Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 4

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of controversial music videos

List of controversial music videos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is unencyclopedic and wide open to POV because the central criteria for inclusion on this list, that a video be "controversial" is not even remotely verifiable. For something to be controversial it would have to be controversial to someone, and (in the case of notability on the Wikipedia) it would have to be controversial to someone notable by wikipedia standards. As such it might be acceptable to have a List of music videos that have been banned by a major broadcaster (provided that each one could be verified as having so been) but this list is just to vague to be encyclopedic - and also it could never be completed. To give some examples, the Air song may have a controversial video by American or British standards but it isn't even remotely controversial in its native France where it has had extensive airplay. Alternatively Loosing My Religion may be a controversial song to some but I cannot for the life of me see anything controversial about its video. And yes, that is just my opinion, but presumably the song is listed here because of the opinion of someone no more notable than I. I could go one, but I think the point has been made. Delete. A1octopus 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Sometimes, I look at this list, and I sometimes have a look at some of the videos listed. If I haven't seen them before, that is. - Ndrly 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator's argument - too indiscriminate to be a valid list. Inclusion criterion is too subjective to be useful, or too broad. --Haemo 01:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective list, so mostly original research. Masaruemoto 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. List should be replaced with a banned music video list. Alucard 16 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename Why not call this a list of music videos with explicit content, and group them by content or something.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ndrly (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

  One vote per editor, please. Closenplay 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - completely subjective list, no possible objective standard exists. Otto4711 12:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Too many POV judgement calls, too broad a list. As nom suggests, better to create a sourced list dealing with specific issues such as listing videos banned by MTV. 23skidoo 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have other lists why not this one? TruthCrusader 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's necessary to have standards for inclusion. The same rationale could be said of any article nominated for deletion; "We have other articles why not this one?" Why? Because it doesn't satisfy our policies and guidelines. Leebo ^T/C 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Almost entirely unsourced. What's the definition of controversy for this list? Some of the videos only indicate that the video was deemed inappropriate for children -- such a status is quite common among music videos but does not denote controversy. The list is too broad and requires editors to make point-of-view determinations when adding content. It needs to be much more narrow to be an effective list. Leebo ^T/C 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic but interesting. Give me a chance to save the list before deleting it, you know, for future references, that's all :) --Witchinghour 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; "controversial" is in the eye of the beholder – and the be-hearer? ;-) Carlossuarez46 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps if each entry had a solid news article about the controversy that it stirred, the list would be worth keeping. As it is, it includes the "potentially controversial" (Boards of Canada) along with those that actually were ("Justify My Love"). Closenplay 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It would be interesting to see all music videos that have been censored for daytime play or restricted to late night broadcast in a group. - Ndrly 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  One vote per editor, please. Closenplay 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems like an easy one. Not verifiable.--Fresh 21:47, 7 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, which is editorial and doesn't need debate. Mangojuice^talk 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space ice cream

Space ice cream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A silly article created by a user who also re-created the Billion pool. No one but me has been watching this user's edits. Georgia guy 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly? How is an article on space ice cream silly? I didn't realize that such an article already existed until someone else redirected the page to that article. Astroguy2 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect Seems like a resonable thing to search for. I need help making it into a redirect. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. --Banana 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You didn't do anything wrong, the AFD template is probably just preventing it from working. Someguy1221 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you're right. I reverted the page to the version proposed for AfD. I'm assuming this could be speedy closed and redirected, but I'm not positive of the steps to do that. LaughingVulcan 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Freeze-dried ice cream. It is a legitimate product, "enjoyed" by NASA astronauts and available at many air-and-space museums and outfitters. LaughingVulcan 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, this is nothing new. Someguy1221 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect oer LaughingVulcan. -- saberwyn 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per LaughingVulcan. Maxamegalon2000 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IndieVest

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

Blatant advertising page with copy listed directly from subject website. Article creator's only edits have been this page and to insert links to this page. Google search is inconclusive - majority of links appear to be either blog mentions or advertisements. Delete. TheRealFennShysa 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Blatant copyright violation of http://www.indievest.com/about_us/index.html. I have tagged the article with CSD G12. Phony Saint 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted at author's request --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School of Wonder

School of Wonder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable private kindergarten, no claims of notability. There are thousands and thousands of private schools in the world. Although this is notable: They have one teacher for every 37 students. For a preschool? That's terrible! And this one says 60:1! Corvus cornix 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Also the link at the bottom links to information on a different school. --Banana 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that link's right. Corvus cornix
    • He changed it after I mentioned it on hia talk page. Now the articles blank. I thinks hes still making the article. --Banana 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe they have some really famous little kids there? Someguy1221 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• HANG ON I'm barely creating the article, next time you tag something AfD please check the history and see if the person is barely creating the article. Its called common courtesy I blanked the page and will redo it and add notable people later. AMAPO 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. AFD discussions last for five days, so...you have five days. Alternatively, you could build the article in your very own sandbox, User:AMAPO/Sandbox or User:AMAPO/School of Wonder. Someguy1221 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Someguy, I was just going to say that. If AMAPO can provide us with some reliable sources and some claims of notability, it could convince us to change our opinions here. He/she has five days to do that. Corvus cornix 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I will message you guys as soon as the article is complete. AMAPO 23:51, 4 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. --Coredesat 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghalali Key

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

Non-notable, unsourced cruft. A piece of something in a game doesn't need its own article -N 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable minor game element, can be mentioned in game article. NawlinWiki 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article full of WP:OR and poor grammar. MKoltnow 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Periaph Shard

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

non-notable unsourced cruft. -N 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable minor game element, can be included in article on game. NawlinWiki 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per foregoing comments. --Evb-wiki 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kami Asgar

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

Nominated for an Oscar for sound editing, but didn't win. Clarityfiend 22:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. There doesn't seem to be much available from a web search on the guy besides the Oscar nom (since he didn't win, I think that means he doesn't get to claim a notable award). -Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Shoot me down by all means, but isn't an Oscar nomination in itself notable, given how prestigious the Oscars are? "Oscar-nominated" is often used as a term of distinction by non-winners for years afterwards. Obviously, if there is no other information available on him (possibly because he's Iranian) it may not be easy to produce more than stub. HeartofaDog 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has dozens of credits on IMDB in movies and TV shows which are themselves the subjects of articles. MKoltnow 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is not only notable, he's famous or at least very well known. Unfortunately, sound editing is not one of the glamour jobs in movies. I've expanded the article a little and added citations [1]. Asgar has 68 credits in film and television (with some very big names among them), an 18 year career in the industry and 4 nominations for major awards - one Oscar, one Emmy and two Golden Reel awards. I hope he hasn't been reading this AfD :) Paxse 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe he meets WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 17:57, 9 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 a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Lane

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

No valid argument given within the article for notability per WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO Tabercil 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No claim of notability. No sources. Edison 23:11, 4 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. --Coredesat 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful Access of Information in Developing Countries

Successful Access of Information in Developing Countries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned article, and not appropriate article for encylcopedia. Perhaps one of the services listed should have an article. 650l2520 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An important subject, but better done by starting from scratch, especially as this term is merely the chapter heading in a book & is excessively wordy for a good title. Each one of the 4 systems discussed should have articles, & all but the third do have longstanding good articles, and we should write one for AGORA--it's an agricultural information system, and we're short of interested editors on that subject. That the ed. did not know about the other articles and made no attempt to look for them is an indication of the advisability of deletion of this. probable cut-and-paste. DGG 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since there is no wikilinks in the entire article I doubt the editor knew how to do it. I found Public Library of Science and eIFL.net - Electronic Information for Libraries, but where is HINARI - Health Internetwork Access to Research Initiative? 650l2520 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, essay-ish and unencyclopedic with activist or promotional tone. "Successful" is POV. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic in both name and contents. Pavel Vozenilek 17:08, 6 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 Speedily deleted as repost --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonah Kim (2nd nomination)

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

This is the second attempt by the artist's agent (this time by User:Artistisoleil rather than User:Globalartists) of gaining publicity through Wikipedia. As before, the user has created the page, and nothing else. In addition to beang laden with peacock terms, the sources do nothing to verify the article. As before, the article fails to meet WP:NOTE in addition to WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, as the only source given was his personal webpage and the local town hall, and I can't find any others confirming notability CA387 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G4, so tagged Repost of content which was previously deleted after a full AfD discussion. No new evidence of notability either. I did more investigation: The 19 GNews archive hits are just trivial mentions in laundry lists of similar young performers. [2] Also checked Korean-language hits --- don't know the subject's Korean name, but a search on his father's name + cello (his father has the same name as some city councilman, hence the need for the narrowing term) gets only 2 GHits [3]. cab 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Okay, I see his Korean name 김요나 in the wikitext (a misplaced tag in a template). 6 GHits for that + cello [4]. No WP:RS, not even the typical hagiographical profiles that home country or local ethnic media like to do about their high-achieving descendants. cab 23:49, 4 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. — CharlotteWebb 03:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anwar al-Awlaki

This article is about a Yemeni-American Muslim scholar, but there's no indication that he is notable, either per WP:BIO or per WP:PROF. There is no indication that he holds a notable position; heading the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Centre comes closest, but there is no indication that this is a notable centre. He seems to have been an Imam in Colorado and California, but there is no indication that he was particularly notable as an Imam, and I'm not sure being a Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University qualifies as a notable position. There is also no indication that any of his publications is particularly notable. Finally, there is no indication that he has received multiple outside coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article was nominated for speedy deletion (per A7, non-notability) in August 2006, but the speedy was declined (by User:Crzrussian), with the edit summary "decline CSD, notability is asserted. Let's give the creator some time to develop the article." Since then, the article hasn't been developed much. While I can see enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion, I don't see how this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps the chaplain of a major religion at a major university is notable. The primary notability, however, is political, and it is documented. I think news sources would also be available. I'd like to know more. DGG 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This may be him, although the story is quite different. There's more too. Stammer 05:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple non-trivial news articles available. (Cage Prisoners, Washington Post, U.S. News, National Geographic News). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per AA. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per trivial notability pointed out by AA--Sefringle 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep per AA. Flubeca (t) 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vyvyan Holland

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

Noted mainly for being the son of Oscar Wilde, and for writing two books about his father. Clarityfiend 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Upon searching for sources, there seem to be plenty to facilitate verification; I added one. --CA387 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We also have the article on his grandson. After an AfD, it was decided to merge the article for his great-grandson, Lucian Holland into the one for the grandson Merlin Holland. Not inherited N, but V.H. and his son have written notable books about Oscar Wilde. DGG 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable as author of the two biographies. NawlinWiki 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, TIME obit ("minor writer", but hey). --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 08:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobind

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

Outdated article on dead non-notable company. Chealer 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence passes WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of assertion of notability beyond designing a program with no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 18:19, 8 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 great advice, but delete. Sr13 00:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to write a great speech

How to write a great speech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic. Has been tagged for a transwiki to wikibooks for almost a year; if nobody has bothered to do it by now, it's not likely to happen. A request for transwiki shouldn't be a permanant stay of excecution for a bad article. Vary | Talk 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, unsourced, unsalvagably unencyclopedic topic. -Cquan ^{(after the beep...BEEP.)} 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT an instruction manual. Would have been better off figuring out "How to write a great article." Clarityfiend 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Useight 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above.--Kathy A. 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's throw WP:OR in, as well. This is an essay, not an article. Someguy1221 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cquan. — Taggard (Complain) 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magimon

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

I'm not certain this is a real TV series; it strikes me at that an actual series in the *mon franchise would have more Google results than this. If this is a misspelling, or I've otherwise missed some pertinent evidence, please let me know and I'll withdraw the nomination. JavaTenor 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's completely unverified, and the burden of proof lies with the writers to demonstrate that it exists and is notable. Placeholder account 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, all I come up with on Google is Digimon fanfiction. NawlinWiki 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. It also lacks context and fails to assert significance. --Evb-wiki 18:03, 9 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. --Coredesat 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth_Harrington

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

Person fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:BIO. Japhy1979 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Minor roles in a whole four movies, not notable. Someguy1221 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Not just an actor, Harrington is a talented fiction writer, and screenwriter." He probably wrote most of this article, as well. Bad ideas 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficiently notable, only roles are minor or in nonnotable films. NawlinWiki 16:43, 5 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. Herostratus 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Kennedy

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

Other than being a member of the Kennedy clan there isn't any other claim to fame. The person does not appear to fulfill the notability requirement for a biography. Kimon^talk 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree (as I said on the talk page on 18 April). --ColinFine 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or mention in her father's article. No evidence of notability on her own, and notability is not inherited. Edison 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with her father - she is NN in her own right. Peterkingiron 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable in her own right at all! Prob. vanity page. 216.194.4.82 16:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I'm normally a bio deletionist. But why are we deleting this and keeping every son of a British aristocrat. -Doc^g 23:11, 9 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. — CharlotteWebb 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Airlie

