should care about "fluid entropy". How about it, Lidia F.? Mandsford 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fluid entropy or maybe even better "the entropy of fluids" describes the behaviour of fluids using the concepts of entropy, chaos, dissipation and quantum mechanics. The behaviour of fluids is fascinating and still unknown - laboratories are working to solve the mysteries - see page: [2]. The macroscopic effects (one can see with his eyes) are well known (bubbles, cavitation, damage) and the sources mention websites where one can see it: [3] and [4]. The microscopic effects (one can not see with his eyes) are connected with quantum mechanics and the mystery of bubbles (see Nature vol.409, nr.6822, the article "Quantum physics: count them all" and "Cavitation science: Is there a simple theory of sonoluminescence?" The articles are available on the website: [5] paragraph Research Highlights) - both are still an open book, the last word is not said yet ... If we put energy to fluids (by heating, filtration, pumping) we increase their entropy (state of chaos), the temperature rises, bubbles are formed and even nucleate boiling can take place. Just think about cooking some water. It is important to take the increase of entropy in a fluid into consideration, because it can have unpredictable(?) effects like described in article "Entropy issue in aviation". To reduce the risks US Transportation Board (FAA Federal Aviation Administration is the right name)ordered to fill the space above fuel in fuel tanks with nitrogen after a few unexplained fuel tanks raptures. I think this case illustrates why we should care about "fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The citations are random. They don't actually have anything to do with the content of the page. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read "Entropy and the Second Law, Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer Simulation", Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, vol. 17, no.3, July-September 2003, authors: G.F. Naterer - University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada and J.A. Camberos - U.S.Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. It refers to fluid entropy (entropy of fuel).

• Merge with Entropy (order and disorder) --- in all honesty, I am sceptical how much of this article's text is usable; however. I am no longer sceptical of how much of the text is usable, upon reviewing it more closely and reading the creator's essentially random remarks (and outrageous suspected sockpuppetry) here, I am quite sure none of it is. Strongest Possible Delete and SALT, there are a number of wiki articles dealing with entropy and this adds nothing but weird post-modern pseudo-science. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier to understand for everybody (with and without knowledge of advanced physics) we can change the title to "Entropy of Fluids" because it describes entropy issue in fluids. Entropy issue in fluids is still not well-known among the public but it can be interesting for everyone interested in entropy, exergy and efficient energy production to save the environment and that is something important for all of us! Let me cite the two authors mentioned above (G.F.Naterer and J.A.Camberos) : "Entropy serves as a key parameter in achieving the theoretical limits of performance and quality in many engineering applications. Together with exergy, it can shed new light on various processes: from optimized flow configurations in an aircraft engine ...

Minimizing entropy production is equivalent to minimizing exergy destruction...." End of citation.

Now it is up to you to decide about the future of the article. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete As a physicist and a co-author of some of the articles regarding entropy, I must say it's terrible incoherent nonsense. Even if it were not nonsense, it should have been deleted, becuase there is nothing particular in fluid entropy, at least not in this article. Why not having articles about "toothbrush entropy", "car entropy", "toilet paper entropy" and so on? Dan Gluck 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept of entropy is interdisciplinary and touches almost every aspect of our daily lives (transportation, biology, energy, environment, industry) and is strongly connected with open thermodynamic systems, toilet paper is not an open thermodynamic system, a moving car yes. But the arrow of time has impact on everything even on your toilet paper. After years it will turn into dust. --LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, you wouldn't make an article about "entropy in toilet papers!", would you? by the way, toilet paper is an open thermodynamic system, as is almost everything in our world. Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Example for incoherence: the section Fluid_entropy#The_development_of_fluid_entropy. 1) How and why should a fluid of bosons be turned over in time to a fluid of fermions?? 2) stating that a "low entropy state" becomes a "high entropy state" as the entropy grows is a triviality. Dan Gluck 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Because both states are possible and probable according to quantum mechanics. See link: [6]

Thank you for teaching me physics, but you may notice that I am finishing my PhD in physics. Unfortunately this is obviously not your field of expertise. Bosons cannot be turned into fermions, except for some bizarre solitonic phenomena which I don't want to get into right now.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The distinction between bosons and fermions is basic. There are two possible kinds of things in the universe. The two types are known as "bosons" and "fermions," and the dialectic between them describes all physical form. The whole scheme of quantum field theory, for example, is that fermions interact by exchanging bosons. "The electons belong to the class of elementary particles called leptons. The leptons and quarks together constitute the class called fermions. According to the Standard Model all mass consists of fermions. Whether the fermions combine to form a table, a star, a human body, a flower or do not combine at all depend on the elementary forces - the electromagnetic, the gravitational, the weak and the strong forces. According to the Standard Model all force is mediated by exchange of (gauge) bosons. The electromagnetic force is mediated by exchange of photons, the strong force by exchange of gluons while the weak force is mediated by exchange of W and Z bosons.""written by Steen Ingemann-physic [7] --LidiaFourdraine 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

2. It is not a triviality. It is in an agreement to the second law of thermodynamics.

--LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. What the table states is in fact pure logic: if we start with a state of low X, and X gets higher, then we end up with a state of high X. X can be anything. It is true that the second law of thermodynamics states that if X is entropy then the above sentence correctly describes reality.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep as I would like to take a crack at fixing the language and adding sources. The author seems to be stating a lot of what's in the c. 1980 pop science text, Order From Chaos, which I have at home (not here at work). For starters, I'd excise the first dependent clause of the first sentence, which would clarify much grammatical nonsense. I've had some great articles rejected by the finest physicists for peer reviewed journals, which is why I now teach business law and legal writing. :-) Bearian 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You didn't give a reason for keeping the articleDan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the language is the problem here. The article lacks useful content and deals with subject matter about which other (coherant) articles exist. 65.241.15.131 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on notability: the following get more hits in google than "fluid entropy": "paper entopy", "Michael entropy", "google entropy", "car entropy" and many more... (unfortunately "toilet paper entropy" don't get so much...) so that's not a sign of notability.Dan Gluck 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article doesn't seem to be much more than vague ramblings about fluids and thermodynamics. There are clearly many interesting things to say in this regard but they do not appear in this article. Also, I'm very worried about the correctness of numerous sdtatements, particularly the "bosons go to fermions" line that other editors have mentioned. Joshua Davis 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I found on your personal page Joshua: "Article needing your attention Hi, can you please look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid entropy and vote? I think more physicists should participate in that particular vote. Thanks. Dan Gluck 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)" --LidiaFourdraine 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about asking more physicists to vote on a physics-related debate. I did not ask anyone to vote according to my opinion. Unlike sockpuppetry, this is a legitimate action. Dan Gluck 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lidia, I'm not sure if you are trying to impugn myself, Dan Gluck, or both of us. In any case, it does not matter, since there is nothing wrong with asking others to chime in on a debate. You'll notice that Dan did not even ask me to vote in any particular way but just suggested my expertise would be of use. I came over to take a look at the article and I happen to agree with him and most of the non-anonymous editors who have commented. Joshua Davis 05:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: First of all, when "fluid entropy" is typed into Google, this article appears at the top of the heap. Which this is not too unusual for Wikipedia articles, it normally does not happen with new Wikipedia articles unless little else exists on the topic. So immediately we have evidence on non-notability in the Google search. Furthermore, examination of the other Google hits found shows that the term "fluid entropy" is used in the context "the entropy of a fluid", which makes this term quite trival. To make matters worse, the article offers no mathematical definition of this "fluid entropy", which is not in accord with the other existing entropy articles. Overall, this is a rambling article which does not add anything useful to this encyclopedia. As a description this term is trivial and non-notable. As a field of study it is a neologism and therefore inadmissible under WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Any author attempting to break the taboo on entropy paid a drastic price for her impertinence. --83.5.131.170 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.131.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note in interest of transparency anon. ip address 83.5.131.170 has made one edit to wikipedia, the above cyptic comment. I suspect sockpupperty is afoot. Bigdaddy1981 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the possibility of sockpuppetry(which doesn't seem small, by the way), this comment doesn't really add to the discussion. What is the "entropy taboo"? There are dozens of wiki articles on entropy. The problem here is that this article doesn't seem to add anything to those and has troubling issues of its own: it is not encyclopedic, it seems inaccurate and might violate WP:NOR. Joshua Davis 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Just about the entire article is either false or too vague to be comprehensible. An embarrassment to the wikipedia.PhysPhD 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment editors familiar with the amusing random postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) might be forgiven for mistaking this article as its product. If the author did not seem so earnest in her comments here, I would suspect this whole thing to be a hoax. Bigdaddy1981 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The entropy concept has rarefy been studied in biology and powerengineering, althought entropy is as significant as energy, because entropy is the only concept in the physical sciences having directionality with lifetime. Application of the entropy concept to biology would lead to a deeper understanding of living systems. There are still conceptual and methodological difficulties in the measurement and estimation of the entropy content of living systems. --83.5.131.170 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet (see above) Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The reasons given may be relevant for articles discussing entropy in biological systems, not fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The consideration of entropy transfer of self-organizing systems will require careful experimental and further theoretical studies, which ask questions different from those which were asked before. This may be an opportunity to LEARN MORE about extraordinary efficiency of biological energy conversion systems which are basically of entropic nature. --83.5.153.45 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.153.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I suspect widespread sockpuppetry is afoot - a number of anonymous IPs are making similar-sounding pseudi-scientific arguments in favour of keeping this article. Bigdaddy1981 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Bigdaddy1981 - Article not found. No comment.--83.5.153.45 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what this suspected sockpuppet's comment means Bigdaddy1981 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: again this suspected sockpuppet is making an almost identical claim to the previous one, which has no relation to the article itself, since it the article is unrelated to biology.Dan Gluck 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here a link confirming the high temperature and pressure in a collapsing bubble:

"Cavitation and bubble dynamics" by Ch.E.Brennen, Oxford University Press 1995

[8] see Online Books

And here two links about the bosons and fermions: 1."When bosons behave like fermions" and :::2."Metallic phase for bosons implies a new state of matter". See News and then Physics on page:

[9] I hope the texts give an answer to your questions. I do not want sockpuppets!!! --LidiaFourdraine 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:This is exactly what I warned you about, Lidia. Reading an article or two doesn't mean that you understand the subject. As I have already wrote, there are some bizarre situations where bosons behave like fermions and vice versa, and your link is simply one example of such a bizarre situation - bosons in one dimension under certain circumstances. But this has nothing to do with entropy or fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. "All particles in nature are either bosons or fermions" . See here [10] and also here: [11]. Are they all wrong at the Chicago University and the Manchester University??? Some other Wikipedians have pointed this controversy and other ones to you on talk page about bosons and fermions. --LidiaFourdraine 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am really tired by your irrelevant remarks. All fundamental particles in nature are indeed either bosons or fermions, but one cannot become another (except for in exteremely odd circumstances where a system of bosons is better interpreted as a system of fermions or vice versa, but these cases are irrelevant here). There is no debate regarding this issue in the talk pages you have linked to. I was hoping you were really willing to accept the opinions of the other Wikipedians, more educated on the subject than you, as you have promised, instead of making poor attempts to revive the discussion. Dan Gluck 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Why bosons and fermions have nothing to do with (fluid) entropy according to you, Dan? And what about this: from Wikipedia: "Entropy in quantum mechanics (von Neumann entropy) In quantum statistical mechanics, the concept of entropy was developed by John von Neumann and is generally referred to as "von Neumann entropy". Von Neumann established the correct mathematical framework for quantum mechanics with his work Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. He provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement). Using this concept, in conjunction with the density matrix he extended the classical concept of entropy into the quantum domain". Sorry, but I stop discussing the subject and "to be or not to be" of the fluid entropy article. I leave the decision to others. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this has nothing to do with your article. Bigdaddy1981 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: To prevent fuel tank explosions in aviation we have to change our relation to the entropy issue. But the consensus of hier expressed opinion is still against any solution of the entropy problem in aviation and space. Thus currently in the aviation sectors prevailing the non-sustainable trends, for example entropy – terrorism. Mankind versus Mother Nature. --83.5.153.45 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This alleged sockpuppet has already vote - See above. Moreover, the argument is uninteligible. Dan Gluck 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, strong keep: To this day, NTSB investigators cannot explain the source of ignition that caused the presumably accidental explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. 11 years after the TWA 800 broke up into pieces off the Long Island coast, the consensus is that the airplane's fuel tank exploded after the fuel ignited from an unknown (i.e. taboo) source (i.e. entropy). The source of ignition of the explosion is belived to be within the fuel, however no conclusive ignition source has been found by accident investigators (i.e. entropy remain taboo). That the world is becoming unethical is evidenced by the few of people who are continuously increasing their and others' entropy by playing the Game of Pleasure in Destruction. --83.5.133.222 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.133.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this AFD is turning into a sock and or meatpuppet fiasco with numerous Amsterdam-based anonymous URLs (all single purpose accounts designed to disrupt this AFD and add links to the fluid entropy article in other articles) making bizaarre rambling arguments. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The subject appears to be worth a separate article. Dan Gluck's Google counts for "fluid entropy", "paper entopy" [sic], "Michael entropy", "google entropy" and "car entropy" are entirely bogus ("fluid entropy" actually wins, he should have used Google Scholar to begin with, and reading the contexts of each hit is important). Also, anyone can ask Google Scholar and find many legit references to fluid entropy as a separate concept. – However, I share Dan's doubts about the quality of the text. We need an expert or we're likely to be embarrassed by the article, sooner or later. Rl 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have reported the suspected sockpuppets and the user whom I suspect to be their puppeteer. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The origin of the transformer explosion in Germany (June 28, near Hamburg) is internal rather than external. Entropy is imperceptible, therefore it is impossible to determine what caused the transformer explosions. But a survey of current literature shows that a consistent and accepted methodology of research of issue of fluid entropy has well yet to be developed. Transformers do not have an indeterminate life (arrow of time). Transformer design engineers tell us that a transformer can be expected to last 30 to 40 years under "ideal conditions." But, that is clearly not the case. In the 1975 study, it was found that the average age at the time of failure was 9.4 years. In 1985 study, the average age was 11.4 years. In 2003 study, the average age at failure was 14.9 years. Several transformer explosions have happened in recent years, some of them giving extremely strong explosion development. --83.5.133.222 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The cause of such explosion is almost certainly due to hotspots within the insulation, possibly caused by latent manufacturing defects. Such type faults on transformer models are common. The extremely energetic explosions arise from the fact that there is a lot of energy in transit through a large distribution transformer. There is no link to the subject matter here. — BillC ^talk 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to the subject matter here (entropy as a rootcause of a transformer-explosion). "Transformer explosion versus Arrow of Time" http://www.firedirect.net/_pdfs/_technical/tech_2405_0001.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.136.130 (talk • contribs)

The link is totally unrelated to this debate Dan Gluck 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolt! --83.5.136.130 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in response to that uncivil outburst, and speaking as one who for years worked as a scientist at a major research laboratory investigating failure mechanisms of, and lifetime strategies for, high-voltage transformers in the 600MVA+ range, I will say that that linked article is unrelenting nonsense. — BillC ^talk 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Pseudo-scientific nonsense is the stock in trade of the article's creator and her sock/meatpuppets. I have reported them all. Bigdaddy1981 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I know that credentials don't count for much, but I am a recently graduated chemistry major, so I know a little about entropy and thermodynamics. This article makes no sense to me. Entropy, fundamentally, has nothing to do with bosons and fermions, but rather with the work losses of the Carnot engine and the equilibrating pattern of the Boltzmann distribution. At best, this article is original research; at worst, it's just wrong. I'm completely on board with Dan Gluck's opinion, and I'm unimpressed by the author's desperate attempt to rescue this article using sock puppets. Shalom ^Hello 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep On aircraft entropy. Strict attention should be focused on ensuring that fuel entropy in a tank is minimal at the initiation of takeoff. The detection of entropy in fuel, sufficient to cause engine thrust power problems, is difficult and may not be possible. Strange as it may seem, entropy will have a tremendous effect on reducing the performance of a airplane. Despite the accident and research evidence indicating that small imperceptible amounts of entropy can cause the same penalties as ice accumulations. Recent accidents indicate that the pilot community still may not appreciate the potential consequences of small amounts entropy of the fuel.--83.5.159.69 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

— 83.5.159.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Dan Gluck 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this as another sockpuppet. Moreover, this user is refering to a non-existing article about aircraft entropy, so its vote is irrelevant. Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article does not make sense. Some attempts have been made to bolster its credibility and/or notability through edits to unrelated topics. — BillC ^talk 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Mumbo-Jumbo. Some facts may be true but irrelevant, most are just wrong. Ofer (A Physics PhD Student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.68.141 (talk) date

• Delete — EMS summed up my reasons pretty well. Anville 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody ask you to vote? Because this is what I found on your personal page: "This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical". --LidiaFourdraine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Looks impressive at the first glance, but woe betide anyone that actually tries to read it. My physics isn't that good but I'm dubious from reading it. "The arrow of time"? Nothing there worth keeping, as it is, and I don't see any improvement coming over the actual article on entropy. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

FINAL REMARK: why do the opponents doubt so much about the scientific value of my main source T. Sitek "Entropy issue in aviation"? His articles are being published in the USA and the EC. --LidiaFourdraine 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:The problem is not with the source (at least not only with the source), but rather with your lack of understanding of it. You have quoted sentences out of context thus making them false (such as the "bosons" turning into "fermions") or stated very specific processes as very general ones, while in fact these processes are specific to the systems analyzed by the source. Besides that, the author itself states his findings as a "new thermodynamical theory" and thus these cannnot be widely accepted (yet?), but in any case are very specific and do not refer to fluid dynamics in general. Finally, there is no point in making a seperate article for fluid entropy, just as there is no point in making a seperate article for solid entropy. Dan Gluck 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dan! Although I don`t agree with everything you said, this is a quite reasonable statement. Quarrelling is not my nature. I am also tired of it. I propose to delete the article immediately and get back to normal life. There are worse things happening in life than that. "Gaudeamus igitur, iuvenes dum sumus ...". Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Roche

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

Unsourced, uninformative bio of a supposed 27-year-old multi-millionaire, which just happens not mention any of the companies he gets his millions from, nothing looks promising in a Google search. Hoax? Corvus cornix 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, likely hoax. If he is real, there is nothing in this crude stub to suggest notability. Bigdaddy1981 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fairly common name for Ghits, but nothing coming up about this particular guy. Will reconsider if anyone can find some references. --Breno ^talk 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Claims to be part of '1/2 billion club' [12]

, but zero Ghits. [13]. Clearly a hoax. Edward321 03:58, 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 delete. Article can be created if the player becomes notable. Sr13 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Leise

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

Collegiate baseball player. Apparently hasn't even been drafted by the pros? Or, if he has, it hasn't been indicated here. We don't even usually keep minor league players, let alone college players. Corvus cornix 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article now indicates that he was drafted, but he has still yet to play in professional baseball, and certainly not in the Majors. One of hundreds of college players, barely rising above average. He wasn't even first team Big 12, and "academic all american" just means he's a good student who's a decent athlete.Corvus cornix 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article should be written when the subject attains notability. He appears NN at this point. (There are multi thousands of sports bios at this level that could be written. They are really vanity pieces at this point). --Stormbay 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per precedent, baseball players are not notable until they have played in the majors. Caknuck 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unitary and federal systems of government

Unitary and federal systems of government (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is unreferenced original research on a topic that is better handled by the seperate articles on unitary states and federations (and confederations for that matter). There is nothing sourced to merge to either article and it is an unlikely search string on its own. Eluchil404 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and fix. See, THIS is why we need to get rid of articles about Stunky the Pokemon Card (June 26 AfD debate)! Everyone wants to defend idiotic pieces about Smallville episodes and Go-Bots and Dragonball Z cards; but when someone tries to write an intelligent article about governmental systems, you get a nomination for deletion because it's imperfect. I agree that there should be citations to authority, and that it should link to the articles cited by E-1404. It's a good supplement to both articles, since it attempts to make comparisons and contrasts (I agree, we need more than original research). It's one of those things like comparing parliamentary governments to American-style republics. Add some cites, keep this in. Mandsford 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's been a while since I've seen an example of a literal argumentum ad Pokemon. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Material already covered in the respective articles for each system. The comparison is a paper topic rather than an encyclopedia article, even if it were not complete original research. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, material is already well covered in separate articles and is best covered that way rather than this POV-risky comparison. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless referenced, Keep if referenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both systems (and confederate) are explained well and dandy in their own articles. There article is esesntially restating information from the others Corpx 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transitional web applications

Transitional web applications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recently prodded by another editor, prod notice removed so I'm taking this as contested. Reasons for deletion: neologism; notability (no non-WP ghits other than the only reference, which is a blog), and therefore OR. Even the single reference describes the idea as "rambling". No encyclopedic value. andy 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as obvious neologism, possibly made up one day too. I wish neologisms were speedy-able... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As neo. Can't find anything for it either. --Breno ^talk 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, It may be a neologism, but wasn't "podcast" one too when it first came up? Duartegrilo

• No, it wasn't - see here. It was already a well-referenced term in fairly wide use. andy 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:06, 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. Walton^talk 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posh and Becks