No biography, trivia, and birth date about him and it's too short Benjaminso 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep None of the listed criteria offered as reasons for deletion are part of the process of AfD. KP Botany 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, appears to have a long resume of television appearances on noteworthy shows. NawlinWiki 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I sent this one to the list, the nomination is too funny to resist. "No trivia! Delete it!," he screamed. Read the deletion policy, please, User:Benjaminso.[5] KP Botany 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, I am sure there has to be notability out there somewhere (I'd look if I wasn't at work.) Oh, and while you are reading the deletion policy, maybe you should read WP:TRIVIA too. Psu256 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• And whilst you're thinking about the deletion process, maybe you should re-think deleting content at the same time as nominating for AfD. -- 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, in the current state it does not assert any claim of notability. Without that it is worthy of being speedied. However, if notability is asserted, I would happily reassess my vote. --soum (0_o) 18:01, 5 June 2007
  • Comment:Nominator DELETED the assertion of notability while nominating this for deletion. I assume this was just an accident on the part of the nominator, but will return it to the article. KP Botany 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - there's plenty of room to do that but (as usual) I decline to work on any article when it is in AfD. Js farrar 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I tried expanding it a bit, and with his huge list of credits there should be room to flesh it out a bit. 86.137.121.170 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - perfectly good stub bio - David Gerard 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE ABOUT NOMINATION User:Benjaminso deleted content which asserted the actor's notability, while nominating it for deletion. User:Benjaminso deleted the trivia he/she is saying this article is lacking.[6] I did post this to the list, I hope they all find it as interesting as I do. On the other hand, I will assume good faith, and that this was just an error on User:Benjaminso's part while adding the template to the top of the article--also, could be do to that one editing program which has recently changed and deletes sections of text unintentionally. KP Botany 19:22, 5 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 Common themes of Final Fantasy. --Coredesat 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy items

Final Fantasy items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Overblown list of trivial, crutfy fictional items. Article has been tagged with a Notability template since April but no sources have ever been added to establish the topic's notability. I therefore officially nominate it for a Redirect to the more general Common themes of Final Fantasy article. Kariteh 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - there has been many edits to this article over a long period; it would be a shame to lose so much work, unless there was an overwhelming reason for deletion. Possible alternatives would be to copy some or all of the text into a more suitable article. If most of the text is a candidate for moving, then maybe it might be best to simply keep this article! -- MightyWarrior 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the content (the notable ones) have already been moved to Common themes of Final Fantasy, and Final Fantasy items had been redirected there, but it recently got un-redirected. Which results in the same information appearing twice in different places. Kariteh 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or, if not possible, strong delete—article was semi-merged and redirected, but an editor has disagreed, so here we are. Heck, I created this page (along with two of the pages that were merged into here) more than a year/year and a half ago, but it's no longer acceptable on an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article has no citations, and no hope of getting any, and therefore its notability/veracity cannot be proven. Judgesurreal777 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin— some of this information was incorporated in the Common themes of Final Fantasy article, which means a delete is illegal per GFDL. Thus, all delete votes are technically redirect per nom. — Deckiller 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is too much information that could be considered usefull here that would be lost just by redirecting it. For example, there is no mention of the buster sword in the common elements page, and it is one of the most well known swords of the series. Granted, this page could use a cleanup, but we can't just merge everything into one giant article. JDub90 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Buster Sword is already covered in Cloud Strife. Kariteh 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Gunblade is also covered in Squall Leonhart. In reality, there is not much to say about weapons, armor, and items except for a basic overview and some recurring names and concepts. Once Gameplay of Final Fantasy is created, things will probably be more clear. — Deckiller 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: no intelligent reason to delete. How does deleting this in any way whatsoever possibly benefit anyone or Wikipedia?

• The intelligent reason is that it violates WP:N. You don't keep an article because it's useful or deletion won't benefit anyone; the same argument could be applied to a game guide or cheat code list. --Teggles 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mindlessly and robotically voting to delete, I see…
    • Perhaps either of us have trouble with our eyesight, I saw a person agreeing with the (as of yet) unargued points raised in the nomination, and agreeing that it violates policies. I also saw him voting redirect. --Teggles 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• An editorial decision that should be worked out on the talk page and discussed at the FF Wikiproject rather than through AfD. While it's true that this article requires cleanup at the very least to meet Wikipedia's standards, it doesn't actually violate current policy (as per point 2 of WP:FICT, a merger of minor facets in fiction - and while items would normally be too minor even for this, this is across 15+ works, so it's a grey area.). An editorial decision to merge and redirect may well be warranted, and I may actually support such a thing, but immediately running to AfD seems overblown, as it's not like an edit war's broken out. SnowFire 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, if you're just asking for a redirect, do it yourself. Afd is for discussing deletions only. Axem Titanium 03:12, 7 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. Aside from the meme, which is not mentioned in the article (and does not seem to be mentionable, given the discussion on the article's talk page), there is absolutely nothing provided that satisfies WP:BIO; it's just a short biography about a high school athlete, and nothing else has been shown here that shows that she is notable in any way besides the meme (it has been established that she is not notable for anything other than records she no longer holds). The arguments for deletion thus seem to be stronger than those for keeping, thus my decision. --Coredesat 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification I must re-emphasize the fact that I deleted the article per WP:BIO and lack of consensus over whether the internet aspect of the subject was worth adding to the article. Apart from that, this is a WP:BIO/WP:NOT case. --Coredesat 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Stokke

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

The result of the recent deletion review:

Original BLP deletion endorsed; however, there is agreement -- even among endorsers of deletion -- that a non-CSD A7 stub could exist here. It will need to be AfD'ed, because even I'm not certain whether a national high-school record-holder passes WP:BIO. Per the suggestion of several, including Guy and Chris Parham, the article will be semi-protected for the AfD, escalating to full-protection if necessary. Just as the subject does not deserve coverage of incidental negative publicity, she deserves to have her positive achievements considered for inclusion in Wikipedia, alongside other athletes. – Xoloz 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [7]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

This young lady is a successful high-school athlete at the state-level. There other reasons she might have a WP article, but none are fully-compliant with BLP. Still, her athletic career on its own escapes a A7 speedy. The issue here is the notability of high-school record-holders. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. If I'd come across this and not known the histoy, I'd speedy delete it, no questions asked. If she's still a remarkably skilled athlete once she's an adult, I expect we may be seeing her again, but until then, there's nothing to talk about. Friday (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ehm...she is an adult. Lampman 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday.--Doc^g 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Holding a national (not state-level) record for a specified age group IMO is enough to constitute celar notability, regardless of any other source of notability. DES ^(talk) 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked before how many people are likely to "qualify" under this criterion? How many people compete to this level? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • She could probably legitimately account for a sentence in some relevant article, if such existed. But a biographical article? Friday (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've pointed to it several times, now. It's United States records in track and field. Uncle G 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks like those are plain-old-records, not specifically for kids. Her records are all of the "best among people in this grade" type, aren't they? Friday (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Bear in mind that it's a vastly incomplete article (see the edit summaries). There's no reason that it could not be expanded with the relevant classes. The important question is what that class actually is, and whether it indeed is a formal category of records at all. The only sources that I can find describe it as a "freshman record" (Eugene W. Fields. "Newport Harbor's Stokke wins pole vault", The Orange County Register, 2004-06-06. ) or the "Orange County record" (Steve Fryer. "Stokke sets sights on unprecedented heights", The Orange County Register, 2005-03-11. ). Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DES: what record does she hold? She has a "2nd best" according to the source that's there, but it's not clear that's a 2nd best of all time or just 2nd best this year. Can you clarify, with a source? Mangojuice^talk 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or really weak merge per BIO and my previous statements on the DRV. Weak merge would be to something like a List of record holding... somethings... Doesn't seem to be enough for a full article, if the record stuff is notable. The meme stuff, without question, is nothing more than a passing fad and should not be included in any reference to her if something about her is still included. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • United States records in track and field is what you are looking for. Uncle G 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Her notability doesn't come from her track records; it comes from her status as an internet sensation, covered by no less than the Washington Post and New York Times. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html?hpid=topnews and http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/who-gets-a-wikipedia-entry/).--Plainsong 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All of these three are notable without the meme. She deserves an article for her track merits. This satisfies WP:BLP, and WP:BIO. I don't see what the fuss is all about. Oh, and this took me like 2 minutes. AGF people.
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
• so, there's at least three that make her notable without the meme. Any questions? McKay 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Invalid reason. DRV consensus has endoresed the removal of that information per WP:BLP. Is she notable without it?--Doc^g 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • DRV did nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoa, too much lingo here! I'm lost! Either stick to plain language, or explain what DRV and BLP refer to.--Plainsong 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • BLP refers to this WP:BLP, DRV refers to WP:DRV. But Doc is wrong anyways about what was declared anyways, see my and Jeff's comments below. JoshuaZ 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a question. Those look like routine local news coverage of routine high school sporting events. Are you saying that anyone who gets that level of coverage deserves an article? Seriously? If that's the case, then half the people I know deserve articles. Mangojuice^talk 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should read WP:N (again) McKay 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The level of coverage is much higher than that of routine local coverage as can be seen by a glance at the google news hits and archived news hits from before this story broke. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Everyone else in Category:Pole vaulters seems to have cleared 4.4 meters. See e.g. Tanya Stefanova, Janine Whitlock or Christine Adams (athlete). Haukur 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  With every meme-free story people have dug up she probably just barely passes WP:BIO. "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." As for other concerns it seems to me that having a meme-free article on her (which will probably get a high Google rank) is probably ethical though there are arguments both ways. On one hand it's nice to have an article treating her as an athlete rather than a sex object, on the other hand us having an article about her as an athlete may lead people to think: "See! She's legitimately famous as an athlete, hence she is a public person, hence she can be legitimately adored as a sex object." So much doubt... "Do no harm" sounds nice enough in principle but if strictly adhered to it leads to "do nothing at all". I just don't know. Haukur 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• So the owner of the national 100m record for under 10s is notable? It's not our business to document this ridiculous meme stuff that'll be forgotten about in two weeks. We are supposed to be responsible, especially in sensitive cases like this. Does she really pass WP:N as a vaulter? Delete. Moreschi ^Talk 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Meets WP:BIO due to both her achievements (5 California state records) and her unfortunate recent internet fame. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide sources noting her fame, before and outside of the context of the meme? If you can that would be helpful.--Doc^g 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I dunno, are you gonna threaten to block me if I do? Regardless, check Google news, there are plenty before the picture flap, and the picture flap is entirely worthy of inclusion per WP:BLP. So that's all you need to concern yourself with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd say constantly asking people to do your homework for you is bad form. Do you have actual evidence rather than vigorous handwaving? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday and WP:BIO. Sean William @ 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So for no legitimate reason. Got it. (Translation: Friday offers a poor rationale for deletion, and the subject meets WP:BIO) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeff, and pxpls. —M (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• When I was trying to think of past precedents, I remembered our articles on youth bowlers such as Chaz Dennis, Michael Tang, and Elliot John Crosby, who are (or were) the youngest to bowl a 300 game. The Tang article survived an AFD in April of 2006. Maybe that helps, I don't know. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep There was no clear consensus in the DRV and the Washington Post and the New York Times are about as reliable as sources can possibly get, so there isn't any real BLP issue here. Breaking multiple pole vaulting records in a large state like California by itself would be a claim of notability by any intuitive defintion of notability and we have enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO even before any of the recent internet coverage comes into play. The internet coverage is simply the final straw. And again, no one has pointed to anything resembling an actual BLP issue with this article. JoshuaZ 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (Late edit: all of the above is still true but I'm becoming more convinced by the argument that the penumbra or spirit of BLP suggests that we should minimize articles of this sort, I'm therefore switching to abstaining until I can think this through more JoshuaZ)
  • We are not re-running the DRV here. That there were BLP issues for excluding that material was endorsed. --Doc^g 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The only thing that was fully endorsed as far as I can tell was that without sourcing there was a BLP issue. The presence of multiple sources such as the Washington Post makes there be no BLP issue by any reasonable defintion. Let's not pretend we had some sort of magical consensus to change wha constitutes a reliable source. The NYT and WP are both reliable sources. Period. JoshuaZ 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've re-read the closure - it said nothing of the sort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Some recent competition data here: [11] Tori Anthony doing quite well. Haukur 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke as well as on the recent deletion review. I've never been so ashamed to have both an X and Y chromosome. Burntsauce 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Again ignoring that she meets WP:BIO even without the recent internet activity and that there is no BLP issue when we have good sourcing, which we have. In any event, your own shame with the behavior of heterosexual members of your gender is not a reason to delete a well-sourced article about a notable individual. JoshuaZ 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability can be debated, but I’d prefer we err on the side of human decency. Lampman 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Do you think we should delete Daniel Brandt also? If not, what is the difference? Furthermore, how is our noting that others have commented about her and that those comments recieved so much attention as to be noted in major newspapers at all a failing of human decency? JoshuaZ 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference is that Daniel Brandt has sought publicity. As for the one million Google sites, most of those will go away, while Wikipedia (at the risk of hubris) is forever. Lampman 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How odd, this person has engaged in a highly public national competition. And no the Washington Post and the New York Times don't magically go away (and dare I say it, I'd be almost willing to bet that both of those will outlast Wikipedia). And she has given an interview with the Washington Post about the very topic in controversy. Once someone gives an interveiw, it is very hard to argue that the person has no willingness to be a public figure. The biggest difference that I can see between Brandt and Ms. Stokke is that Brandt is a jerk and so we have less sympathy than he does whereas the story of a girl who is good-looking and getting flack for that is a real tear-jerker. JoshuaZ 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • We probably need a Godwin's Law analogue for when Argumentum Ab Brandt is invoked in a deletion discussion. Entering an athletics competition is not the same as seeking publicity. Uncle G 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Hmm, Brandt would plausibly be third declension, so that would Argumentum ad Brandtem I think. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to some "list of national record-holders" somewhere. Not particularly notable. --Carnildo 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps based upon the fact that the only verifiable content to be gleaned from the arguments put forward so far constitutes an entry in a list of records. Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as I said on the DRV... "this subject is notable per her records, All americans are clearly determined notable by consensus as we have over a hundred in Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans" yes McD's all americans are basketball not pole vaulting... but to allow a category for one sport and not another is a clear bias.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A random sampling of that seems to reveal many articles discussing the professional careers these folks have gone on to. Friday (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • We also have some still in high school, who happen to be considered top in the nation. WP:BIO says top-level amateurs are notable too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What records are you specifically referring to? Have you actually looked for sources yourself? Or are you simply relying upon what other people have said? Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. News coverage has been based primarily on sensationalist, tabloid-style articles. Leaving that coverage aside, her sports achievements do not in themselves merit an article. How many other people have high school-level sports records and would never be considered for an article here? Croctotheface 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Just because we haven't gotten around to writing those articles doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles. There is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and there is a similar fallacy in asserting that because an article is the only one of its category yet written therefore we should delete it. JoshuaZ 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What I said is that they should not have articles anyway. Croctotheface 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability established by front-page article of Washington Post ([12] and [13]), along with separate articles in the LA Times [14] and others. Neier 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, we have invented a set of "standards" to describe "notability" and if we pull and push and prod and poke we can make this case fit them. But, for gods sake, these are standards we made up ourselves, not some form of "To Be An Encyclopedia Thou Shalt..." instructions handed down on tablets of stone. If we change them, we don't magically have to vanish in a puff of smoke or excoriate ourselves for failure - we just have to say, hey, guidelines are wrong sometimes.
  • We are sitting here fetishising arbitrary rules, which have no meaning or significance or importance to our mission, over the ability to exercise editorial judgement. It's depressing. No matter how many arbitrary guidelines we muddle together, it doesn't change the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia; the fact that this is a private individual; the fact that her fame is transient and tawdry and unwanted.I have never been more ashamed of the project than I am just now. For god's sake, I wish people could show some perspective, show some common sense, show some backbone and, above all, show some willingness to think about what is the right thing to do. Shimgray | talk | 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Everyone is trying to do the right thing and everyone is aware that what we do may impact a real person. If we have an article it may get the top Google slot. That's quite a lot of power we're entrusted with - do we refrain from using it or do we try to use it for good in some way? Reasonable people can come up with different answers to that. Haukur 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't object a well-reasoned argument saying "I don't like having an article on this person, but I feel it's necessary" (though I feel it's misguided)... but I don't see it having been raised in this discussion yet. "Notability asserted by foo and bar" is not one of those arguments, it's a mindless fetishistic incantation of "it fulfils this criteria therefore we should have an article". These "discussions" rapidly degenerate into mindless repetition of arbitrary standards we made up; whatever happened to people actually trying to exercise editorial judgement? Shimgray | talk | 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • We learned better. We learned, from a lot of experience, that basing our decisions upon subjective judgements on the parts of individual editors, exactly the thing that you are talking about, led to chaos. Uncle G 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I am not asking for immediate decisions by single users; what I want is to see the community actually making a serious attempt to discuss a serious issue, not glibly quoting abitrary thresholds at each other. We are on, what, the third or fourth discussion over this article, and we're still getting the same "does/does not fulfil Criteria A, B, C and D" parroted recurringly by most participants in what ought to be a sensible editorial debate! Shimgray | talk | 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Saying that a subject does or does not fulfil a set of criteria, and specifying the reasons why or why not, is a perfectly sensible editorial debate. The only reason for this second debate is the early closure of the first one. It is nothing to do with editors using criteria to judge an article and citing sources in support of their arguments. Uncle G 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A non-public person that does not want media attention. Her short fame comes from unwanted harassing attention not her high school athletic achievements. This does not support an article per notability issues. FloNight 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment for the record, a 5 minute search turned up many additional articles about her pole vaulting by itself. For example, we have this one and this this one (registration required) and many more. JoshuaZ 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That first article devotes a grand total of 19 words to this person. It's not in-depth material. Uncle G 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, this was simply what came from a 5 minute search. If one looks at the current article it has references to multiple articles that are just about her athletic achievements. JoshuaZ 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (and I am tempted to just do it, though I will resist) on the ground that having gotten rid of the problematic material at DRV, the present debate whether to have a borderline-notable-at-best article on the harmless material is nothing but a drama-magnet. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just do it--Doc^g 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, please, no. That's all we need. If this gets a "fair shake" at AFD perhaps we can all get on with our lives? Friday (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Friday, that's what I thought. But this is absurd. All we are doing in re-running the DRV.--Doc^g 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It is a bit absurd, yes. But can we please please please only have this one last absurd thing? If it gets speedied this time, then we'll really be running a deletion review. And that would be even more absurd. Perhaps we should just turn off the wiki and pretend this never existed. Friday (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It shouldn't be speedied. It claims significance, that's all it has to do to pass A7. And the idea of speedy deleting as a "drama magnet" is, I'm sure, a black joke - surely we know by now that doing so would cause more drama, not less. Not to mention Xoloz's closure deserves more respect than that. Mangojuice^talk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I didn't do it, for exactly the reasons you gave, but it was still tempting. Are 4-1/2 more days of this going to be helpful? Newyorkbrad 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DRV did not give any sort of authority to remove any material, as no material that is sourced is problematic. Thank you for resisting your temptations, but your point of view isn't consistent with policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A notable athlete (per WP:BIO) who has become even more notable due to recent non-trivial coverage in some of the most notable sources available (LA Times, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post front page). No BLP issues and Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable. Prolog 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We've already endorsed the BLP removals. This is a different debate on whether the athletics are notable. Youre!vote is irrelevant tot he issue at hand.--Doc^g 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No; this is a new debate, Wikipedia is not censored, the Internet meme content is relevant and ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are irrelevant. Also, her personal best is actually close to the Finnish national record, which would put her close to reaching the IAAF World Championships in Athletics. Like I said, she met WP:BIO before the Internet fame. Prolog 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, we have not endorsed any BLP removals. Please quit making this statement, it is not based in fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We should keep it because "Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable"? That is the most insulting, arrogant, glib, meaningless piece of posturing I have seen here in thirty months. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, we should keep this per WP:BIO and WP:V. Prolog 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ethical points of view are irrelevant? That certainly qualifies as the most despicable statement I've seen in a very long while. ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • An encyclopedia with millions of users and millions of ethical points of view is no place to promote personal ethics. Prolog 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It is, however, the correct place to promote an ethical code which says - we have the opportunity to make an encyclopedia, thus we have the duty to make it good. Glibly pretending we have no responsibility for the effects and implications of the material we decide to include is intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt. Has the project really sunk this low? Shimgray | talk | 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You are erroneously conflating "the project" with the opinion of a single editor. Please refrain from such generalizations, especially given that it is patently obvious that there are other editors with markedly different opinions. Hyperbole is not going to aid this discussion. Uncle G 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I looked into it, and Stokke's "2nd best" pole vault was 4.14m, which is way off the US women's record which stands at at least 4.84m. And I'm not even sure what "2nd best" in the source refers to: 2nd best nationally this year? Among high school students only? Among high school students this year only? No, I don't think she cuts it as an athlete just yet. Mangojuice^talk 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we're not allowed to edit the article right now, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have reduced the protection level to autoconfirmed now. Prolog 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear that her athletic accomplishments don't yet meet our standards for inclusion, although she may well go on to do so. Would those who wish to document the other publicity she's received find adding her situation as a case study in Internet privacy or some other similar article to be an appropriate solution? That seems to be the context in which this issue has been covered in the major news media. (That question also applies to those who feel that coverage of the incident for which she's received press mention recently violates WP:BLP - would covering it in the context of general internet privacy concerns make sense?) JavaTenor 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, why is well-sourced positive content being removed from the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per multiplicity of sources and undeniable fame. The Washington Post coverage will be forever, so saying that a Wikipedia article is forever as a reason to invoke WP:BLP is disingenious. -N 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete — her athletic achievements do not rise to the level of notability, and her role as inspiration for a passing fad is dramatically out-weighed by her right to privacy ➥the Epopt 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Her athletic achievements do meet our guidelines (see WP:BIO) for inclusion. 2. There is no policy for "right to privacy". This is an encyclopedia and we only document what reliable sources write. Prolog 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Her athletic achievements do not meet our guidelines (see WP:BIO) for inclusion. There is no policy for "right to privacy" because we are not (well, okay, most of us are not) mindless automatons who must have policy dictating every jot and tittle that we write or choose not to write. We have (well, okay, some of us have) editorial judgment and ethical consciences. ➥the Epopt 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources satisfies WP:BIO, and there is plenty just about her athletic achievements.[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Prolog 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Spot87 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, once you get past the lurid and sensationalist material which was rightly deleted, there is simply not much there. We generally don't, and shouldn't, provide biographies of high school athletes; consider also the primary inclusion policy, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable as a high-school athlete (there are far too many high school record holders for that to be a means of establishing notability). The Internet meme is a current event, not an encyclopedic topic. Bottom line: we have a better product without including a dubious article like this. If she later clears the notability hurdle (no pun), the article can be created then. --Ssbohio 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The relevant criteria is WP:BIO, which she undoubtedly meets. If you need to look at WP:N, she even more clearly meets that, with significant coverage in reliable sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO is merely a notability criteria guideline, users are entitled to use their judgment to apply or not apply a particular test as the circumstances warrant. --bainer (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Notability for both athletic achievements and for the net meme affair, per the numerous sources given above. Both issuies should be fairly accounted for in the article. Tarc 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to List of track and field recordholders Delete - Sources available suggest she holds no national records. FCYTravis 01:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She seems, per the numerous newspaper articles cited, to have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. I do not see a standard as some have proposed for how many meters of height she must clear to have an article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and I have not heard that we are about to run out of server space and must limit article to those athletes achieving some stated objective measure of prowess. She gets 1,170,000 Google hits. A Wikipedia article about her athleticism will surely help to maintain NPOV balance with any other fame for those doing Google searches. Her interview published on the front page of the Washington Post indocates she is not utterly opposed to any mention of her name, and its inclusion as a reference would be appropriate, especially since it provides an overview of her sports achievements. Edison 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. High school achievements are not sufficient for notability under WP:BIO. This article wouldn't even have been created if not for all this silliness about her pictures being posted on the Internet, and that's just not an encyclopedic subject. WarpstarRider 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, this easily meets WP:BIO through multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Prolog 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — The subject is known outside high school track and field exclusively due to a flash-in-the-pan round of Internet postings that never could have occurred without violations of a track newspaper's copyright and the subject's own right to privacy, and which her attorney father has quickly been clamping down. There's a significant question whether a Wikipedia article would violate her right to privacy, given that she has never sought any public attention beyond by competing in high school sports and doing well at it, and had no reasonable expectation of public attention beyond, at most, the kind of reasonably low-profile and very temporary coverage typical for high school sports. The comments by David.Monniaux on WP:BLP in the previous nomination, to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry...." etc., should have been the last word on the matter. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [disclaimer: this note is intended only as general commentary, not as legal advice.]
• Strong Delete - the Washington Post article actually proves she's not notable, not that she is notable. Nick 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:BLP violation, and WP:POINT recreation. And since when did multiple non-trivial coverage become the mantra for keeping every crap internet meme? Corvus cornix 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