Posh and Becks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - do we really need articles on every celebrity nickname when there are already articles on each of the people that cover all the same territory? Otto4711 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I don't really see too much of a reason to keep this, seeing as I'm a fan of neither Beckham nor the Spice Girls. However, it is a common nickname for the couple, and is somewhat referenced, so I don't see any reason to delete it either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and add info to the articles on the two individuals in question as well as to Cockney Rhyming Slang. Bigdaddy1981 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak keep Although the couple is notable, the term is a neologism. The sources use the term, but are not about the term--they are about the couple. Information about their relationship should be in their own articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001 [14] so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism. I have added this information and reference to the article, which I believe negates this argument. — Jonathan Bowen 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The information about the inclusion in the dictionary makes a big difference. Thanks for including it. I'm still not sure this needs its own article, but it looks possible to source it properly. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, or weak redirect to either one of those chumps. Lugnuts 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Strangely, the best place I can think of for a redirect (if we want one) to point to is Cockney rhyming slang, assuming there's a source for the appropriation of their name. Since there isn't at present, a deletion is a better course of action. The other information should be merged into the respective biographies, assuming it's not well and truly there already. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak keep though if suggesting redirects I'd lean more towards Supercouple#Celebrity. Not making an otherstuffexists argument, I did come across Bennifer. The only other couples artice found was Brangelina, which now redirects to List of entertainers by nickname. --Breno ^talk 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • TomKat is formatted as a disambiguation page. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I knew I forgot one :) Don't know why it's a disambig, as it doesn't actually disambig the term. Probably a fork from the Tomcat disambig. Sorry for sidetracking, but perhaps this AfD outcome will set notability precedence for other "supercouples". --Breno ^talk 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In light of the new Collins reference and going through more news sources NEO is debatable. I'd say keep for now. This is a broader issuse on how supercouples in general should be handled, as there seems to be no standard. Possibly merge info down to both articles, for example some of this is already covered in David Beckham#Personal life, but not so sure how well this would go. --Breno ^talk 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — the categories for this entry are completely orthogonal to those of the two people upon which the term is based and would be lost otherwise. The term is independently notable in its own right and it would be inappropriate to redirect it to just one of the people involved since it originated from both. Choosing one or other could be deemed to be sexist. Nicknames for single celebrities do not have this problem of course, so redirection is less of an issue. This is an exceptionally notable nickname (in the UK) in any case. — Jonathan Bowen 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A redirect could go to List of entertainers by nickname as Brangelina does. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But how would this cover the slang usage and dictionary inclusion? — Jonathan Bowen 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that info (as it is deemed relevant) could easily be included in sections in V's and D's individual articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes but which one and how do you choose? If both, isn't a separate article more sensible to avoid duplication? In any case, this is an encyclopedic rather than dictionary entry (on the couple and the development of an associated term rather than either as an individual) as it currently stands. — Jonathan Bowen 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I certainly agree that in general celebrity couple names should not have distinct articles. This may be an exception: there is information here that is not included at either David Beckham or Posh Spice. The term seems to have taken on a life of its own, somewhat distinct from the biograhies of the couple and this article has content beyond a dictionary definition. But merging this information into the article on Beckham or Posh (or brief mentions in both) is certainly a reasonable solution as well. This page, if deleted, should certainly redirect to one of their articles. --JayHenry 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- If this were any regular celebrity couple, then I could see deleting this article, but Posh and Becks are truly a notable celebrity couple. In fact, they are a supercouple, as witnessed in the Supercouple article. Not all celebrity couples are crowned supercouples, and this couple has garnered twice as much interest as even some celebrity couples who are supercouples. Posh and Becks, as well as Bennifer, are definitely two notable celebrity supercouples who should have their own articles on Wikipedia, as they have definitely gone down in history as highly notable celebrity couples. And this article is well-sourced. The only other celebrity supercouple of this day and age's media that I feel should have their own article is Brangelina. Flyer22 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep/Merge -- Posh and Becks is certainly a very common term for the couple, common enough to possibly merit its own article. But I think it would be alright if we Merge this article with the articles of Victoria and David, or simplay place more emphasis on the term on each of the articles.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:07, 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. Anas ^talk? 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gypsy (comic book)

Gypsy (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

prod contested because who is the author of the comic. But article, while stating who the author is, doesn't indicate anything notable about this particular comic book. In fact, the only thing it states is who the author is. Not everything by a notable author is wiki worthy (that is, worthy of their own article) and since this article doesn't even begin to tell us why it should stay, and it has had sufficient time for someone to tell us why it should, then it should go. In fact, the person who contested the prod didnt' even add to the article. Postcard Cathy 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

PS If the editors who worked on Pulido's article didn't even bother to include it in his list of work, I wonder how notable it could be???? MMMM NOT VERY NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!!! STRONG DELETE Postcard Cathy 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish significance. Jay32183 20:03, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^talk 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of passengers and crew onboard RMS Titanic

List of passengers and crew onboard RMS Titanic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft diluted only marginally by some images. Titanic people who have Wikipedia articles are already listed in the RMS Titanic article, or they could be in a category. -- RHaworth 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Listcruft filled with non-notable people. I agree with the nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You only want to remember the first-class snobby gits then? Brent Ward 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't a memorial tombstone. Though I wouldn't mind knowing the name of the guy who drowned because Jack and Rose couldn't save him. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Corvus cornix 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not with the fact the list contains nn people, but rather this reads more like a memorial. Only a web link to a list like that in the parent article should be enoughJForget 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I also hate listings that are "Lastname, First"; it's just too hard to read, even if it makes alphabetization easier. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for a number of reasons. #1: No damn excuse for not citing to anything. I remember a list of the victims -- all 1,517 of them -- in the appendix of A Night to Remember, the first great book about the disaster. #2: This is a list of the PASSENGERS and CREW, with no distinction between who survived and who perished. #3: There were more than 2,200 people on board, and about 1,517 died... all scanned in, but is there any insight as to who any of these poor souls were? It's as offensive as when James Cameron said "I'm the King of the World", then asked everyone to bow their heads at the Academy Awards in memory of the victims... Finally, #4: What's next, a list of everyone who was at the office on 9/11? Mandsford 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm its new, i was gonna include that later! Give it longer than three days--Brent Ward 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Mandsford has argued. The division by point of embarkation simply makes it clear this is indiscriminate. I am inclusionist with lists that at least have a rationale; this does not. (Encyclopedic would list survivors and victims, for example. I note that Casualties of the RMS Titanic sinking was successfully prodded. I might have argued against that at AFD, but I'm not inclined to DRV either.)--Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate listcruft --Breno ^talk 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: the primary author of the page seems not to understand Wikipedia sourcing, however the information on the list is notable and useful. The complete list is a more important list than the list only of passengers with Wikipedia articles. --Pleasantville 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It took me ages to do that! --Brent Ward 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So how about people help this fellow source this list rather than dumping on him for not following all the WP acronyms. It's not like this material is defamatoy. (I would myself, except I have this reservation at a beach motel . . . )

This would be more in the spirit of WP:BITE than the above discussion. --Pleasantville 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh but im not biting im just saying stop slagging it off; its only just been made; im gonna do it all professional like with tables and pictures, where i can find em. --Brent Ward 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Pleasantville meant that the AfD regulars should go easy on you, not the other way around. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Does someone have a principled response to the question: how is this different from List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which has survived Afd? While a certain essay says other crap exists is not a good argument to keep, but another essay WP:RECENT argues that if we keep the recent we should be especially keen to keep the documented past. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My response might not be principled but I'll just say it, despite any flaming I might get for it: It's not different. That AFD clearly survived because people mistakenly believe wikipedia is a memorial service of some kind. Plus, they don't want to be politically incorrect. Give it 6 months for emotions to cool down, and everyone who registered for the sake of promoting their friend's postmortem "fame" to leave, and that list will go too. A list of victims of every tragedy that took place is just plain inconceivable. Bulldog123 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I see your point on the VT list, I have to point out the lists are a little different to each other. VT have the name, age, location, and discription of injury for each victim, along with 90-odd newspaper references for the article. Titanic does not have anything more than the person's name, and besides the passengers and crew who already have their own article, it is very unlikely that this list will ever be made more detailed and sourced. Not for 2,200 of them. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, im working on that; I'm doing lots of work on building articles about Titanic passengers Brent Ward 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Put references and other stuff. I have seen many other lists of people in Wikipedia. I understand that they are many not-notable people in there but many other lists are worse. It's an interesting list after all. -- Magioladitis 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't know that this article exsisted, and I am currently working on a List of passengers on my talk page. I'd like to know whether or not I should just stop working on mine. I have a primary source (Encyclopedia Titanica) and I've been trying to include important information like names and links to passengers who are listed in the category box, and whatnot. I'm going to keep working until I have some sort of consensus. In addition, the passenger list on that page is one from Col. Archibald Gracie's book, and unfortunately full of errors (mixing up families and listing adults as children and vice versa, including people who were not passengers, duplicating people who are known by two names and some other errors) Morhange 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh Morhange, please keep going with you're list; its far superior to mines, which is just a name Brent Ward 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So, Morhange, you agree that the article must stay, don't you? A list with the passengers must be in Wikipedia. After that the quality and the accuracy of the article depends on the editors. -- Magioladitis 08:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, I agree it should stay, provided it has more information, ie listing who survived and who did not, etc. This is what I am attempting with mine. Morhange 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, The sinking of the Titanic is a major, world-famous historical event, and there is no reason not to recognise and acknowledge those who were involved, as those of any other major historical event would be. Instead, improvements should be made to the current article, providing more detailed and accurate information, Morhange is on the right track with the article she is currently working on.Nips 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Listcruft is not policy, and this list doesn't even appear to meet the criteria set out by Listcruft. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this is a discussion, not everything that is mentioned has to be policy. I'm guessing that whoever did put "listcruft" is just citing it because it sums up their beliefs on such lists, rather than using it to point out some type of policy violation. But for the record, keeping this list really does open up a can of worms, because now List of MIT graduates is VERY well supported for creation. A huge amount of MIT graduates are famous enough to have a wikipedia article, so according to everyone, I guess it's ok that 80% are non-notables. Bulldog123 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why not article seems fine, if anything reformat. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - looks useful (to Titanic enthusiasts), would be even more so if it was class="wikitable sortable" so that people could analyse by each of the fields of the table. PamD 09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm interested by this ideology that everything potentially useful merits an article. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Take a look to that list List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 that has never nominated for deletion. for the four lists mentioned until now (victims of a massacre, MIT graduates, casualties, passengers of titanic) i find the latter the most interesting and worthy to be in Wikipedia. Maybe we can put some statistics instead (e.g. how many passengers in each class, men-women, etc) but i still find the full list quite interesting. I would vote delete if a ever a list with MIT graduates appears and i think the list with the victims must be deleted. Magioladitis 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Important historical fact.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary of Eureka Seven

Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is just a plot summary. By design, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, goes beyond the point of helpfulness into trivial minutia. --tjstrf talk 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. My God, is this ever indiscriminate. This page probably got ravaged by a whole bunch of otaku who obsess over every detail (not that I have anything against otaku, mind you)... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Just like to point out that's not what the "indiscriminate" in "indiscriminate information" means. It's referring to Wikipedia reserving the right to discriminate against classes of information. --tjstrf talk 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any number of articles deleted as indiscriminate collections of information indicate that the prohibition against indiscriminate collections of information applies at the article level. Otto4711 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Why don't the editors just nominate a bunch of "Plot of..." articles together, instead of indivual nominations? Or is that against the rules? There's still Plot of Fairy Tail, Plot of Highschool of the Dead, Plot of Naruto: Shippūden and Plot of Rurouni Kenshin to consider. Maybe even the Dragon Ball sagas.--Nohansen 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply and Agree with delete - I was considering doing this, but was not sure if it would be ethical to clump them all together, so did not go through with it.--十八 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Do it! Nuke as many plot summaries as you can find! I think the dragonball sagas might be a little more controversial since they contain more than a plot summary, but everything else just nuke from orbit. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PLOT. My only concern with any sort of mass nomination is that it'll get people calling for a keep because of the fact of its being a mass nom. Otto4711 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the very reason indicated by Otto, i.e. mass nominations of these plot points. Perhaps instead a separate policy discussion should occur or instead of deletions, these sorts of things should result in merges or redirects, as I'd really hate to see factual work done by multiple editors just tossed like a bad salad! --164.107.222.23 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter that people put in a lot of work, WP:EFFORT. Merging isn't reasonable since the articles are forks to allow more plot to be included. As for redirecting, "Plot Summary of Eureka Seven" is an unlikely search term. People unfamiliar with Wikipedia wouldn't search for something so complicated, and those familiar with Wikipedia know these types of pages aren't supposed to exist. Jay32183 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The policy discussion has already taken place and consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Eureka Seven and transwiki somewhere (WikiBooks?) 70.55.86.129 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NAT#PAPER doesn't override anything else in WP:NOT. Summary style doesn't solve the problem that this article is only plot. Jay32183 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary duplicate of List of Eureka Seven episodes and a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Some of the other details can be merged elsewhere, or a separate (manga) article can be split off from the main article to cover the differences between the anime and the manga. However, I think most of these sections already fall afoul of WP:NOR. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death yell