• Keep - She is notable by achieving the second-best pole vault record in the nation Bleh999 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read your sources carefully: she has achieved the second-best pole vault result for a female high-school senior in the US this far in 2007, not the second-best US result of all time. --bainer (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • that does not make her any less notable in current events, we have a lot more useless and non notable individuals on wikipedia, don't discount her you have never heard of her, she has been widely reported in the media and makes her notable enough for inclusion, remember wikipedia is not a democracyWP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, hence this vote should be about keeping to the standard of what is currently allowed on wikipedia not just because she is unknown to some people (because of their geographical location) Bleh999 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Who said anything about having heard of her or not? I was simply pointing out that your statement was incorrect, or at least missing several important qualifiers. --bainer (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • many of those voting to delete are outside the US hence their claim of her being non notable maybe just because of where they live, hence not really a valid reason for deletion Bleh999 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Reaverdrop, who's put the arguments far more clearly than I can. National age-group records? Not notable. Per WP:BIO, athletes are generally notable if they are "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis" or they are "competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." High school track and field assuredly does not qualify. Js farrar 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. FNMF 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• This athlete wouldn't want to be kept here by strength of male hormones (and yes, it does matter in marginal cases if the subject of an article doesn't want to be covered). Let's delete the article, but that isn't to say that her athletic feats must not be mentioned, in context and given due weight, in an article about American high school athletics, if we have any such articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• A lot of the aforementioned arguments for having a biographical article on this person are based upon statements that this person holds "national records". They appear, however, to be repetitions of received knowledge that lacks specifics. Friday, Mangojuice, and (even, albeit not explicitly) Doc glasgow have all asked the same question: What records are these? Specifics of what the records in fact are, when they were set, and what age category and level of competition they were set for, are lacking at the moment. The article in the Washington Post doesn't say. I've looked for sources, and what I have turned up so far (cited above) only specifies "freshman record" and "Orange County record". Without citations of sources giving specifics, the arguments put forward above have a verifiability problem. Uncle G 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I refer you to my comment just above in response to Bleh999. --bainer (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually edit conflicted with you in replying to that very same rationale. I discarded my reply upon seeing yours. Uncle G 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On records I was poking around this the other day. USATF and IAAF don't focus on juniors much, but Track and Field News has a records page that seems accurate, but is a couple years out of date. The record breaking is therefore certified by news articles, which google archives turns up plenty of. (unfortunately they're mostly down) profile from 2006 confirms other facts. This one is detailed: [22] [23] this one shows her with the state records. I'm not sure about finding a national recordkeeping body, but one of the pay stories is from virginia and refers to her as the national record holder (a year or so ago) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, found it: top sophomore in the country Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And her freshman mark got broken: [24] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Also her sophomore mark, by the same girl: [25] Interesting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So then she's not a record holder anymore? Delete - Not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Night Gyr, thanks for digging that up. I think this further solidifies my opinion that these athletic accomplishments do not make her notable enough. A national overall record would be one thing, but a state-wide, age-limited record (especially one that's been broken since) just shouldn't cut it. Mangojuice^talk 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • She still holds the state record, the national one was broken by a Texan. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly seems to hold WP's interest. Eventually might be merged into separate articles on track records and internet phenomena but I've heard reasonable arguments that suggest (for now) to keep. Jussen 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For what possible purpose? We do not have articles on any single other person who is only notable for holding a high school record. Rebecca 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. She is a high school record holder. There are no other articles on Wikipedia about people solely notable for this. If it wasn't for the masturbating neanderthal bloggers, we wouldn't be here at all, and as it has (thank god) apparently been agreed that having that in the article would be the mother of all BLP violations, keeping an article on her in any form makes absolutely no sense. Rebecca 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP. There are other articles about people solely notable for being high school record holders and athletes, it seems to me. Jordan Hasay There are other youth athletes with articles about their playing on youth or high school teams A.J. Green James McCarthy (footballer) etc. I think the accusations and namecalling are violating the assumption of good faith. I've never heard of this person before skimming AFD. Felisse 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in my opinion. Got 1,120,000 searches on Google and seems relevant to her. -ScotchMB 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This person is a fairly successful high school athlete, which is nice, but not sufficient to warrant retaining this article, which - let's be honest - for all the posturing is really only being defended in order to propagate the meme. There has been much said about sources, but for that, please see my comments here. "Google tests" are largely useless - it is necessary to look at the nature and quality of the sources. Stokke gets mentioned a few times in the sports sections of local newspapers, and has answered one or two questions for reporters from those papers. The majority of the coverage is like this, lists of competition results, or this, a passing mention in a discussion of other athletes. The coverage is absolutely borderline, and does not mandate having an article. The whole issue of the meme is just an extra reason to delete. There really is no cause to have a biographical article now. --bainer (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. We needn't be bound by our own guidelines, which we created, after all; least of all, notability policy when it says keep against common sense. "Ignore All Rules" really is policy for a reason. The critical question, it seems to me, is whether having a Wikipedia article lessens or increases the harm to Stokke. My feeling is that, like the Washington Post article (which seems to have spurred the shutdown of http://www.allisonstokke.com/ ), a Wikipedia article neutrally discussing the meme and Stokke and her family's reaction to it (as described in the WaPo article) will on the whole be beneficial. The only people to find the article will be those who already know of Stokke, so if they are not going to a Wikipedia article, they will inevitably be going somewhere worse (from Stokke's perspective), where they may only get the drooling internet fan side of things. If the choice is between an article that only discusses Stokke as a high school athlete and no article at all, the obvious choice is to delete. If the choice is between an article that includes the meme story and no article, I would tend toward "keep, semi-protect, and monitor very carefully."--ragesoss 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Really, that is a very tenuous claim to notability in the current version of the article, and we would not have had this article at all if it were not for that horrible episode of drooling madness. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone that follow high school sports closely knows that high school records are almost meaningless because unlike colleges and universities, there is not uniform participation and accurate recording for high school athletic events. The reporting of records is mostly voluntary by interested coaches or officials. Because of this, I'm reluctant to put much weight into the notability of high school record holders. FloNight 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't mean to diminish her achievements, since anyone involved with college-level vaulting has known about her and a few other high school stars for at least a couple years. (What she vaulted as a high school sophomore would have won most college meets, and place even in many U.S. division Ia conference championships.) However, she does not hold a general national high school record. She held the very age-specific first-year and second-year national records. Would the person holding the age 70-79 U.S. national record automatically deserve an article? I don't think so. The subject here has, of course, received more press than the typical age 16 or age 70-79 record holders, and it's unfortunate that the subject became first known outside vaulting for something other than vaulting. Gimmetrow 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to add an opinion a few minutes ago, but now I think I'll Take a Step Back for a bit. I'd heartily recommend the practice to everyone else at this point, as I don't see how so many edits so fast is leading towards anything approaching Consensus. If there was ever a moment to just chill before hitting 'Save Page', this one is probably it, people. LaughingVulcan 01:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her record as an athlete does not make her notable as such at this stage. While her photographs have gotten some media attention, her notability at this stage does not overcome BLP concerns. Indeed, the article as it is could be speedy deleted as not asserting notability. If her athletic career progresses, we should have an article on her then.Capitalistroadster 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her status as an apparently quite successful high school pole vaulter does not, in itself, present notability. All that's left is her internet status, which I think is sufficiently weighed by the BLP issues. Ral315 » 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment what BLP concern? Everything is well sourced. JoshuaZ 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's no longer a sufficient argument. FCYTravis 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • His argument is fine; yours is not. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the fact that some blogs and such made a stir about her attractiveness, as reported by reliable sources such as the Washington Post. Once can report on salacious events in a non-salacious manner, and a mention of the events is not a BLP violation. Also, it might help keep the discussion out of the gutter if people like you [26] and Rebecca [27] stop posting these rather offensive and disgusting allegations. Calm down and take a breather. Tarc 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there is no reason not to have articles on the best HS athletes if we have good sources for them. If there were 70-79 year olds who could vault to the level of major conference eligibility, I'd think they would indeed be notable--but of course they would have been notable for their undoubtedly higher earlier records. This isn't a matter of privacy or BLP--if the public notice had been for unfortunate things she would be later ashamed of I would say very differently. It will look a little silly adding her next year when she's at college and seeing all this. This discussion is already an excellent opportunity for Wikjipedia Review to make fun of us. DGG 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP prohibits as it always did the addition of unsourced controversial material. Her athletic accomplishment are , however, both well sourced and non controversial. The meme is perhaps controversial, but well sourced, and I do not see how that has become irrelevant. DGG 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments indicate that you've never actually bothered to read Wikipedia Review. WR forum users are generally in favor of us strengthening our biographical requirements - as we're doing here. This is part of the evolution of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. FCYTravis 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is very peculiar in that we have both sides claiming WP:BIO is on their side and the other side is an extremist view point. Ignoring that both sides both think one policy with an opposite meaning is on both sides the arguments apart from that made me lean towards keep. A lot of the delete comments, most being ill-informed calls for speedy deletion, seem to be arguments that are thinly veiled positions on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing from a moral standpoint. The keep side has been arguing that her pole vaulting career is the driving force behind their keep but I don't believe that either, although in my opinion the fact this was found would make her at least notable in sportbios. I am however of the opinion the internet meme, that is the real drvging force behind both this articles inclusion and deletion, should not be as contentious as people consider. There are many precendents for articles in this situation including The Bus Uncle (featured article), Star Wars kid and The Saugeen Stripper. The recent rush for deletion of articles on this type seems to be that people have taken WP:BLP to be the be all and end all of all articles and the fact is a lot of these arguments simply don't follow BLP and scream BLP as a deletion reason rather than its actual reason for existing, to maintain biographical articles neutrally and sourced. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether this article is kept or not, it will not mention the so-called Internet meme. That has already been determined. The only thing this AfD is considering is whether or not Ms. Stokke's athletic accomplishments are suitable for encyclopedic coverage or not. FCYTravis 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not? How is this any different from mentioning it in the entry on Ron Paul?
    • I know that from the DRV closing but I still perceive it as a double standard. The delete proponents argue under WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY (essay), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay) and WP:RPA (essay) while the keep argue from WP:V (policy), WP:NPOV (policy) and WP:NOT censored (policy). With the precents it just seems that wikipedia has gone from the free encyclopedia with a basis in policy to trying to find the moral high ground in regards to articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Bollocks. The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. Moreover Verifiability and Neutral point of view (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?) can never be an argument to keep an otherwise problematic article, and "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't mean that we let any old crap into Wikipedia. Your deployment of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it and Remove personal attacks is masterly, but only if viewed as black propaganda, and hardly illuminating. --Tony Sidaway
        • The delete argument is from Biographies of living persons, which is one of the strongest policies we've got. I know you pride yourself in spelling things out rather than using abbreviations but could you quote the part of that policy which you think most clearly applies here and determines the course of action we should take? Haukur 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Didn't Tony say elswehere that he has not read WP:BLP and does not intend to? Edison 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I specifically left out BLP because both sides are claiming BLP supports their side and that the other side is wrongfully interpretting BLP. As both sides have a valid claim I focussed on the other arguments in the debate as giving BLP to either side in my eyes would've been a biased position. Your random attacks and uncivil additions for seemingly no reason than to bite at me don't exactly give me great faith in your position either (ever met someone who converses in English, by the way?). –– Lid^(Talk) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You'll have to make a better case than "it's already been determined," because it certainly hasn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KeepWhy would her evaluation be single dimensional? There are numerous other factors to consider, including her appearance in various newspapers, etc.
• Delete. A high school athlete in a minor sport is not something we have to cover. An unfortunate fit of internet ogling is something we ought not cover. So what else is there to talk about? Chick Bowen 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Many published works on the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, "the world" decides if something is notable, not Wikipedia editors. --Oakshade 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She won a state championship and broke several records, seems like straightforward notability to me. The internet phenomenon hardly need enter into it. Bryan Derksen 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable individual, meets WP:BIO and no BLP violations. 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, nothing here to write a biography. Not really notable as an athlete yet (still too young), and the internet phenomenon thing just gives us a one-line story that isn't about her. Kusma (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates core official policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because Wikipedia is not a blog, a soapbox, a publisher of original research, or an indiscriminate collection of random information! Also, I will note for the record that a significant number of editors voting for "Keep" appear to be immature juveniles with a weak understanding of proper English spelling and grammar (starting with the rule that the word "Internet" is traditionally capitalized). I sincerely wonder about their ability to understand Wikipedia core policies and principles which have been reaffirmed hundreds of times by ArbCom, the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, and the majority of Wikipedia admins. --Coolcaesar 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does this article violate WP:OR? –– Lid^(Talk) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Alison is a beautiful girl, and she should be flattered about that; unfortunately, that does not an article make, and the depravity of a few does not cut it either. I wish her the best of luck in her career, but there's no need to have an article on her. Delete, without prejudice to recreation if/when her athletic career has a longer list of accomplishments. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Athletes are notable if they are in a professional league, won an "open" (which means not age-restricted) nationwide championship or something similar. Being a high school athlete, even an excellent high school athlete, does not make the mark. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since we would not even have an article in the first place if it were not for the drooling idiots who obsess over her picture. And Xoloz, this was a stupid idea - the DRV showed a clear weight of arguments balance to keep deleted. We can afford to wait until she has acieved actual notability outside of Teh Internets, and meantime we can maybe discuss the Washington Post article a little at an article on internet privacy. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to disagree with you there, Guy. DRV showed that the community felt that the speedy deletion was inappropriate, hence the correct thing to do was restore and relist on AFD. Js farrar 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:N based on multiple reliable sources covering her in nontrivial fashion. From a practical standpoint, she's probably better known at this point than 95% of our bio articles. I'm not saying OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm saying she clearly meets our criteria. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until she establishes her reputation as an athlete beyond all doubt, and until those who wish to decorate her article with the banner headline "Teen Tests Internet's Lewd Track Record" (yes, that is the headline on the story we are being told "establishes her notibility") start typing with both hands and smell the coffee. —Phil | Talk 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with Washington Post headlines take it up with them. Note that I made the text big so everyone can see it. --JJay 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The brouhaha establishing her notability is distasteful, but it exists, is verifiable, and can be sourced. She also participated in an interview about the issue, which kind of invalidates the points of people saying she isn't looking for notability on the subject. She is very clearly notable, and thus deserves an article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not policy. --Ashenai 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, so meets WP:BIO. The article is sourced, neutral and verifiable, so not in violation of WP:BLP. Walton^{alternate account} 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since when did WP:BLP apply to sourced statements? Jon513 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for wikipedia Avi 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the article subject meets the notability requirements. One of the many things that Wikipedia does well is to make internet phenomena understandable to the general reader. Will people remember her in a century? No, but who's heard of 60% of the people in the latest public-domain Encyclopedia Britannica? The people who Rebecca call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a Washington Post article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable. She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one. Darkspots 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Does somebody have a bucket handy? --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just use paper towels like everyone else. And you really don't need to tell us about it. :) --Ashenai 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 2

• Delete. There are two possible claims for the lovely Miss Stokke to have an article:

  1) She is a notable athelete. - Answer - not yet, she's not. She does not pass the requirements for atheletes set out in WP:BIO.

  2) She is notable because she is flavour of the month for the blog pervert brigade, and that made the Washington Post. - Answer - I read a news story (on the BBC!) yesterday about a man in Sudan who married a goat. Does that mean the goat should have its own article? It was after all, the subject of the article. No, it doesn't. Irrespective of BLP issues, it's not enough for an article.

In conjunction with the BLP issues, this looks like an Unholy Alliance of inclusionists and onanists trying to keep an article on Allison Stokke. there are no good reasons to keep the article. There are many to delete it; basic human dignity, common sense, our rules on the biographies of living people, and because Doc G said so. Neil ╦ 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Insulting editors is not acceptable. Kindly refrain from such attacks. Tyrenius 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• What? Neil ╦<;;/span> 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean this goat? –– Lid^(Talk) 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh my God. Well, there's the next AFD I'll open. Neil ╦ 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You say there are "no good reasons to keep the article"; perhaps you could then comment on at least a couple of the many reasons that were given? --Ashenai 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did - her athelete career is yet not sufficient per WP:BIO (she's not even a record holder any more, see above) the "being a subject of fifteen year old lust" is absolutely out per WP:BLP. Neil ╦ 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with no objection to re-creation when she becomes notable for her athletic achievement. At the moment, she isn't notable for this, so IMHO including her on the basis of being an "internet phenomonon" violates WP:BLP thus; "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry ... if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." without even going near Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore material which is national news. It's not a BLP issue: that refers to material which is not properly sourced. This is just censorship and a very bad precedent. We operate from NPOV. Tyrenius 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  It's probably international news. I read a half-page report in Fréttablaðið, which even had a photograph. (That still doesn't mean we should necessarily keep the article.) Haukur 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Not only are her athletic achievements noteworthy (broke several national records, according to the article, thereby qualifying under WP:BIO: Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.), but she's an example of the way the 'Net is affecting privacy.
  *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Err, you did notice that this is all high school stuff, right? That's hardly what I'd call "the highest level in amateur sports". Friday (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And you did notice that her records have since been broken, anyway? (see earlier in this AFD) Neil ╦ 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of her records, this meets WP:BIO through multiple non-trivial coverage of her athletic career. Prolog 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable (thought talented) athlete; the internet meme is not encyclopedic; nothing in this case overcomes her reasonable desire for privacy, and our obligation to treat people decently. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Questioning the notability of high school record holders by nominator is unreasonable age discrimination. `'юзырь:mikka 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  She is no longer a record holder. See above. Neil ╦ 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  What an excellent argument. I can't wait to start the AfD on Hank Aaron when Barry Bonds surpasses his home run record. Tarc 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Preposterous analogy - Aaron is notable for much, much more than being the MLB HR record-holder. Js farrar 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  It was supposed to be preposterous, to point out that just because someone tops a record-holder doesnt' automatically make the old record-holder less notable. Tarc 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How the hell is this still up fro debate? Cary Bass ^demandez 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Because there's no reason to delete her. She's notable for at least two things, each of which have several reliable, verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

  • Because she's noteworthy. This really shouldn't be up for debate because it unquestionably meets our standards, so I actually kind of agree with you, but for different reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- The lady clearly doesn't want the attention, and we shouldn't be feeding the animals. Bring her up again after she's won an Olympic event or set a world's record and to hell with newspaper coverages--which are feeding the same salacious interests as bloggers these fallen days. Until then, we ought to respect people's wishes that they don't want coverage as a Right Thing to do. Or our we to stoop to the level of Paparazzi? Perhaps we should have a tag "Wikipedia respects the privacy rights of this individual and will not expand this article" or the like. Keep the page to bare minimal facts, and be respectful overall. I don't see engaging in tabloid journalism as the mission of this project. It's frankly, demeaning. // FrankB 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  So, if we keep the page to the verifiable facts, that's fine with you? that doesn't sound like a delete vote, that sounds more like a cleanup vote. Oh, and a tag saying "we will not expand this article" is like claiming nothing more can be learned about something. Lets say Michael Jordan in high school got involved on the Internet and some female heartthrobs decide to make a webpage dedicated to him, he decided to throw off the publicity and say he wanted to be left alone. How would you like to have put that tag on him saying "nothing more will ever happen to this guy. We'll never change this article." It's silly, and it's the Wrong Thing. McKay 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability due to having multiple independent reliable sources covering her achievements as an athlete, and apparently these achievements are non-trivial. The fact that her records are broken isn't as important as the fact that she once set them; most of Babe Ruth's and Ty Cobb's records are also broken. Unfortunately it looks like this article will need to live either on people's revert lists or merely semi-protected for a while, to avoid vandalism, but that's not a big deal, we have lots of articles like that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, non-public people that are borderline notable should not have to put up with articles that contain vandalism and offensive material. When a person has stated that they do not desire publicity it is wrong for us to harm them by allowing it to happen. We need to be responsible and do the right thing. If she later is a truly notable person then we can write a well balanced comprehensive article about her. FloNight 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There's significant debate as to how "non-public" she is, and there's no such thing as "borderline notable" - you're either notable or you're not, and she clearly is.