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

Original essay about a yell on an occasion of someone's death. Also, google gives nothing meaningful for the term itself `'Miikka 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, completely original research essay of an evident neologism. I must also laugh at how the "references" are cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- It should be re-named Death Knell, the more common term. Move? Bearian 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE!!! - totally OR. Clarityfiend 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an article about an expression of grief, within the context of movies/tv/fiction. It's unencyclopedic, original research, unreferenced. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I have always wondered why movie characters always seem to do this when someone is tragically slain, but while this article is entertaining it is not encyclopedic, referenced or even particularly informative. Euryalus 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Euryalus that the article is very entertaining but it is simply not encyclopedic. Naufana : talk 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Naufana. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The actual concept of a death yell as a mourning ritual may have been studied by anthropologists. However, this article is, practically speaking, "Death yells in popular culture", and we have sufficient precedent for deleting that type of article. cab 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbeam Studios Entertainment

Crossbeam Studios Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this and related articles about their software Orb, Thorn and Midnight (see links in article). When they have reliable sources saying they exist and are newsworthy, then they can create articles, until then it has no point to be here. DreamGuy 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and DreamGuy --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:02, 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? 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .NET Academic Developer Group at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology

.NET Academic Developer Group at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently NN student organisation. I can't see that taking part in some Microsoft-sponsored student competitions makes it notable, but sources are tricky to find given the unwieldy name and the language barrier. There may also be the possibility of merging to Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless they came up with the coolest .NET web-app ever, they can't really be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 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 to Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699). Anas ^talk? 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area Code 656

Area Code 656 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nomination --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per nom. John Vandenberg 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't speedy, as violations of WP:NOT are not speedyable. However, all it does is give instructions on how to dial a number in Juarez from the US - and we're not an instruction manual for using your telephone, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - covered in Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699). The 656 article doesn't give any more meaningful information than the 600-699 list gives. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to Ciudad Juarez, geez we don't need separate articles for area codes.JForget 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the location served by this area code, or to the list article mentioned by Elkman above. -- saberwyn 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699) 70.55.86.129 04:45, 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 Speedy Delete (A7) —Xezbeth 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shannon Felton

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

Reason: Clear vanity page. No evidence or IMDB entry.Espn232 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I could not find evidence of this person on IMDB nor most anywhere else on internet. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:03, 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 Speedy delete, article nuked by User:Xezbeth. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amerika's next top model

Amerika's next top model (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Need more sources Blah 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete While the above is generally not a good reason to nominate for deletion, THIS IS: non-notable, no reliable sources(only ones I could find are for the similarly named Dutch version of the Tyra Banks show), I can't even find a source for Hannah Lockhart. Smells hoaxy, but I'll reserve judgement on that.--Ispy1981 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, and we don't even need a redirect to America's Next Top Model.--Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the page says it's fictional. Wikipedia isn't a place for fiction. Nyttend 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. No sources, OR. Corvus cornix 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely a hoax. Not a real thing. I have tagged the article with {{hoax}} as well. Astrale01^talk_contribs 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - hoaxes count as disruption. DreamGuy 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious hoax. Acalamari 21:25, 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? 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamically Distributed Democracy

Dynamically Distributed Democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Repost of a deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reposting a proded article is equivalent to contesting the proposed deletion, so {{db-repost}} does not apply. Keep the AfD on the article's merits, ignore the prior deletion. Prodego ^talk 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• My bad, didn't know it was nuked as the result of a prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fairly obvious gibberish, Google turns up nothing helpful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not seem relevant in my option enough to warrant a full Wikipedia article. If there is something worth noting in the paper it can be referenced in the appropriate article. Electiontechnology 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be nothing but self promotion. No citations besides the minor conference papers listed. --Beaker342 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; nothing of relevance or value, just self promotion Elmo 21:12, 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 Speedy Delete —Xezbeth 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert midgley

Herbert midgley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I felt uncomfortable about speedying this, so I'll put it here. Hopefully someone will recognise it for a CSD A7 candidate and zap it. —Xezbeth 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Tagged it as a7. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Not a speedy It asserts notability, unlikely as it is. If it's a hoax, it cant be a speedy. I removed the tag. DGG 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Definitely not notable. Nyttend 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO - no reliable secondary sources establishing notability. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm surprised that User:DGG removed the Speedy Deletion tag? I wonder why... Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - should have been a speedy delete.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll delete this as a WP:SNOW, no point wasting any more time on this. —Xezbeth 21:22, 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 boldly redirected by myself to Gunter's measurement. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunther chain

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

This is a redundant page. Compare with Gunter's chain. It also contains a substantial uncredited quote from http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~hals/hals_009.htm , the complete second paragraph Zhochaka 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gunter's measurement. Zagalejo 19:53, 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 wasmerged each of the articles had a summary section which gave an overview of the periods and included information beyond just a plot summary. I have moved each of these sections into the article History of General Hospital and redirected the period articles to it. Gnangarra 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of General Hospital

History of General Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

History of General Hospital (1963-1969) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

History of General Hospital (1970-1979) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

History of General Hospital (1980-1989) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

History of General Hospital (1990-1999) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

History of General Hospital (2000-2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

General Hospital/Current Storyline List (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete all - Wikipedia is not for soap opera plot summaries. Otto4711 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all- Why alienate editors/readers who are interested in this stuff so long as it is verfiable and concerns a major television show? --164.107.222.23 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Because Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, it may be useful to fans, but Wikipedia is not a General Hospital fansite. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't like detailed plot summary articles, but this is enormously better than the articles on individual episodes. I think this much discussion of the plot is altogether appropriate on Wikipedia, because it is part of what i suppose we have to call the cultural heritage. The alternative is to put the whole thing into one immense article on the show as a whole, or to rely on the articles for the individual characters. relying on the characters means telling the plot twenty times over. DGG 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Or, we could just delete these for being flagrant policy violations and, should someone god forbid start writing plot summaries for every episode of a soap opera delete those too. Otto4711 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per DGG - Ranma9617 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. After looking at one of the articles, I think NOTPLOT is being misapplied. That policy cites articles that are "solely a summary of that work's plot." In this case, I saw analysis, ratings figures, and other context. Yes, there was a lot of plot, but consider that most shows only have around 22 episodes a year; daytime soaps run five days a week (without reruns?), and these articles are summing up a decade's worth of shows at a time. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - shouldn't you look at all the articles and not just one before saying you want them all kept? Otto4711 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - I figured that the other ones would be much the same, but I take your point. So I just looked at the 1990-1999 article, and it can't be accused of being a plot summary at all. I've gone on to look at the rest. 1963-69 is framed by an overview section, and the size of the plot section seems reasonable for six or seven years worth of storylines. 1970-1979 and 1980-1989 have analysis and context, and admittedly huge plot synopses, but as I've said, ten years of plot is being summed up. If you think it's too much, a radical editing cut would be better than total deletion. 2000-2007 seems much like the 1963-1969 article. But I agree that it would be a good idea for everyone in this discussion to see the articles for themselves before commenting. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think a summary along the lines of Star Trek would be more appropriate. Corpx 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• After all the times you've offered this and all the times you've been shot down over it, you really ought to know by now that PAPER is not a free pass for articles. Whatever the storage medium, articles must still meet relevant policies and guidelines to be retained. Otto4711 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just plot summary here, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note - while not 100% dispositive, a similar series of articles for All My Children was just deleted. Otto4711 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children, Wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries. Whether its episode-by-episode or season by season, I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for them. WP:FICT states that "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them." I think this article is in gross violation of that line. It also goes along to say "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article rather than standing alone as an article.", which this article also violates. Corpx 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there a General Hospital Wiki where this can all be moved too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton^talk 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Shields (ophthalmologist)

Carol Shields (ophthalmologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talk • contribs)

• Delete, non-notable ophthalmologist, possible vanispamicruftiwhatchamacallit. Also, don't forget to sign your posts, especially in deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She is Professor of Ophthalmology at Thomas Jefferson University, and a position like this is almost certain to be notable.- I cannot tell from the site whether she is actually the head of its oncology service, which would add further notability The details of the many books which are mentioned should be added to the article, complete with some book reviews to indicate their significance. (And, to establish the importance of the work in general, some articles talking about it. With the claimed career, it should easily be possible.) It would be good to establish this before writing /rewriting an article on Jerry Shields, or trying to do a combined article. CS has a very brief web page at the hospital, JS does not.DGG 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*Very Weak Delete - nothing claimed that shows she is notable per WP:PROF; if evidence to the contrary is produced I'll gladly change my mind. Just because the subject has tenure doesn't mean she's notable. And I'll do just that - keep, 54 co-authored oncology papers and what (appears) to be a notable text (Atlas of Orbital Tumors) does it for me - the article needs a good bit of work; however and its not my field so I'll leave it to others. Bigdaddy1981 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not tenure--agreed, associate professors are not necessarily notable--full professors at major universities are in the top ranks of their profession, are more notable than the average professor, and have invariably published multiple notable works. I will improve the article though to show it if nobody gets there first; it does need improvement to show it more fully. DGG 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its becoming extremely annoying. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Line (boy band)

Northern Line (boy band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Flop pop band. Small claim to fame as one of the members is contending on Big Brother (UK). Unsourced. Merge with Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Ziggy? Dalejenkins 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. They charted on the UK charts three times, easily passing criterion #2 of WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs sources, but scoring three hits in the UK is by far a claim to notability. Should be moved to Northern Line (band). Chubbles 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Move made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although they didn't have huge success at the time, there's a possibility that they may have greater success after Big Brother has finished. So, the deletion should at least be postponed until a suitable period after this series of Big Brother has finished.--90.198.233.65 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:BAND — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing credits of Another World

Closing credits of Another World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - while Another World is certainly a notable show, that does not mean that every aspect of the show, such as its closing credits, is notable. Otto4711 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory of information. Eddie 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Come on now. Really? Surely anything notable here can be handled in the parent article. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nominator. DreamGuy 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, because at a minimum this material is encyclopedic enough to be in the main article. --164.107.222.23 03:43, 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? 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wave a dead chicken

Wave a dead chicken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A computer jargon definition with no possibility of expansion. Violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Clarityfiend 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. A google search only reveals references in various online dictionaries (often devoted to computer or tech slang). I did not see references in reliable, secondary sources. A google news search for the phrase resulted in zero hits. If secondary sources establishing that this is a notable neologism are added in the next few days maybe we could keep it, otherwise it should be deleted.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per here. Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I really, really want to say keep - the rationale here is that the Jargon File is (ostensibly) not populated by neologisms. Problem, though, is that while this isn't really a neologism, it's still a dicdef. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not dictionary, not neologism, unless it can be a full article, see above. Bearian 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per various criteria inc WP:NOT#DICT and WP:ATT EyeSerene^TALK 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikitionary this is a purely dictionary post.Dan Gluck 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cultural references to Apocalypse Now

List of cultural references to Apocalypse Now (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a directory of loosely associated topics that are not made significant as a result of having Apocalypse Now mentioned. This is essentially a list of trivia that has been put together by the editors themselves. Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I love the smell of deletion in the morning... Carlossuarez46 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh god, please don't quote the film, people will use it as an excuse to keep the article. Delete per nom, WP:TRIV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, the rest of the usual alphabet soup. Otto4711 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know what's funny, I was going to say the same thing, Otto. Of course, I think it's accepted in AfDs to make joke commentaries on the challenged article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that comment was itself a joke. Maybe it should be added to the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself. If you want to add it, better hurry, cause it looks like it's going bye-bye. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, OR, unsourced, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research, loose collection of trivia. As with these lists in general, much of this goes far afield. Example: "The X-Files episode "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" contains a sequence that is modeled after Captain Willard's briefing near the beginning of the film." Huh, it does? There's no source for this and unless there are production notes verifying this is true, mere similarity does not mean that one scene was "modeled" after the other. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., and all.--JayJasper 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete total trivia. Dannycali 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avari Press

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

Company not notable. Page appears to be half vanity, half advert. Sapph42 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to establish notability. VERY small press with two, maybe three books in its stable and two authors.--Ispy1981 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Author has been spamming new articles related to this publisher for the last hour or so without yet providing any reliable sources for verification or asserting notability. Suspect it's an SPA. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- creator is almost certainly an SPA for Avari Press. Fails WP:CORP. -- Merope 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this publisher has (according to their website) only produced two books, from two authors. John Vandenberg 03:46, 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 Keep. The previous two AfDs are both suspect. Stubification has also softened the POV concerns. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Magee (journalist)

Mike Magee (journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a recreation of a deleted article. I originally nominated it for deletion with the following reasons: "This is a biography of a living person, yet there are no reliable third party sources cited whatsoever. I don't believe such sources exist, so this article will always be in violation of WP:BLP." The sourcing for the new attempt is no better than it was before. Many biographical details have no supporting sources whatsoever. The article should be redeleted and salted to prevent re-creation. GlassFET 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As you can see I've deleted the vast majority of the article as it existed when GlassFET nominated it (including basically all of the biographical details) which were, as GlassFET pointed out, completely unsourced. I think this actually makes it easier to decide whether we ought to delete this or not as we can focus solely on the notability of the subject and not all of the occult stuff added in without sources. Clearly there are now no WP:BLP violations so that is no longer a valid reason for deletion. If someone can provide sources for the stuff I deleted obviously it could be added back in, though I think we should see if it survives AfD first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and salt. No sources, violates WP:BLP, already deleted through AfD once. Heavy on the salt, please. Realkyhick 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Maybe I'm missing something, but as the creator of two tech web sites about which we have articles it would be seem this guy is worthy of a short article. I only support a keep if essentially all of the article is deleted except the lead. He also was named one of the 100 most influential people in England in terms of e-commerce (or something) in the list here (which is cited in the article) though I don't know if being recognized by e-consultancy.com means much (it seems that a lot of people weighed in on the list of 100 people though). Anyhow, Magee seems to pass notability so I think it's worth deleting most of the content here and then keeping it, though I could be persuaded otherwise. I don't think salting makes much sense since he is clearly on the cusp of notability at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote, I think Magee is notable enough for a stub at the least. Any new material added in needs obviously to be sourced though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- Eddie 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Bigtimepeace. Not meaning to stoop to the Pokemon defense, but if articles on material he has created exist, I think it's reasonable to keep his entry. --Milton 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am as puzzled as Bigtimepeace. The details are obviously way excessive, but the career as described is notable--the two publications certainly are. Being editor of a significant publication is a major factor in notability. There are even RSs, though I'm not sure how much of the article they in fact support. The section on the Occult certainly can't stand without sources. DGG 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Notability is not inheritable, so other articles about things he created already exist and so no reason for this article. It was already deleted once, it should not be recreated in defiance of our policies. If people feel strongly about it, they should go to the deletion review section and not encourage such defiance. DreamGuy 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There were only 2 votes for the previous deletion which I contend cannot really demonstrate a consensus - especially after a previous keep consensus. Subject is notable. The previous deletion of this article managed to get into the top stories of a Google News search (admittedly because the subject wrote an article about it but I think that just proves the notability...). Citizensmith 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Also in the first AfD, when many participated as opposed to three people in the second one, the result was overwhelmingly keep. The main reason cited for delete in the last one was lack of reliable sources. As I read them, the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion allow a new version of an old article to be re-created if the problem with the old one was lack of content or bad content. I don't think the stub version that I (drastically) pared this article down to has the same problem the long version does--i.e. it is adequately sourced since it makes very limited claims about the subject. In sum I don't think this article as it now stands defies the previous AfD and thus should not be deleted out of hand, but rather only if we decide the subject does not pass WP:BIO.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I voted "weak delete" last time because although I thought he had a claim to notability, we were pretty close to 100% primary sources and I was unable to find any additional significant secondary sources. I'm amenable to a stub based on the notability of founding two major publications, but I see the sourcing issue as an ongoing problem with this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable work with The Reg and The INQ. —Ashley Y 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Bigtimepeace. Kreca 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable journalist, probably one of top ten IT-journalists worldwide. Article needs expanding and better sourcing, though. DLX 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted and moved to User:Shalom/Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Silanian in my personal BJAODN. If anyone seriously objects to this action, please let me know. I did my due diligence checking the references. The book by Paul Newman is well-known, but the other two do not exist. I did a Google search for the authors of those books, and it came up empty, and a book cannot be written if there is no author. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silanian

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

Description of a dubious language.I smell hoax. Not a single trace in google for anything specific and seachable. `'Miikka 16:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plies (rapper)

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

Artist not yet notable per WP:MUSIC, no references or sources. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Videmus Omnia 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No albums have been released yet. Shalom ^Hello 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply by exception 1; the album has a release date. What's more, his first single, "Shawty", is already out. --Stlemur 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per nom and also fails WP:BAND Upon reviewing additional material added I change my opinion to keep. It does appear the gentleman is notable. Bigdaddy1981 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment a large portion of this article had been removed by vandals. He wrote a hit song that went to #17 on the Billboard chart and was arrested for a multiple shooting. I re-added that section, I think that asserts his notability. --AW 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Plus his other single has charted on three American charts. --AW 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, he satisfies criterion #2 of WP:MUS#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (as he's charted on not one, but three major U.S. music charts), and criterion #1 of WP:MUS#Criteria for composers and lyricists (as he's written a song for another notable act). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per TPH. Satisfies two of the criteria for WP:MUSIC and, if nothing else, satisfies notability for the nontrivial coverage of the multiple shooting incident.--Ispy1981 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak-Keep but only as he created songs for Akon feat.Snoop Doggy-Dogg, but certainly not as musician.JForget 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability clearly established by hit single. Chubbles 03:55, 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 `'Miikka 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocational high schools

Vocational high schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very short article which is redundant to Vocational school vlad§inger ^tlk 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This should just be redirected to Vocational school. johnpseudo 16:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Cote

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

Non-notable politician. Article reads like a campaign news release for a candidate who has yet to win his party's nomination. May become notable if he wins, but that time is not now. Wikipedia is not a place to post campaign material. Nothing else to indicate notability. Realkyhick 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. All mentions of him in the press are peripheral, as part of a list of all candidates in the race. johnpseudo 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete,per all of the above, without prejudice to recreating the article if he wins.--Ispy1981 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, let me hasten to add that this article should be restored (though it needs a bit of a rewrite) if he wins his primary. Realkyhick 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Per nom. However, no objection to its recreation if he wins. In that case, it will need a rewrite. ffm ✎talk 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEPhe is notable even if he loses.. He is now part of the history of his state. and should be kept.Callelinea 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete the lede mistakenly calls him the Democratic candidate, but he won't be that till he wins the nomination (there's a field of 5 or 6). If he gets that far, I am prepared to argue that a losing major party candidate for Congress is N, though that may not be the consensus. I doubt he's notable otherwise, in the absence of sources--would would be needed in any case. DGG 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable - if he wins then recreate. Bigdaddy1981 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Bigdaddy1981. Rklawton 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Rklawton. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I corrected the nomination mistake. I also added links, most importantly a local news story about the Mosul bombing. Adam is the only candidate in the race without a page and I'm sure several people have checked wikipedia for one. Adam is notable for the fact that only one current member of congress has served in Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sickel2 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, being elected to high national office is often notable, wanting to get elected is not, wanting to get into an election even less so. Weregerbil 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per DGG. If he gets poll numbers or the nomination, next year, he's notable. Now he's an also-wanna-run. Been there, done that, doesn't make me notable. Bearian 16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three other candidates for this congressional seat (Ethan Strimling, Michael Brennan, and Chellie Pingree) already have pages. If the criteria for notability requires people to have already won minor political office, this greatly disadvantages non-politicians running for office. Once a candidate has newspaper articles consistently written about him or her in state-wide papers, I think it's fair to say that person is just as notable as any state legislator, especially those notable only for losing elections to higher office. Adam Cote has raised 100,000 for this congressional primary race. This is a substantial amount for a congressional primary race in Maine and is a signal that he is a strong contender despite the fact that he has never held minor political office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickel2 (talk • contribs) Please take into account the amount of traffic this article is currently getting in deciding whether or not to delete it. Also please accept my apology for not signing my comments. I am new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by sickel2 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: The three others listed already have pages because they achieved notability before their candidacy; namely, they held other notable political offices or similar positions (like Common Cause). Foremost, Wikipedia is not a place to wage a campaign. Traffic for this AfD nomination is largely a measure of how obvious the case to delete or keep is — borderline cases tend to get few votes because people can't make up their mind. Realkyhick 21:43, 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 Keep by means of unanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dromedary (band)

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

Notability not referenced or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep multiple hits under the group's ACTUAL name, Dromedary Quartet, suggest this is a notable jazz group. If kept, I suggest renaming the article to reflect the name "Dromedary Quartet"--Ispy1981 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: as mentioned in the article there is both a duo and a quartet. -MrFizyx 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I posted the article sometime ago and haven't gotten around to sourcing it yet. They have been extensively covered in reliable sources (e.g. see All About Jazz, The Washington post, Sing Out!, The Harvard Independent, etc. etc. They have toured in Europe and the U.S. I will try to add a few references--possibly as a "further reading" section until I can get back to this. It would have been more kind of you and more efficient of you to slap on {{unreferenced}} rather than bringing this to an AfD. -MrFizyx 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Detailed "further reading" section added. Includes reviews from All Music Guide, Washington Post. Profiles of the band, etc. -MrFizyx 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Some "stuff" that maybe saved the article was added. Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as sources have been added. Chubbles 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -Looks appropriate now. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:22, 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? 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dabanand