(Can't be bothered to track down the page history to see who didn't sign this.) Don't be silly: You're using a false dichotomy and the fallacy of extremes. That's like saying "It's either black or white, and there's no gray" — clearly false. Of course there are shades of notability. There's extremely notable (say, GWB), utterly non-notable (my cat), and, somewhere inbetween, at the "borderline notable" level, is this girl. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've gone back and forth on this but ended up with Keep. High school athletes wouldn't normally meet the bar but CBS calls her "one of the best prep athletes in the nation" and the point is that she does want to be recognized for her athletic accomplishments and not her unwanted Internet fame. Her call for respect for her privacy is also notable -- however -- it should only be a one-line mention in her article and a refer to Harassment by computer or Internet privacy or other appropriate article. WP:BLP requires us to exercise particular care. What we should do is respect her wishes and the above would seem to be in keeping with her statements that I've seen. Canuckle 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Still Keep (I voted above, I've got more input) We have very clear rules as to whether or not something should be kept, WP:Notability. The primary Notability criterion is that the subject of the article must be the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Either her athletic career or the Internet meme is enough to satisfy this. The meme *is* notable. It must be mentioned. WP:BLP doesn't apply because the information can be sourced very well. BLP talks about removing content in that isn't WP:Attributable. All of the meme stuff is attributable, reliable, and verifiable. Maybe I'm not understanding something, but it appears to me that anyone voting keep delete doesn't understand the policies involved. McKay 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Read it again. Especially the "nutshell". And read WP:NOT, the bit about newspapers. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:NOT mentions newspaper sources and says 2 basic things "we aren't a primary news source" so, if we source other thigns, we're fine. It also says "be sure to follow notablity guidelines" which we're doing. She satisfies the primary notability criterion for either her academic achievements, or the Internet meme. McKay 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Encyclopediaize. She is an attractive, talented high-school athlete made "notable" (read: some fake self-made level of famousness that we can pick and choose to establish or decline) by a bunch of bloggers oogling her. Does that warrant an article? No. BLP concerns are a secondary factor. This is an encyclopedia, not a Who's Who of high school athletes or a blog to tout some "hot new thing". Let her alone and delete this article. How about some common decency, folks? --Ali'i 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Hmm, you say we're not a who's who, and not a blog to tout some hot new thing, yet we're an encyclopedia. Could you please explain your criteria for encyclopedic inclusion? Wikipedia already has one, WP:N which she easily passes via the primary notability criterion. Are you trying to propose a new criteria for inclusion? McKay 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Clearly you did not read my entire comment. Please read in full before commenting again. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have not seen anything which makes me believe she is sufficiently notable outside of the meme thing. High School atheletes break records for their age groups all the time. How many of them get biographies written about them? All of the references cited are to local (i.e. SoCal) media. If we keep this article, I don't see it ever being anything more than a stub protected against vandalism and/or material which fails wp:blp. At least until such time when and if she does something truly noteworthy such as sets an olympic or world record, at which point there will be a perfectly good reason to write a real article about her. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. Quadzilla99 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not so "clearly". Could you please explain? WP:BIO states for athletes: "Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis or Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Which of these does she exactly satisfy? Or are you actually claiming notability for her recent unwanted harassment? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was referring to this: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" the front page of the Washington Post qualifies. Rather than wasting our time debating whether we like what the sources say every time this comes up, I think as long as they mention the person we should keep the article. This makes it more black & white and straightforward. Her national records would make her qualify as an athlete as well. So she makes it on both counts, even though the two are really unrelated though. Quadzilla99 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per McKay, especially his "Still keep" reasoning. Maxamegalon2000 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep national record and coverage in media makes her notable.  Grue  19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even german media became aware: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,486714,00.html --Adornix 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't read German, but it didn't take much to guess that an article titled Sexsymbol wider Willen wasn't going to be about pole vaulting, and the fish confirmed that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    He's not trying to say that she's an international sports star, he's trying to say that she's an internation sex-symbol. Removing her from wikipedia because she's multi-talented is just silly. McKay 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neil and Rebecca put it particularly well. Not notable outside of BLP-violating memes. The first deletion and DRV were enough, this whole AfD is just banner waving for all sorts. --InkSplotch 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  So sorry, what's in violation with BLP? Also, it's been shown that she *is* notable outside of the internet Meme. Rebecca had an arbitrary criteria, when WP:N is a more concrete criteria, which she passes. Neil also doesn't appear to understand wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, WP:N. McKay 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Neil understands WP:N, thank you. Neil also understands WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news string dedicated to ensuring there is an article for every poor girl who gets leched over by a bunch of grubby wankers and WP:what's more many of us are capable of showing some human decency once in a while, as well as WP:Common sense instead of robotically assessing a situation based on some pretty arbitrary and often ignored inclusion criteria and articles about the media furore and not about Allison Stokke. Do you? Neil ╦ 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it has NOT been shown that. The policy states (as I've said before), "Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis or Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Which of these does she exactly satisfy? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:Notability contains wikipedia's primary notablity criterion: "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You're referring to WP:BIO which states: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" one of them is "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." so it passes WP:BIO too. (that's what the primary notability criterion is for, it applies to all subjects). McKay 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Information which is presented in an NPOV fashion, while citing reliable sources and avoiding original research, cannot violate WP:BLP, so the "not notable except for BLP violation" argument holds no water. Ubernostrum 20:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight. (This page is now so long that I'm supplying a diff.) ElinorD (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  She does meet notability issues, and the things about her are all attributable, so that content meets WP:BLP. Do you have anything else to add? McKay 20:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This article is NOT here because of her track accomplishments. A bunch of internet dorks posted her picture all over the place and drooled over it. That infamy got the article listed here. There are thousands of good high school athletes that aren't listed on Wikipedia, and why should they be? Forteblast 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We keep the big Internet phenomenon like Star Wars Kid. JeffBurdges 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a "big internet phenomenon" it's despicable harassment of a living individual. "The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone. Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers." Want to be a part of that? Keep it up. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Or, y'know, we could write an article that presents her as a human being worthy of respect instead of a piece of meat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact this delete vote should probably be postponed simply because we don't know how it'll turn out. If people keep pushing it, then she'll eventually have an article no matter what. If people forget, this article will come back up for deleteion and everyone will kill it. But for now AfD should probably ignore it. Anyway Star Wars Kid was much worse, feel bad for him. This girl created her fame partially by having a story about it in the Washington Post. She knows what she's getting into by talking to them. JeffBurdges 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete athletes of her level of accomplishment do not rutinely have articles (and, IMO, should not). We would not be having this debate were it not for the non-notable and salacious internet meme. Not that being salacious is an independent reason for deletion but per BLP we must show care and exercise discretion in incuding such content in articles like this one. Eluchil404 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The "not-notable" internet meme has had international press and was on the front page of the Washington Post. Just so you're aware, I don't need to rehash the BLP thing when it's been adequately debunked above numerous times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of the level of coverage the meme has recieved. I believe that Wikipedia should generally not cover memes because they are ephemeral, but this is clearly an area where we disagree. Eluchil404 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia shouldn't cover memes which are ephemeral for a simple reason- they don't have reliable sources written about them. Hence we don't have an article on the GNAA or The Game. In this case, we have multiple reliable sources (indeed it doesn't get much better than the Washington Post) about the meme in question. JoshuaZ 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when was the Washington Post "multiple sources"? Delete; she's simply not notable for her athletic achievements (per WP:BIO), and the internet meme thing fails WP:BLP. Js farrar 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The Washington Post is not multiple sources, but the Washington Post, LA Times, CBS News, Chicago Tribune, Orange County Register, Sydney Morning Herald, NPR add up to multiple sources, in my opinion. Links to the articles provided on request, although a Google News search should turn them up pretty easily. JavaTenor 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Multiple, but not independent sources. They are all reporting on the same news event. That's not in line with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, though attractive, athlete. AniMate 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a believer that Wikipedia should keep the Daniel Brandt article but this one. Brandt created popular websites that brought attention to himself. (Sorry, Mr. Brandt) But for this person? Nah... Yes, she has been covered by notable publications but it isn't for her athletic achievements it's becauase one picture that made a lot of "fan" sites. It's more of the Internet stalking aspect those stories cover. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. There's another site for that. Will she be "notable" like in 5-years now? For what besides an attractive picture. --Souphanousinphone 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, more non-trivial sources in the mainstream media than I can shake a stick at. --Delirium 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I looked at WP:BIO for ten seconds and immediately noticed these: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors, The person has demonstrable wide name recognition. She has definitely done both, in athletics and as an Internet meme.MoraSique 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If Stokke hadn't been all over the Internet, she wouldn't have the article. Everyone should stop pretending that this isn't so. If she hadn't been an Internet phenom, she likely would have been speedied or proded. To have this article and not mention the real reason for her notability is empty self-deception. If Wikipedia doesn't need to mention her unsought publicity, then it doesn't need to mention her at all. Fishal 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the records and the meme combine to make here important. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm willing to be benevolently dictated to that internet memes based on physical appearance beyond the subject's control cannot be used for notability discussions. However, I see four or so pre-meme mainstream media articles used as references that have Stokke's name in the title, which appears to meet BIO. In my opinion, the strength of the primarily criterion for notability (multiple independent sources) is greater than the lack under specifically "athlete" criteria. As for the "delete because the article was created because of the meme" argument, there are a couple murdered professors at Virginia Tech who received articles after the recent shootings, were promptly AFDed, and met WP:PROF with flying colors; just because someone comes to the attention of Wikipedia for a non-notable reason doesn't mean that there isn't something else that establishes notability. Given the concerns around this article and in line with the presumption in favor of privacy, I would have zero problem with full protection in its current form, with no mention of the meme, with a reduction to semi-protection in six months to see if the leering masses have moved on. - BanyanTree 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A famous athlete, lots of articles about her. I saw a series of articles in many, many, many internet news service sites. I saw one in the fabulous and informative FoxNews service. I even saw an article about it in AOL that was criticising Wikipedia for saying that Allison is not notable, even though she was on the pages of the fucking Washington Post. -Lapinmies 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable for sports 66.91.215.65 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  User's first edit. Neil ╦ 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The internet phenomenon surrounding her should be enough, but that aside, she's a notable athlete who's broken several national records.--Pushsense 08:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete − She should definitely have the right to stay anonymous. I guess that law even forbids the publishment of private persons' informations! --Claas Augner 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  User's first edit outside his userpage. Haukur 11:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No information about her is in the article that has not already been published, as you can see from the footnotes. --Ashenai 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - User Septegram hit the nail right on the head. tdpatriots12 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - First of all, I'd like to address some straw man arguments above. The "meme" story has become international news, but not because the editorial staff of The Washington Post are a bunch of "masturbating neanderthals", or because NPR is a bastion of "tabloid journalism", or because the Chicago Tribune wants to drool over her pictures. It has become international news because it speaks to the concerns many have over the shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs to millions of people, or in which Google can immortalize random people sunbathing or walking into pornographic bookstores. However, it's obvious per WP:BLP that we can't (and shouldn't) have a true biography on any of these people. Thus: Merge the "meme" information to an article on "unwilling internet phenomena", or "internet privacy concerns", or something similar. That might ultimately be a good destination for people like Star Wars Kid or even, dare I say it, Little Fatty. JavaTenor 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is international news. One of the first articles to report on the meme was The Times[28]--Pushsense 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion, and expresses what I feel about this a lot better than my keep vote, above. I think that Wikipedia can and should have an article about this phenomenon that lists and explains these individual incidents. Readers who want to know about this article's subject can read about her story in a larger framework. Pretending like this didn't happen by erasing all mention of her from WP--with an eye to protecting the privacy of someone who has lost that privacy on the internet--feels like a pointless attempt to turn back the clock. Darkspots 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes I think this is a reasonable middle-ground position. I've made this suggestion on the talk page: the meme only became notable due to her media relations campaign. The following sentence should pass review (I think) as accurate, appropriate and respectful: "In May 2007, Stokke conducted a brief but effective media relations campaign with national media to assert her right to privacy and to ask the public to focus on her athletic accomplishments." Canuckle 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without whatever was deleted on BLP grounds, she's not notable, being a good athlete at the high school level does not make one notable. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Her notability does not only come from her athletic achievements ... the part about the internet meme was not "deleted on BLP grounds" but rather repeatedly removed without consensus and the page protected. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this article does not violate WP:BIO and is about the "shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs to millions of people" as javatenor said. Hypnosadist 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac of high school atheletes. Hopefully she will have a full and rewarding athletic career. In the meantime, the other reason for her notability requires deletion. BLP is about more than just protecting ourselves from liability. This person's notability is due largely to the fact that she became the unwanted object of widespread purient interest. Under the spirit of BLP as well as the letter ("Such material requires a degree of sensitivity,", "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility", "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm"," and "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.") that material does not belong in the article. (Wikipedia is not a newspaper also applies, as does Neutral Point of View:Undue Weight, as it pertains to people notable for a single event.) Thatcher131 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete •Jim62sch• 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone saying she is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm sorry, but minor high school athletic achievements don't really achieve notability, even if you can find some small town newspapers that talk about it. As for everything else regarding her possible notability — e.g. that she's attractive (OMG) — I think some common sense and a good application of WP:DIGNITY do wonders here. --Cyde Weys 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What is notable is not that shes a good looking lass but the speed and size of the meme generated by her looks. This is clearly notable and worldwide, this fact can be recorded in a way that in no way harms her, lets try to find that wording then we are all happy.Hypnosadist 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now, per JavaTenor, the talk page of the article, and many other places. It's a notable instance of internet fame that's made all sorts of news and become a serious buzz. Six months down the line we'll have more perspective to know whether this ought to be an independent article or merged into a list as just another item, but for now it's a substantial piece of sourced information that'll inform our readers neutrally about something a lot of people want to know about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Trout Whack for those who are mistaking this for a Vote (who are at least mercifully short,) and for those simply rehashing, rehashing, and rehashing things. Has there been an original point or conclusion in this whole section? Are there any points here beyond: She's an athelete with records [no she's not], she's memorable for the meme [no she's not], BLP applies [no it doesn't], news articles automatically make one notable [no they don't], it's all tabloid-style coverage [no it isn't.] Did I miss anything beyond the goat argument? LaughingVulcan 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Teen girl and high-school athlete, leered at by some bottom-feeders on blogs and forums. Disgusting and grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, did you even read the entry above yours about rehashing? I guess at least the suggestion that if something is disgusting it is inappropriate for Wikipedia represents a new level of...something. Lampman ^{Talk to me!}

• Delete, per all the other times I've voted on this article. Again, if there are users here who are interested in a project to scrape up "biographies" of every person who has made it into the news or been the victim of an internet meme, please do it somewhere other than the encyclopedia. Jkelly 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, qualifies for inclusion based on sports and internet fame. --JJay 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The issue isn't whether the subject is notable for one particular thing (athletics or the meme) -- though I'll note that this source identifies her as "one of the nation's best prep athletes". Is she notable overall? She has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works (among them the Washington Post and at least two television interviews). The article is sourced and neutral, although I find it strange that the part about the meme, which is a significant event in her life, has been repeatedly removed. I think there comes a point where concern about BLPs crosses over into blatant censorship ... with this article, I think that point has been crossed. Wikipedia should not be censored. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete For the love of God, get rid of this article. She is de facto not notable (and yes, I know her personally, so there!, and so does another Wikipedian!). She is nn-bio CSD A7, all that.... so delete. One more thing, her only claim to notability is really in Merseyside and East Riding of Yorkshire, but that's not Wikipedia's standard of notability. --Kasha walls33 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  What makes you think she is "de facto" not notable. I was talking with a friend of mine about my blocking yesterday over this issue. He doesn't really use Wikipedia, but I asked him if he knew who Allison Stokke was, and he said "Is she the track star with her photos on the Internet" (is it okay to say that or am I going to get blocked?), we don't live anywhere near Meyerside, or east riding of yorkshire (in fact I haven't even heard of those places), so I'd claim that she's de facto notable. She meets the criteria specified in WP:BIO via the primary notability criterion, and her notability is asserted satisfiing CSD A7. So it looks like your claim has no ground. McKay 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Wow, now WP:MYNEIGHBOURHEARDOFHER is now a valid keep criterion? Why didn't you tell us this at the beginning and spare us all of the discussion which actually references policy? Corvus cornix 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL WP:AGF I was merely using this as an example of my confusion as to what he meant by "de facto" ... McKay 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Considering this is your first edit at wikipedia[29], how would you know anything about "Wikipedia's standard of notability"? --JJay 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ... every heard of lurkers? Not everyone who is a newbie is a newbie to Wikipedia policy and culture.. --Iamunknown 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...ever heard of sock puppets? --JJay 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...evr heard of the harm in making unsupported accusations! Got any proof that this editor is a WP:SOCK.Hypnosadist 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...socks usually come in pairs. See below. JJay 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Given that Allison Stokke is American rather than English, I do believe you are thinking of someone else. — VulcanOfWalden 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per almost everything said above (pointless to repeat). Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• What JavaTenor said, i.e. merge and mention in an article on internet privacy concerns or similar title. the wub "?!" 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but with changes. I believe the article should exist because she is a notable person, but the article doesn't discuss what makes her notable. It isn't her pole vaulting record. It's the internet phenomenon surrounding pictures of her. This needs to be described in the article in order to justify the article's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Capedia 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - LeBron James was a high school sensation, as was Candace Parker. Both had wiki articles long before they achieved anything after high school. Stokke's physical appearance only draws more attention to her, such as Amanda Beard; this is the first time I've heard of not including someone because she is "too famous", but not "famous enough". If this was the case, Paris Hilton should have been deleted long ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.232.227 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename to something like "Allison Stokke controversy". This doesn't need to be a biographical article, as the notable thing here is not the person herself but what the Internet just did to her. This controversy was well covered by verifiable, reliable journalism sources, so there's no case for deletion. However, there's also no reason for this to remain a biography article. 62.31.67.29 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's quite questionable whether this athlete is notable. She apparently has some high school records now, but will she later? Probably not, records are routinely broken. Would we put the pole vaulter with the 12th best height in California high school history on wikipedia just because they held the record in 1974? No, we wouldn't even think about it. If this girl goes on to be a successful athlete beyond high school, obviously she will have an article. There's no rush to create one now, and this article never, ever would have been created were it not for the unfortunate internet drama. To have an article that only address her athletic achievements and not the internet meme would be ridiculous and a drama magnet to the nth degree, and we absolutely should not have an article that discusses the internet meme for already decided BLP reasons. She's a talented athlete, but it is simply not necessary to have an article about her since her notability is so borderline. Because of the BLP issues and all the drama having an entry on this girl would create (actually already has created) it is not desirable to have an article about her right now. Let's exercise a little editorial and moral judgment here and get rid of this thing. When she competes in the Olympics or something similar we'll put it back.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, unless you live in Liverpool or Kingston-upon-Hull (where she is notable, apart from California, where she isn't!). It's Scousecruft, or Hullcruft. Delete this, per WP:BLP, WP:BIO. --Theeastyorkshiredude1983xss 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not notable, even with regard to the Internet meme. Only real claim of notability is presenting a show on 96.9 Viking FM in 2005 and 2006, and being an EMAP radio employee but whether you consider that notable is up to you. --Septicollocr44 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete CSD A7, only ever notable to people from Liverpool, Teesside or Humberside, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. One more thing - this Californian is OFTEN seen in those three places, but that doesnt mean shes notable. So delete this fancruft. --Kaillaws322 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable at all. The internet meme thing doesn't wash, and doesn't mean she meets WP:BIO. However, Amanda and Sam Marchant from Big Brother would meet WP:BIO, not that you'd realize. --TEDPITMAN 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an employee of 96.6 TFM, I can confirm Ms. Stokke worked for us last year, doing some background production work for Patrick's evening show... but she just doesn't want publicity, so let's not give her any then. She wouldn't meet your WP:BIO or WP:BLP standards anyway. --Gelssam30032 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, just because it's on the Net doesnt make her notable. And for gods sake, just get rid of this non-notable individual from here. --Kemsell43 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only marginal notability, and that's just for her work on British radio last year. Doesn't meet WP:BIO anyway. --Penysago333 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An American who does part-time work on British radio isn't notable: for the record, she's got a house in Leeds, if that's of any relevance. But she's not notable enough for here. --Kaimarbuth1336 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the epitomy of CSD A7, "nn-bio" --Wrenfordhouse9000 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. JJay 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory of British radio employees. --Quevers00032 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• User's first edit at wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep You hear the name, you want to know who she is, Wikipedia is the first place you'd look. Beve 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia is not meant to be censored. It was bad enough that the Internet phenomena page got wiped out, making Wikipedia the last place to look for information on Internet culture. I was personally upset at that action, but I accepted it because I agree there is a need for reasonable inclusion criteria. Demanding reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability of memes is completely acceptable to me.
          So, what now concerns me is that when those criteria are met, with internet memes making front page news in respected US national newspapers, suddenly those inclusion criteria give way to the arbitrary whims of moral crusaders. Wikipedia reflects the world. We have articles for murder and rape. We have articles for the Star Wars Kid, Gary Brolsma, Rufus Hannah; people who didn't want to be famous but became famous anyway, famous for being filmed in humiliating situations. They're famous because people love to watch other people suffer. These people exist in infamy and it's offensive to me to pretend they don't, to bowdlerize Wikipedia and to keep people from discovering the cruel world we live in. I ask these people: please start a "family friendly" fork of Wikipedia if that's what you want, but don't impose your moral standards on Wikipedia itself. 62.31.67.29 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (from Talk page. --Ali'i 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete With no prejudice to recreation if she becomes a notable athlete outside of highschool competitions. The media coverage was both substantial and trivial, being the subject of transitory internet fandom does not make one a public figure. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm ... coverage can't be both substantial and trivial. Could you please clarify? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe he means that is was numerous but that for all the different numbers of mentions, they were all trivial. Correct me if I erred. --Ali'i 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Nail, head. (I suppose that "numerous" or "voluminous" or "way overboard" are all better choices than "substantial".) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if we included information on every HS athlete record holder it would be crazy. If she had international honour and such I think she would cross the bench mark for notability. (world junior medals etc.) David D. (Talk) 19:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: here is an example of a currently notable HS athlete, Jordan Hasay David D. (Talk) 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think we'll care about this in two years or ten (unless she does something notable in that time). This isn't a newspaper or blog. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Before dismissing her for record in ONLY one state, note that California, with a 2006 population of 36.5 million, would rank as the 37th country in the world if it were a country, ahead of Canada or Australia, and in all 231 countries in the CIA world factbook [30] so a California record compares to a national record in much of the world. Please don't wikilawyer with quotes from guidelines which are there more as a substitute for multiple reliable sources about an individual than to exclude article based on sources which satisfy WP:N and WP:A. Edison 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It would rank as the world's 37th largest country, but it's a state, not a country. Your counterfactual is irrelevant for our purposes. New York City has a larger population than Nicaragua and well over a hundred other countries, but would you recommend having an article on every NYC high school athlete who broke records for the city in every sporting event imaginable? How about athletes in Tokyo? Or Mexico City? I don't think so. The rationale in your comment does not make Ms. Stokke's achievements more notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, local is local, whether that local is California or Nicaragua. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The attention makes the subject notable. She now has cultural importance, and this is a valid enough reason to document her here. Tfine80 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. She's a high-school athlete. And...? An absolute no-brainer: if and when she has some post-collegiate accomplishments, then she probably rates a biographical article -- you know, an actual biography -- but not until then. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 9 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. --Coredesat 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Would Be Emperors

The Would Be Emperors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable band (1 independently-released 3 song-EP with another supposedly forthcoming; no sources other than their official site and MySpace page). Avoids speedy deletion only because its drummer is a former member of The Twang. NawlinWiki 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Who left before they were signed - he's a bit-part in that band and his NN venture here is an unsigned band who release their own CDs. fails WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs)

• Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. May be notable some day, but not yet. Closenplay 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:56, 7 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. --Coredesat 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High School Ranking, california

High School Ranking, california (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominated as speedy and vastly contested in it's talk page, so listed here. Delete as unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (statistics) -- Nabla 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nomination Nabla. I really do think that the content in this article is unencyclopedic. I really don't think regional data that too stretched out to 913 has no place in Wikipedia - much less any Encyclopedia. The author "SanJoseResident" has previously mentioned that some of the data was generated from software. I believe this constitutes not only potential copyright infringements, but also Original Research. I also suspect the author of Sock puppetry (I present "HighSchoolDad" as the sock puppet). I think the odds of one other person arriving on an article which is relatively new, being from California and actually being interested in this matter, not to mention similar editing styles (Wikilinking their usernames as opposed to signing with ~~~~, despite my comments). I'll leave it out to the others to decide. Strong DeleteVishnuchakra 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- A whole table devoted to one years' worth of test rankings? Perhaps if this data were significant in any way (linked to a major event or a change in testing structure, and explained), then maybe we might want to keep it, but I can't see the use, especially when someone can visit the California Department of Education site and get the data themselves (I doubt its copyvio being public data from a gov't agency). Its nifty to see my old high school still in the top 50, but c'mon. Definately reads as Original Research. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR, although I have no doubt that the data are genuine, I cannot find any source that adds the two factors which when combined produces the rankings. It's like ranking the countries of the world by the sum of their population and area and calling the list "biggest countries". Carlossuarez46 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If the data is genuine, I would guess it is copied wholesale from a website, which case it is a copy-vio. If this article were to be retained, it would need to be wikified. However, the right place for this kind of information is on the website of the appropriate public authority, not in WP. Peterkingiron 22:14, 7 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. --Coredesat 02:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Valley Middle School

Hidden Valley Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. No indication of thsi being in any way different from tens of thousansds of similar schools. Reads linke a school flyer (and might be a copyvio). DES ^(talk) 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per my nom DES ^(talk) 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the school does not have any notable achievements. --Must WIN 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable school, and the format is questionable. It appears to be something directly copied from a brochure about the school. And it may either qualify for a speedy delete due to the "advertising tone", or simply copyright violations, if a pamphlet did exist.--Kylohk 11:33, 7 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, article does not assert band's notability. NawlinWiki 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XXX_Maniak

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) Bricology 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Held my nose long enough to get through altogether too many blog hits, nothing resembling a reliable source that could establish a pass through WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:V as well, no sources or references given.  RGTraynor  20:38, 4 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. Herostratus 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity gallery

After seeing the deletion log and a speedy delete didn't work the first time around, figure giving this a go. (clears throat). Anyways, the reason why I am nominating this for deletion is this is a list of places that charge money. We are not a travel directory of this kind of information. The other pressing matters is that the only source for the information is a blog post, which is generally not considered a good source to use on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the list, as unreferenced and potentially libellous but all we're left with is a dicdef, with the real danger of the list reappearing. So best delete.--Doc^g 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - until the article is something more than a dicdef and is referenced. No article better than bad article, and so on. Apart from the the fact that if any of those listed as vanity galleries (unreferenced, of course), were not vanity galleries, there'd be hell to pay. Moreschi ^Talk 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article cannot be more than a dicdef if it is deleted. It needs time to develop. I'm afraid I don't agree that "no article is better than a bad article". The list of galleries has been removed. The concept of a vanity gallery, like that of a vanity press, is notable. It is discussed in this reliable source, along with books like How to Survive and Prosper as an Artist, 5th ed.: Selling Yourself Without Selling Your Soul (Caroll Michaels, Owl Books 2001) and The Artist's Guide to New Markets: Opportunities to Show and Sell Art Beyond Galleries (Peggy Hadden, Allworth Press, 1998), among others. I believe the former could be used as a source for a set of examples, if necessary. JulesH 07:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have rewritten the article from sources. The blog used as a source originally has been retained, as the blog's author is a professional art critic, therefore I consider it a reliable source. JulesH 07:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been rewritten and nicely explains the concept. --JJay 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep good re-write. Please watch to prevent the list re-appearing -Doc^g 23:13, 9 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. --Coredesat 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exit Only

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

Non-notable novel. Unreferenced and fails WP:V and WP:RS. No significant reviews - see here. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree, without verifiable references this is not notable. Useight 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only review on those google results was on an unprofessional site that appears to be in some way affiliated with the book's publisher. JulesH 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:57, 7 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, utter nonsense and zero reliable sources. Naconkantari 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rickroll

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

Non-notable Internet fad. --- RockMFR 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deleteas previously deleted article. Wasn't notable then, still isn't now Wildthing61476 20:06, 4 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Irish Famine (book)

The Irish Famine (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be viewed as advertising and promoting non-notable material, as outlined by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement . The are many books like this on the subject, and this dose not raise anything new which has not already been covered. There are many notable books on the subject, and this is not one of them.--Domer48 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't doubt the notability of the authors, but for the book itself to be notable I would expect it to be internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications. I can't find any evidence that this book is any of these, so by all means grant it a few lines on the authors' pages, but it doesn't warrant its own article. A1octopus 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The book itself is not notable.--Vintagekits 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) says: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. (my bolding).
  I've added links to 4 additional reviews in the article bringing the total to eight (8) verifiable, non-trivial independent reviews currently referenced:
  
• New Statesman review
• Socialist Review
• Historiographical Review from Eastern Illinois University magazinepdf
• The Spectator review
  
• America magazine review
  
• Publishers Weekly review (short)
  
• Bookview Ireland review
  This book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland [31]. Paxse 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Notability (books).

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

America, the Catholic weekly Magizine published by the Jesuits. The reviwer talks more about the author and quite clearly states that this book will not create so much as a “wrinkle” into the Famine debate. And again, I would suggest that this review could not be described as having satisafied the criteria laid out under the Wikipedia:Notability (books)

As for commercial book sites, they would definitely not constitute as being “no-trivial”.

Regards --Domer48 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confused. WP:BK does not mention 'commercial book sites' only sites that exist to sell books - like Amazon.com - which is not referenced. The guideline against linking to commercial sites generally is from WP:EL. Naturally, newspapers and magazines that publish book reviews are generally commercial entities - but this does not make their book reviews 'trivial'. Also book reviews do not need to be positive about the book or to specifically mention the word "notable" to be considered verifiable 3rd party references. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I followed the link provided for Publishers Weekly review (short) (a commercial book site) and got this link,[32]. This would not establish the books notability? I again followed the link for BOOKVIEW IRELAND, and find that again, it is a commercial book site. Regards --Domer48 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My Publisher's weekly link in your paragraph above shows a short review of the book (scroll down to July publications) your link is to your unsuccessful (and unnecessary) search for the author's name which fails to return any hits. This demonstrates that the PW website search function does not index older reviews - it says nothing about notability. The link to the review in the Eastern Illinois University history magazine 'Historia' (2006 edition) is now dead, as are all links to their magazine archive - it seems they are making some changes on their website. I will search for an archived copy of the magazine and correct the article link if possible. Paxse 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There are a vast number of books on the Irish Famine, for example, a 20sec search on Addall.com (A book site) can bring up over 40 titles. There are a number of Notable titles, in this genre, such as The Great Hunger, by Cecil Woodham-Smith, Irelands Great Famine, by Cormac O Grada, and Ireland Since the Famine, by F.S.L. Lyons. As examples, the reason I mention them, is that they are cited so often in later publications. Examples of this can be found in such publications as The Great Calamity, by Christine Kinealy, The Great Shame, by Thomas Keneally, and Paddy’s Lament, by Thomas Gallagher. It is this fact, which establishes their Notability. This book has not established itself any Notability. And has not been the subject of “multiple” “non-trivial” publications such as I have outlined above. (I have a number of books related to the subject, in addition to those mentioned above and have included some here [33] and here [34] ) Regards--Domer48 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This book more than meets Criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (books). There are numerous non-trivial 3rd party reviews as listed by Paxse. The book is therefore notable under wiki guidelines. Kernel Saunters 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The book in no way comes close to meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). For example, as I have already outlined, the book has not been the subject of “Non-trivial” sources. They have not “contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."