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

Fails WP:BIO, Google returns nothing ChrisLamb 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Barest assertion of notability in the article. I've thought 18 to 20 seconds on this one... and it's delete as non-notable and per nom. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought about 18 to 20 milliseconds. This should've been speedied. Realkyhick 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, searching turns up nothing. John Vandenberg 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete but not speedy--there are two possible claims of notability, as a businessman & as a spiritual leader--the claim of spending 18 to 20 hour per day in thinking only is not a bona fide claim of notability.DGG 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, It is a joke or hoax played by someone. Perhaps that person confused Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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? 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friday hat

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

I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation Chesdovi 14:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious delete Even if this is a common term (which I doubt), then this info should be in yarmulke, not in its own page. nadav (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As made up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. MartinDK 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't believe this has been around for so long.--DLand^TALK 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, likely ethnic slur if anything, but definitely a neolgism. Realkyhick 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete You've got to be kidding. Shalom ^Hello 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like it came from urban dictionary, and made it into wikt [15]. John Vandenberg 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like this article has been around since 2005, way before that wikt edit. Eventualism sure seems to be slow at times... nadav (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending more sources or merge into Kippah. I have heard this phrase before. --Eliyak T·C 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I think I've heard this or read it online but more about the fedora worn by some Hasidic (all week lnog, I guess, in actuality). But I find no convincing sources that would even allow a merge. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense --Yeshivish 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isabel S. Martinez

Isabel S. Martinez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nom - fails WP:BIO regional interest at best. Rklawton 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepRegionally notable. Additionally, As I have stated in previous AfD I believe that wikipedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive especially regarding to bios. Callelinea 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in the interests of disclosure, I note that Callelinea is the author of this article. Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Non-notable. I'm willing to change my mind if more reliable sources can be found. All I see here are two genealogical books, 1 link showing she exists, 1 link to the minutes of a school board meeting, and a Miami Herald article from 7 years ago, and I lost my copy of that.--Ispy1981 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Ispy1981 stole my thunder. Realkyhick 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm evil like that. =D.--Ispy1981 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable person Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of WP:BIO notability.--Dali-Llama 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT OTHER ARTICLES ARE JUST AS WEAK AND BASED ON THE STRICT INTERPEDTATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED SUCH AS John F. Collins HE HAS A ONE LINE ENTRY AND IS OBVIOUSLY A REGIONAL NOTABLE PERSON. MY ARTICLE WAS PICKED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN VANDALISED OVER 10 TIMES. IF IT WAS NEVER VANDALISED IT WOULD NEVER OF BEEN BROUGHT UP FOR DELEATION. Also It was reviewed by User:Warlordjohncarter when he reviewed it for Wikiproject Cuba and Wikiproject Biography and he at that moment did not feel it merited to be deleated. This process was only started after the numerious times it was vandalizedCallelinea 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Collins was the mayor of Boston for eight years. That's pretty notable. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but his notability is obvious. If you've got others you would like to list, please do so. I promise to review them, and if you are correct about them, I'll nominate them for deletion, too. Rklawton 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • According to WP:Bio"Politicians:Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." based on what is in the article now John F. Collins should be deleated. Mrs Martinez article was also named a stub by an editor and is now being requested that it be deleated because it is a stub. Callelinea 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • First, after 8 years as mayor of Boston, there is little doubt that someone might have thought to write and publish at least one article about him. The article needs a lot of work, but it's obvious he's notable. I was rather hoping you might add to the list of non-notable biographies. Any luck with that? Second, I did not nominate this article for deletion because it was a stub. I told you repeatedly that it needed to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO (stubbiness has nothing to do with it), and you promised to add such information to the article. And you did add to the article, and you have five more days to add to the article. However, what you've added so far fails to address our biography guidelines. And that's why your article has been nominated for deletion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note A number of family members also have biographies on Wikipedia; some look mildly notable, e.g. Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, but others do not, such as Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo. If others agree that some others should land on Afd, I suggest they be listed after this Afd is finished so that Callelinea (talk · contribs) can work on improving them on one at a time. John Vandenberg 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - that is a very good suggestion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as Callelinea says, some of these have been vandalised for some reason (for instance the Raul L. Martinez article has a strange - I assume vandal created - preface that purports him to be a sponge diver) . Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the better of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Callelinea, honestly, slightly more than half of me wishes there was no notability guidelines. I enjoy writing well sourced articles about obscure topics that some people consider not worthy of recording. That said, the project is a group effort and the consensus is that notability is required. Notability is useful in keeping a lot of trash out of Wikipedia. This means I have had to endure a number of Afd's for articles that I have written; each time I have had to improve the articles content in order to demonstrate to others that the article is valuable to the encyclopedia.(I think I have lost one or two) More importantly, WP:BLP has gained traction, and it requires that BIO's must be sourced extremely well (using inline citations helps), and personal details that have not been published in secondary sources must be removed. You are free to continue to expand this bio in order to demonstrate notability; ultimately, the admin makes the final decision. John Vandenberg 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I wish others would view Wikipedia like I do.. I remember when I was young and I would be doing research on many topics or persons that I would hear about or read about in a book or a paper and try to find something on them in an encyclopedia and not find anything, because they were not "notable" enough to be placed there. I was hoping wikipedia could of been that place, but alas I am afraid it is not. Callelinea 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, it is the biggest encyclopedia ever written, so we working towards your goal. And in 10 years time, when we have written about all the notable things that people can think of, maybe consensus will change and we can start writing about less notable stuff. John Vandenberg 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not start now. and vote to keep the article.. I have been going threw all the bios for deletion and and after reading them, if I feel they might have the minimum of notability I vote to keep them.. It has to start with someone saying yes.Callelinea 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• How about the article Ben Weinberger all it shows is external links but no articles written on this person. If he is so notable why is there nothing written on him? I only mention him because RKlawton was involved in the article.. So I would like to know what makes this "actor" notable, while this attorney for various municipalities and for one of the largest school boards not notable? Callelinea 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - some individuals join this project with their own ideas about how it should go. However, this isn't their project. It's Jimbo Wales' project. You follow the path he set down, or you go your own way. He'll even give you the wiki software to use for free. Best wishes, and no hard feelings! Oh, and you're right on that other point. I've only just lately been reading up on our standards for actors (you'll have noticed that if you've reviewed my last week's edit history). We should add the Weinberger article to the deletion list. I have no objection. Rklawton 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I will include it as an AFD today if no-one else does. Bigdaddy1981 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry you guys just do not get at what I am trying to say. Be inclusive. Callelinea 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your point - I just don't agree with it. Bigdaddy1981 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm as inclusive as they let me be but this really has no claims to notability in an encyclopedic sense. A partner in a local law firm (the firm conceivably might be notable, but there's no article). "one of the youngest ...to represent the Miami school board" in my mind is not a claim to any credible form of notability. (even if she were the youngest)--that would lead to an article for the oldest also, or the first or only [ ] to represent an individual client. She's not even the principal attorney for the board, just one of seven. DGG 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: the sources seem indiscriminate or trivial, and would be usable for the bio details, but not for notability. DGG 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as ridiculously unnotable. Accomplishment in life is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One could argue that some of your bios that you created don't pass the test. Such as the VP son-in-law, that you claim because he is related to the VP and in government he should be in Wikipedia. Mrs. Martinez is the daughter-in-law of the former mayor of Hialeah (24 years mayors) and now has various governments contracts. I think that would merit inclusion based on what you wrote about the VP son-in-law.Callelinea 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that I will probably lose this fight to keep this article included in Wikipedia and I am probably making enemies by pointing out double standards to the people who are voting against my article. But I still feel that if this article was not vandalised as often as it has been it would not be up for a vote. Plus I feel that more articles are good for Wikipedia. Where if you read a paper and some insignifcate thing is mentioned you can look it up in Wikipedia and find more info on that subject. I don't think anyone will ever get me to change my mind about that. Callelinea 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article presents interesting facts, which I'm not doubting, but I don't see what's notable about her. And comment: The creator's comments are detrimental to his cause; Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Nyttend 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable per WP:BIO -- few sources listed are of the trivial type that do not establish actual notability (some self-published book, mentioned in Neighbors section of paper, etc. = Half the country could meet that criteria). DreamGuy 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Get your info correct DreamGuy. The article in the Neighbor Section, was not a self promotion article. It was about the work that she was doing on a particular issue. If you cannot back up your comments with truths don't comment.. But of course you can vote.Callelinea 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no more regionally notable than any other attorney in Dade County. Want articles on all of them? Corvus cornix 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To Callelinea: Deletion debates, ideally, are based on policy, not what we think policy should be. That said, Callelinea might be interested in Wikipedia:Inclusionism. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM.. You guys win.. I give up.. go ahead and do what you guys think is best.. I went through this before with Henry Pollack I won that one.. This is all too draining on me..Obviously I lost this one. I disagree with most of you, but thats how the votes go.Callelinea 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Maxamegalon2000 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per discssion above as non-notable attorney, in a non-notable firm. Bearian 16:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequential proportional approval voting

Sequential proportional approval voting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Original research. Possibly a hoax. This article claims that this method has been proposed in the early 1900's; but the article doesn't give any references. It seems that this method has never been published nor been used anywhere. In any case, it is clear that the term "sequential proportional approval voting" cannot be the original name of this method, since the term "approval voting" hadn't been used before the 1970's. Yellowbeard 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Its an offshute of Proportional approval voting, delete the article and just add Sequential under examples. Warrush
• Merge with Proportional approval voting iff it can be sourced. Otherwise, delete as WP:OR. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the proportional approval voting article already has a section on sequential proportional approval voting. Yellowbeard 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• If no notability is shown with citations and mentions, but if sourced, merge to Thorvald N. Thiele or Proportional approval voting. Otherwise, delete.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - merge is not needed per Yellowbeard. Bigdaddy1981 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per this mailing list it's real and was even used in Sweden for a short time (only for party lists, though). Suggests it's possible to properly source, but perhaps not using online and/or English sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: We really need an expert in the area to take a look at this. The creator's other contributions look legitimate, so I doubt very much that it's anything other than real. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 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 Speedy Delete. Wizardman 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kantebura killas

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

Quite possible hoax; prod was removed by anonymous editor. Example of why we think it's a hoax: it claims that this band made a CD that sold nearly 144 million copies! Nyttend 13:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball speedy delete! Quite possibly complete bollocks! This is why we really need a speedy criteria for hoaxes though you could probably have gotten away with speedying this one as blatant nonsense. MartinDK 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We tried speedy-deleting it a couple of days ago, but someone thought a prod was preferable. Nyttend 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a hoax. Googling comes up with nothing.Warrush
• Speedy Delete CSD A7 anyone? Wildthing61476 14:12, 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. —Kurykh 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinderella Liao

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

It does not meet the notability requirement for a wikipedia article and the article does not have reliable un-biased sources to back up the information in the article. Nrswanson 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to failing to establish notability (See Talk), this article reads like self-promotion (or promotion by an agent). It provides no independent, verifiable published references, only the artist's own claims on her promotional web page (pasted verbatim into the article) and one interview she gave in Hawaii to promote her concert.Voceditenore 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Their not notable, therefor shouldn't have their own article. Warrush

• Delete Non-notability, zero non-trivial third party sources, and I think there's enough there directly from her website to make a case for copyvio.--Ispy1981 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Subject of article in major local newspaper. Alas, not much else. Open to changing my vote if more sources can be cited, though the article does need other work. Realkyhick 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, one brief mention in Taipei Times[16] suggests that subject's notability is limited even in Taiwan. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete changed to Weak delete (See comment below) I have been waiting to vote to see if any further evidence would be offered once the article was nominated for deletion this morning. Since then, the creator (and virtually sole editor) has removed the majority of hyperbole and unsupported assertions of "critical acclaim" and "rising star" status. But I'm afraid this does not address the issues of notability. What is left is an opening paragraph, wherein Miss Liao is defined as a "contemporary coloratura soprano in Taiwan" (no date of birth is given) who "sings opera and Broadway." and has done some modelling for "famous brands" in Taiwan.
  1. There is no evidence that she has sung a principal role in any noted opera house. In fact, she is entirely unknown in the opera world. Nor is there any evidence that she has sung in any major Broadway production, even in a minor role. The article goes on to say that she was "invited to be the prima donna in both Rossini's L'occasione fa il ladro and Puccini's La Bohème". However, the article offers no evidence that she actually performed these roles and where.
  2. She is not a noted concert artist. She has not yet sung with a major orchestra or ensemble. All her listed appearances have been with youth or university orchestras. And so far she lists only 6 such appearances. Although not listed in the article, I found on her web site, the listing of two appearances with the Dallas Li Sheng Ladies' Choir in churches in Austria and Germany wherein she sang three solos.
  3. She has not won any major (or even minor) music competitons
  4. The one recording listed (of Taiwanese folk songs) is not yet on sale and is not with a major record company. The Evergreen Orchestra in Taiwan, routinely records all their performances and sells the CDs in Taiwan to raise money for music scholarships. A link is provided to the Evergreen site.
  5. The only references offered, are the artist's own web site, her own words in an interview given to promote a concert in Hawaii, and the record listing on the Evergreen Orchestra site. The only other mention that we have been able to find was in the Taiwanese press and it was a simple announcement of a concert, amongst a list of many other events taking place that month.
  6. The article does not fulfill even one of the criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles
  7. In short, this is a possibly promising music student (one of literally thousands), who may or may not one day achieve a signicant career in music but has not done so yet. Voceditenore 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Article has been greatly improved by CaliforniaAliBaba and the creator and principle editor, Blo. POV removed as well as unsourced claims to opera performance and more references have been added. But I'm still doubtful that the press coverage cited confers notability on its own. Voceditenore 06:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Voceditenore. Additional comment is that the creator of this article, Blo, is a single use account - suggests possible vanity. Bigdaddy1981 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources can be found by searching on the Chinese name 廖英君: [17][18][19][20] (also [21] from Apple Daily, scroll down and click the article titlewith her name in it, subscription-only). Obvious WP:COI (thanks for the picture, hope you actually understood the GFDL before you agreed to licence it as such!), but should be cleaned up rather than deleted. cab 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for finding the press coverage in Chinese. I ran them through the Google translator, apart from the Apple Daily, which was subscription only. I'm afraid that one appeared to be a press release and the rest were interviews/articles promoting the singer's concert appearance in Taiwan (very similar in vein to the one in the Honolulu Advertiser promoting her appearance there), two of them were virtually identical interviews with her mother, unlikely to be an unbiased source. Voceditenore 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Trying to judge whether an article is a press release or not based on a machine translation is a rather perilous exercise. For amusement and illustration, here's your comment run through a round trip of Babelfish. Because found in news report I hurriedly penetrate Gu Ge translator, except ' apple daily paper ', this is only subscribes Perhaps this is each is a news release as if, other interview/the article to promote singer's concert to make an appearance Taiwan (extremely similarly, publicizes in her appearance in vein for in Honolulu ' advertisement ') two people nearly entirely alike to interview her the mother, is impossible is a fair origin.

Anyway, the news article from Yam.com (the most recent one) is not promoting her concert appearance, but was several years after that, as part of a series of articles on high-achieving women (again, machine translation will make this unclear by confounding the tenses, which Chinese does not really have). So again, regardless of WP:MUSIC, she looks to me to meet the primary biographic notability criterion; she is notable by virtue of having been noted. Cheers, cab 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The one that appears to be a press release is the one from hinet.com. I based it on the standard format of listing email and phone addresses for the press to contact at the end. It appeared to be for another appearance of Miss Liao - singing selections from Phantom of the Opera during the opening of a painting exhibition (her mother's?) in Taiwan on May 18, 2007. The piece from Yam.com is dated a week before that, which is why I said it was similar in vein (and purpose) to the one in the Honolulu Advertiser. But yes, it's true, she has been 'noted', albeit in rather restricted contexts, i.e. pre-concert interviews where the journalist takes her at her word concerning what she has achieved. Best, Voceditenore 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Voceditenore. -- Kleinzach 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. cab 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Voceditenore. Nrswanson 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good effort on finding the articles in chinese, but I still do not think Miss. Liao meets the notability requirement. If we include her article then we would be opening the door to thousands upon thousands of other articles on 'bright young things' who show great promise but really have not done anything noteworthy yet with their carears. I myself am an aspiring opera singer and have actually performed roles with a number of professional companies. However, I would not consider myself noteworthy enough to have an article on wikipedia because I haven't done enough yet to truly distinguish myself in the field. Miss. Liao has not won any awards, performed with major opera companies or orchestras, or really done anything of note yet in the world of classical music. She is simply a young artist with lots of potential who may or may not make it in the opera world. There's 1,000s of us out there in the same position. In other words, she's nothing special... yet.Nrswanson 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 03:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEYI National Cadet Corps (LAND)

DEYI National Cadet Corps (LAND) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page looks like the homepage of this unit of this [added per Huaiwei's comment] corps; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. No sign that this corps unit is notable. Independent sources have been requested for months, none has been provided, and I can find none online. Deprodded without comment. Pan Dan 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like their trying to advertise. Delete Deyi Secondary School too. Warrush
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion of non-notable organization. Realkyhick 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and heavy rewrite. Wikipedia should be inclusive. Prevention of editors from violatin WP:COI mandated. --Milton 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. totally non-notable organization. Wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just to give some local context, this article is about a unit of the National Cadet Corps (Singapore) at Deyi Secondary School. I dont think this can be called the homepage of the entire corps. The only way it can claim notability is if it is a significant entity in the NCC fraternity, which is not apparant from the article's content unless someone is willing to demonstrate otherwise. Even if it should be kept, the article title obviously needs to be changed to remove the full caps.--Huaiwei 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I agree with Huaiwei that the article is yet to demonstrate that it is a significant unit. The article for NCC indicates that schools may have as many as three units (land, air, sea) and we certainly dont want all units to have their own article. Notice that throughout Category:Military youth groups, there articles are all mostly about the corps rather than units. However there are exceptions; in Category:Australian Air Force Cadets, there is 315 (City Of Canberra) Squadron, which is probably also not notable. Bulldog Battalion also needs work or deletion. John Vandenberg 13:35, 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. Walton^talk 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empornium

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

Not notable does not meet WP:WEB ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

• This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]
  • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

No References to "ANY" works reliable or unreliable...!

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

No References to any awards 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:

• Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

Content is probably OK ...

^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Never mind the content, the site simply doesn't pass notability because of lack of reliable independent sources. Realkyhick 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This is one of the most heavily traffic Torrent sites on the web, but without reliable sources as stated above, it does not pass notability. I also added the tag at the top of the page since the previous AfDs became rather heavy with SPAs and sockpuppets. Wildthing61476 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Really heavy traffic ?
    • Alexa Rankings

1. 1. 1. Mininova - 143
      2. TorrentSpy - 211
      3. The Pirate Bay - 292
      4. isoHunt - 306
      5. Demonoid - 397
      6. Empornium - 1536 ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Note that the current alexa ratings are not indicative of its peek popularity, and even then that is only within the userbase of Alexa, which is often not geeks or friends of geeks. i.e. Alexa is not a good sample of the people who do the majority of the torrenting around the world. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Popularity is not a criteria, Notability backed up with independent references is, however popularity is a good indication of if it is worth searching for references or not? and you claimed "..This is one of the most heavily traffic Torrent sites on the web.." it does not appear that that is the case from a quick check, if however you have a reference to back this up.... ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • FTR, I didnt say that; I am merely commenting on the caveats of using current Alexa data to refute Wildthing61476's opinion. John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I still don't think the article needs to be kept. It appears I was mistaken with the site's popularity though. Wildthing61476 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, news and scholar results indicate it has been noted by more conservative sources. Then there are 100,000 hits and other coverage [22][23][24][25] Cheggit is a spin off of Empornium. John Vandenberg 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Cheggit has an alexa Ranking of 4632 far down the list behind the well known BitTorrent Sites? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • From the quick research I did on the two yesterday, it appears that the schism had a significant negative effect on this userbase, but it has rebounded (and has the better Alexa ranking to show for it). IMO, Cheggit is the less notable of the two, and should probably be merged into this article. It was also created by a WP:SPA, Grubby91 (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Only one of the links above is to anything more than a blog or a forum, the scholar link, and it only mentions the topic in passing. Not seeing any real quality sources. MrZaius^talk 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  fwiw, this is the text of the scholar result (google scholar shows two results but they are almost the same paper). John Vandenberg 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The actual refrence is "..some BitTorrent communities, including easytree, empornium.us, and pwtorrents.net,periodically enforce that the sharing ratios of participating members are above a minimum value..." and that's it in an 18 page article. They do not seem to have picked particularly popular or well known sites (EasyTree appears to have died)? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The academic paper doesnt need to mention the website's name continually for it to be relevant. If you read that page in full, you will see is actually categorising different torrent communities, and that mention you refer to puts this website into one category. The paper then discusses the broader topics in more detail. The point is that even an academic has considered it worthy of note and analysis. This site is no longer run the same way that it was at the time of the study, but notability isnt suddenly lost as a result. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The paper takes as examples 6 sites bt.etree.org, piratebay.org, torrentportal.com, easytree.org, btefnet.net and alluvion.org and compares and contrasts them - note these were not picked because they were notable or popular, just because they were a typical cross section (Three of these site are listed in the article as having less than 600 torrents, so they seem to have been picked as small closed community sites as opposed to the larger open sites like ThePirateBay), Empornium was mentioned once, in passing, as an example of a site that does Sharing-ratio enforcement, again not because it is notable or popular but just as a random example. ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• These clearly do not count per WP:WEB guidelines. DreamGuy 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that I am not trying to make those sources "count" per a guideline; I did some fact finding here so others could click the links and read those articles to quickly get an idea of the impact and controversy around this website. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• These references all refer to TargetPoint and make it notable, the controversy all seems to be over the takeover by Targetpoint and does not refer to the impact of Empornium? Is there something that makes Empornium notable besides this? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom 65.241.15.131 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources to establish any sort of notability. DreamGuy 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Jtrainor 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• How is it any more advertising than Slashdot? Just a thought. --Jmax- 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Slashdot at least has references (although not relable ones?) has won awards (Webby) and has on it's page links to articles about it by CNN and C/NET, and has spawned the Slashdot effect, The Empornium page appears to be an advert and nothing else? mainly ecause it does not cite sources does not show itself to notable in any way ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think Jmax- was indicating that bringing "advert" into this discussion is a bit rich. An article on Wikipedia is always an advert. As there has been over 200 edits to the article, and two Afds, it is hard to swallow that all those people have all been in the advertising game. I agree with you that the notability of this website isnt being demonstrated on the article, and it may even be weak at best simply because it reliable sources generally jump at the chance to talk about the sucesses of porn torrent sites; it doesnt sell newspapers and its a touchy subject that can potentially cause circulation numbers to drop. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The 'Advert' reference is irrelevant but notability is not, It survived the previous Afds because most of the discussion was about the content of the site (and Alexa rankings were used to support it being notable?) I don't have a problem with the content WP:CENSORED just if it is notable by WP:WEB ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of the previous Afd comments were along the line of "'Keep', no wikipedia policy being violated." That hasnt changed. OTOH, guidelines have come and gone over the two year history of this article. John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The Policy of WP:VERIFY has not changed in the last two years as far as I know? There were a few comments on the non-notability of the site but these were drowned out on the first afds by the "keep it's popular" and "don't delete it because it's porn" advocates, there were a few keeps that it did not break any Wikipedia policy but the most cited was WP:NN which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ... but there is still no references on the article showing it is notable or even popular? Get some evidence it is notable and I'll be happy to change my mind. I know quoting policy is a no-no but ... From WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." and WP:WEB "...should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Week delete* - Sources seem inadequate, especially as demonstration of note. MrZaius^talk 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep* At first I was thinking delete, but if it's been nominated this many times and such a large number of people know about it, then it's just a matter of time before you get a lot of people who want to find out a little more about the site. --Nyxxxx 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: nominated before see above, it didn't pass because it was notable... ,Where are the large number of people there are 7 people (and one IP address) in this Afd (so far) and all but two are saying delete. ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDelete Gnangarra 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7

Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7, Results of Robot Wars Tournaments and Robot Wars Merchandise for deletion. These articles have been around for a few months now and are quite frankly embarassing - they look like the sort of thing that cluttered Wikipedia in 2004, not 2007. Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, these lists have no place in Wikipedia. They're terribly formatted and cite nothing, and are shockingly amateurish. WP:V and WP:NOR may be issues as well. Instead of having these, any useful content in these could appear in a summary style in the main Robot Wars article if anyone wants to do that (such as listing the winners of each series and giving details of the merchandise without going into excessive detail like this does). Once again, strong delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Results of Robot Wars tournaments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Robot Wars Merchandise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge the merchandise article into the main Robot Wars article. That article is not overly long and can absorb this information. Tag it for sourcing and if it's not sourced, delete it from there per normal editing. Weak keep Results of Robot Wars tournaments and merge the series 7 article to it. Results tables are akin to episode lists, which are acceptable under WP:SUMMARY. That they are messy is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Otto4711 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've already merged some of it. What remains is unencyclopedic as Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository of all information.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep and I thought encyclopedias were repositories of human knowledge? --164.107.222.23 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, here we go: Delete Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7. The information is already in Results of Robot Wars tournaments. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Secondly, Delete Robot Wars Merchandise as trivia, or merge anything relevant back into Robot Wars. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

* and finally... **declaration of interest** About six months ago, various articles on Robot Wars kept cropping up in AfDs. After a slew of these, despite not being interested in the subject, I merged hundreds (it seems like) of unencyclopedic articles together to create Results of Robot Wars tournaments and List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) in order to keep the information in a vaguely encyclopedic form. (Thanks for the "shockingly amateurish" comment by the way nom, still I was new on Wiki then). The information could be merged back into the main article (messy) or deleted (not that I care, but you watch it being recreated by the fanboys). So a Keep for that one, for the sake of all our sanities. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Upon reflection, yeah, with the winners in the main article, Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, essentially to delete the merchandise article and then merge the others together. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the merch (not notable), merge the rest as the separate article are not notable standing alone. Realkyhick 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've already put the winners of each series in the main Robot Wars article; the detailed results are trivial information not necessary for an encyclopedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:21, 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 Gnangarra 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army of One (Kuwaiti Band)

Army of One (Kuwaiti Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hip-hop band. Text is biased and the article is promotional. Does not meet the criteria in WP:BAND. I found no sources in which the band was the subject. I am also nominating the following related pages: Anas ^talk? 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hush (an album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hush (Army of One song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Weak delete. If Alien Records is notable (which I don't think it is), then weak keep - they've released two albums, but is the record label notable? If not, they don't pass that criterion of WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I put an AfD template on the co-nominated article to avoid out of process deletion. MartinDK 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, thank you. I must've forgotten to do so. —Anas ^talk? 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads as advert, non-notable as Alien Records has just two signed acts - one of which consists of the characters in question (http://www.alien-records.com/sec_artists.php). Bigdaddy1981 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There has been a not-insignificant amount of contribution to this article. I had never heard of this band but perhaps it is well known in other regions. AGREED, it does read like a promotion. Perhaps a revert to and older revision (merging important changes) would work. From WP:BAND "...failure to meet any of these criteria [notability] does not mean an article must be deleted". I don't think we're qualified to judge notability of a band based in Kuwait. Any comment from the article's original author, Yafei? Tvh2k 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BAND (noting comment by Tvh2k above) and the entire first section is a copyright violation from [[26]]. Euryalus 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as author. Maybe I'll get back to this someday, but maybe not; businesspeople are kind of boring. Visviva 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of South Korean businesspeople

List of South Korean businesspeople (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant list. We already have Category:South Korean businesspeople, this list offers no additional information, and has seen no activity since its creation over a year ago. PC78 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant list with little context. No apparent limit to who could be included. Nice catch PC78 MartinDK 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Useless, basicly what pc78 said. Warrush
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates the category. Realkyhick 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican American writers. Punkmorten 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as author. Meant to do expand this using various biographical resources, but haven't done so; I suppose if I ever get around to doing it over, re-creation won't be a problem. -- Visviva 04:12, 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. Lacks evidence of notability and evidence that he played for the national team. Other articles created under different spellings will also be deleted. Debate marked by extensive disruption and sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Turkesani. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danilo Saveljič

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

• Danillo Savelyç (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No reliable source to support the player exist, or the player is a non-notable player. Hope someone can check the Greek's and Turkish's pages. Matthew_hk tc 10:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep I see sources for his existence but they are all in the wrong language for me!! I can't read or understand it. But one thing is clear to me, he does exists. He is currently on loan at a Turkish club and he hasn't even been put on that roster, but he is on the other club page roster, the one he is contracted too. There is one external link, which shows you that he is on a roster, with his name spelling Saveljič Danilo. Which has some information there, that is a third source citation. Govvy 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am going to go with delete after finding it hard to find him, he isn't even here. [27]. Govvy 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment all the "Source" i found, were made by fans, the is possibility it just a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Strong delete - The article says that he has made 6 appearances for Slovenia. However, there is no mention of him on the Slovenia National Team's website, so unless some other evidence of notability can be given the article should be deleted. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the link given in the article [28] (watch the pop-ups!) refers to the Slovenia Under-21 team and confirms the club history as per the infobox. I must confess to being wary of articles which claim that a player has been on the books of 6+ clubs and still only 21. He's not mentioned on the Diyarbakırspor page, although he is listed on the squad for Kayserispor. Curiously, he is also listed on the squad for Asteras Tripolis although that is not mentioned in the player's article or on the Slovenia U-21 website. Who knows? Daemonic Kangaroo 12:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to have been in quite a few notable football teams.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment he is on the Asteras Tripolis squad is my fault, but not the first, adding Slovenian player to squad were by new user and ip user.

He is one the Kayserispor squad is also by ip user. Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone have time, please help me to read all the 60+ match between 2005-2007 season (2006-07)(2005-06). Matthew_hk tc 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Saveljic play in B team Kayseri 5games I check him in Turkish football federation list but he not play for Slovenia u21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAYSERICAM (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Please do not blank the page please, KAYSERICAM. Matthew_hk tc 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Fails notoriety, he isn't on a Pro team. Just is in a under 21 club. Warrush

• Keep per WP:BIO for athletes as playing in a fully professional league, for Kayserispor. Only 8 games, but one is enough. Hmm - looking at it again I can't find any independent sources - everything is Wiki mirrors or user-updatable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There is also an article at Danillo Savelyç which appears to relate to the same player, although his date of birth is different as are the clubs he played for. Shouldn't this article either be deleted as well or become a redirect to Danilo Saveljič if the decision is to keep him? Daemonic Kangaroo 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Danillo Savelyç return no result from google. Can't find him on LFP So alos nominated him Matthew_hk tc 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I set out below, without further comment from me, a request posted on my talk page:

Please remove Saveljic Danilo from delete list he is playser of B team Kayserispor

Danilo Saveljič (born 31 December 1985 in Kotor, SR Montenegro, SFR Yugoslavia) is a Montenegrin-born Slovenian football midfielder.

• [29]
• http://forum.playerhistory.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&m=12843
• http://www.football-lineups.com/players/player.php?route=5383

The original request was added by User:87.116.140.230. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

user:KAYSERICAM also posted on my talk page. Matthew_hk tc 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's obvious that the player has never played for the slovenian national team and most of this article is pure hoax. -- BanRay 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• User:Turkfudbol78 (or is that User:87.116.140.230 - probably the same person) has responded to this AfD by blanking the article page at Danilo Saveljič and creating a new article at Savelyiç Dani llo! I've marked that page for a speedy delete. Daemonic Kangaroo 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax: this guy never played for Triestina. See here for a couple of sources: [30] (choose 2003-04 and 2004-05 as possible seasons, there's no Saveljic in the squad). --Angelo 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDelete Gnangarra 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Schumann (adventurer)

Robert Schumann (adventurer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

unverifiable Feyandstrange 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand: I can find no confirmation of this person's existence, let alone their claimed exploits. He's not in the Guinness book or any other listing of notable explorers, and searching on his name turns up nothing but the disambiguated composer and stuff which is possibly backtrailed to this article, or of equally dubious source. Unless someone has source on this, it seems pretty spurious, and for all I know is a vanity-vandal case. I'm nominating this for deletion. Feyandstrange 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This rather unofficial looking page had details at the bottom - and yes, he did get off a plane near the poles and cycle there. However I'd like to see a better source. There is a panel in the centre of the CBBC page here but no indication where they got their material either. Even assuming he did what he did, I'm not sure it actually counts as much of an achievement (although a hell of a thing for the 'what I did on my holidays' essay when he got back to school...) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Change to merge into Polar exploration per HisSpaceResearch adding the Guinness citation to the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, worth perhaps a mention in the pole articles, but not worth a biography. Another mention among numerous other polar records themselves not necessarily worthy of biographies. --Dhartung | Talk 12:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Hold on, I think I have an old Guinness Book of Records somewhere which I could cite as a source possibly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's in this book that I have. I'll cite that as a source. Weak keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Not really notable, just add it to the articles North Pole and South Pole if anything. Warrush
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since it is now verifiable as a reference has been added, although it does have a limited amount of information it is suitable content for an enyclopedia. The Sunshine Man 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per The Sunshine Man. Still, if multiple sources could be found, that would help matters. --Paul Erik 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For records of this kind there is a book already in existance, The Guiness Book of World Records. As the young guy arrived nearby the south pole by plane and only did the last meters on a bike he is not exactly an explorer or an adventurer. The fact itself is trivia and the subject not notable. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Don't delete outright; merge somewhere appropriate instead.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)