Since the only critira that is been suggested being No.1, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books), can I assume that it has been conceeded that the following points, have been despenced with, and that the book dose not meet any of the criteria mentioned below?

• “The book has won a major literary award.” It has not!
• “The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.” It has not!
• “The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.” It most definitly has not!
• "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." They have not!

Again, I will ask the question, what makes this book notable? I assume that editors have read it, and / or are familiar with the subject?

• I have addressed the sources which have been cited, and would appreciate some feed back on my previous comments? Regards--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxse I have addressd your comments on your talk page, so as not to disrupt this discussion.--Domer48 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxse in their contrabution raised on Notability used the The National Library of Ireland and the fact that the book has an ISBN number to establish Notability. In reply, The National Library of Ireland, like its counterpart in England catalogues all native Publications, regardless of Notability. Most if not all publications now have an ISBN number? Therefore, both these contributions do not establish Notability. In addition, using the terms WP:BK and Wikipedia:Notability (books), interchangeably could lend to the assumption that the book meets the requirements for two separate policies, when they are in fact one and the same. And it dose not satisfy the criteria outlined for notability. Regards --Domer48 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In reply to Domer48, Under Wikipedia:Notability (books), 'A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria' - This books meets Criteria 1. End of Kernel Saunters 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Kernel Saunters, It would be my contention that the sources provided do not in themselves establish Notability, and as can be clearly seen they would not constitute "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As I have already pointed out "what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." You have not illustrated how these sources could constitute Notability. Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." In Addition, Criteria 1.Wikipedia:Notability (books), "these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary," and the sources provided do not.

• "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

• "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

Regards --Domer48 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

• New Statesman review
• Socialist Review
• The Spectator review
  .

The reviews in these publications are in-depth and provide a wealth of information to expand the article beyond a mere plot summary (even if this were a work of fiction?). Their authors are 'generally regarded as trustworthy' as these are mainstream, well-known publications. They are authorative reviewers of publications. To suggest that these publications are somehow 'trivial' is just not on Kernel Saunters 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kernel Saunters The reviews in these publications are not "in-depth" and do not "provide a wealth of information," by any reasonable standard. The authors would not be regarded as "authorative" in relation to the subject matter, and if as you suggest that they are "authorative reviewers of publications," were is the "critical commentary."

The Socialist Review, is by and large a commentary on the Famine, and not on the book, at no time in the review dose it suggest that the information is notable, only that it is useful. In addition, a posting on Socialist Worker web sites, are not themselves notable. And is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

New Statesman’s review dose not suggest the books notability, and is by and large a commerical web site. The review in fact consintrates on the author and not on the book. This again is addressed by "subject" and "Non-trivial" in the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (books)

The Spectator review is by Kevin Myres, who writes opinion articles. As such, he gives his opinions on the subject, and as an aside mentions the book only in his conclusion. There is no critical commentary, and Kevin Myres is not an authoritative opinion in relation to the subject at hand.

Which of the sources provided do you consider "authoritative." And are we down to just these 3. In addition, is it your opinion once a book, any book has been reviewed it should be in Wikipedia. Regards --Domer48 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly are you taking the "authoritative" criterion from? We are NOT just down to three these are good examples, the list is as per Paxse. The notability criteria are what I'm working from in response to the reviewed question Kernel Saunters 13:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

These reviews are nothing more than that, simple, plain reviews. The contain no critical commentary what so ever. This book has no satisfied the criteria at all. The book is not notable. I have illustrated the nature and content of the reviews and you have singularly failed to address my comments, and have been unable to establish this books notability. To answer your question, read my comments. Regards --Domer48 14:06, 9 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. --Coredesat 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Nations Chess League

All Nations Chess League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable. This is just a competition being run on a chess server. Unreferenced and fails WP:V and WP:RS. I cannot find any independent sources - see here. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any independent references to it. Sorry, doesn't meet WP:ORG. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Quale 01:37, 5 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. --Coredesat 02:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Rodal

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

No assertion of notability for this artist: no awards, exhibitions or references. Few ghits, none of which scream "Keep me". Clarityfiend 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable artist. NawlinWiki 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - reads like an advert; notability not asserted. -- MightyWarrior 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:58, 7 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 decision taken, please take such discussions to the talk page of the article. This is Articles for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual synchrony

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

Article reads like original research with the author, User:Ken Birman, being the originator of the term: "Since the model was first proposed by "Birman" and Joseph in a series of papers during the period 1985-1987, virtual synchrony has...". This is indicative of a conflict of interest, especially since the majority of the cited references are the author's own work. Either stubbify for expansion or Redirect to an extant article. This was a contested prod. Cquan ^{(don't yell at me...)} 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from author: Yes, I was associated with the early days of the model, but by now the model has been used in tons of systems and products, including some very important ones. Google the term and you get work from MIT right now at the top of the list, and not work I was in any way related to. The article is unbiased and cites work done at Hebrew University, UCSB, IBM, Microsoft, and even a CORBA standard. I'm not selling anything, just in case anyone is wondering. I have nothing to gain here except a sharing of knowledge. I've also deleted the specific line that the editor objected to, -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. My main complaint is when people CREATE articles on subjects where there is a clear conflict of interest and especially when they cite themselves as sources (the citing appears to be gone now, thanks for that much). However, you should always leave it to others to create an article if the topic is notable and contribute to it then (creating it and/or doing extensive POV-introducing edits just looks bad). I'm sure someone will be willing to save the article by going through it and conforming to neutral point of view in a rewrite. There's no time limit on this discussion either...just when it reaches consensus. Right now the material just strikes me as having a bit too much POV to be ignored, but we'll see what some others (hopefully who are better informed on the topic than I) have to say. Remember, this is just my humble little concern and if the community wants it to stay, then it stays. -Cquan ^{(don't yell at me...)} 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, I'm not yelling at you. But look, be reasonable: this is a widely used model that genuinely runs the New York Stock Exchange, the French ATC system, and other major systems. It runs widely important products from companies like IBM and Microsoft -- products I have absolutely nothing to do with. It corresponds to a major industry standard. Isn't there a threshold at which the fact that I did invent the term twenty five years ago stops being the key issue here? For goodness sake, I don't even work on this anymore... the model just lives on... -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs)
• Keep & Comment Please Read WP:COI Before Using It as a Reason for Deletion! COI is NOT a reason for deletion, here's the operative sentence in the article: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." This phrase, "virtual synchrony" returns 46 all in title (not all distinct) hits on Google Scholar. There seems not much evidence that the subject does not belong in Wikipedia. If the article is poorly written, and contains a COI, deal with these issues properly in their correct location, but please don't nominate an AfD when it obviously needs cleaned up rather than removed. That said, what COI usually leads to is crappy articles, for this reason alone I urge editors to reconsider before writing an article on their pet topic. KP Botany 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually the deletion reason was as original research, with the COI stuff being supporting/pointing out. I did this off the page, so here it is again: I think I jumped the gun a bit here on AfD, so sorry about that. I'm supporting Keep and rewrite at the moment since there seems to be plenty of salvageable material that falls outside of OR. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Okay, since you nominated it, strike out your nomination and start rewriting--doesn't mean gobbleygook to me. I'll be impressed if you can make it into understandable English. I think its biggest failure is it doesn't start out with a general term about what this is, look at the introductory sentence to Finite state machine: "A finite state machine (FSM) , finite state automaton (plural: automata) is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states, transitions between those states, and actions." A halfway intelligent person can follow what they are saying here. This tends to be another issue with COI articles, they're written by insiders for other insiders, and this is a general encyclopedia. KP Botany 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Actually this is a good suggestion (adding a short introduction) and I've done that. I wasn't able to keep it down to 2 lines, but I did refer to the state machine entry, which is a very nice one, and tried to keep it easy to understand. As you correctly point out, technical concepts can be very hard to follow for people who lack background, but this doesn't mean that one can't give at least some sense of what the sory is. Hopefully the edit improves things. I should also point out that I did remove the section that the original editor objected to (I don't know if it suffered from POV quite in the sense (s)he felt, but rather than argue it, I just deleted that part). True, this is still an article that will be more useful to experts, but now it should also be at least approachable by a high school kid with a homework assignment to learn about how air traffic control software handles computer crashes, or how the NYSE does so. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply Ken, did you read your talk page? Your lead sentence is no good, there are still multiple problems with this article--Wikipedia is NOT the place for articles for experts. If you wanted someone to fix your computer would you hire a computer repair technician or the person who wrote the operating system? I can write an operating system, but no one in my family would let me within five feet of their computer armed with a screwdriver to take the back off whatever that big part is called. I still think you would be better off letting someone else write this article--Wikipedia has an amazing number of top notch editors with no COI who can and do write very good, sometimes even brilliant articles for a lay audience on technical topics. KP Botany 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• From Ken: Look guys, I think you are dead set on enforcing a kind of tyranny of the weakest common denominator. If this is what Wiki is really all about, sure, do your thing. But the fact remains that the technology that runs stock exchanges and air traffic control systems just might not be the sort of thing that any random guy who has no idea how computers work could comprehend. And, as it happens, I can easily find thousands of wiki articles that share this property.

Some famous guy once said something about how a thing should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. There is a kind of arrogance inherent in assuming that random people should be able to write on any subject, with little notice, and will do so better than people who have actually worked on the topic. This concept that anyone who has worked on, say, string theory is immediately biased and hence the wrong source for an article on string theory is kind of wierd. For example, I know nothing at all about how radial tires are manufactured. Does this make me a good potential author for an article on that process?

In the particular case, we have the interesting problem that the article originally cited work, but some of it was by me. So I deleted it because of the big fuss made by editor #0. Now editor #1 wants the references restored. Sure, pull them back off the history of the page! It isn't like they went away for real... just got deleted by me at some random person's request, because those articles happen to include some written by me. No surprise, actually: I did invent this model, 20 years ago. Maybe it would be better if one of you restores those references?

I personally think the wiki community needs to think this whole policy through. Why? Well, (1) you don't enforce it, really. If I look at articles on, say, publish-subscribe, where do they point out that that term is actually a trademark of a single company, TIBCO, and that hence any publish-subscribe technology must be a product of theirs? Well, gosh, it doesn't. And do you folks really think that the article on that topic was really written without any POV? If so, well, I admire your faith in human goodness...

Reason (2): Non-experts often screw up articles that relate to sophisticated things. This would fall under the category of: do you really want to learn about string theory from someone who has never really, deeply, thought about string theory? Sure you would... just what you would want in that wiki page, right? Well, um, no. In fact you would much rather learn from an expert. And every single expert has published on the topic. So, well... guess that the POV thing can be bent now and then...

Reason (3): Wiki pages should be unstandable by people who have no background of any kind in any subject of any sort whatever. OK, I'm ok with that. So how come you don't object to the wiki on string theory? Or on the wave/particle duality of light? Or do you just mean wiki pages on virtual synchrony should have this property?

Reason (4): If we follow the reasoning of the expert editors weighing in above, nobody will know why the New York Stock Exchange never seems to crash during the trading day, why it is safe to fly into Europe, and why the AEGIS doesn't periodically need to be rebooted... Is this bad? Well, I would say that Wiki does a poor job of capturing all knowledge in the universe under that form of thinking.

But look: go for it. Delete the article. Write one of your own. Just be consistent: get rid of the ones on publish-subscribe, and string theory, and wave/particle duality too. Be true to your beliefs... -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'There is a kind of arrogance inherent in assuming that random people should be able to write on any subject, with little notice, and will do so better than people who have actually worked on the topic.'

Also the kind of arrogance inherent in assuming that everyone who writes Wikipedia articles is a moron, and anyone who isn't you can't do anything. KP Botany 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

KP, it isn't polite to mischaracterize what other people say. When did I ever suggest that you or anyone else was a moron? My sense, so far, is that you guys are a bit quick to flame -- is this the usual style for the Wiki crowd? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my brain must be razzled, you said "thring theory," and, well, you know, us Wikipedia editors really have thwinking limites. Let me recover from the big words before I decide what all us Wikipedia editors are. I might get it right then. Probably not, though..... KP Botany 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah, woah...ok, everyone simmer down and be nice. Ken, it's obvious you're frustrated by this whole thing and believe me I regret even looking into this article in the first place...goes to show what my meddling personality can do if it gets out of hand. ANYWAY, to be perfectly honest, the original article is too technical and sounds too much like a research lecture. Now, I may not be the ideal candidate to judge the string theory or wave/particle duality articles since I'm interested and read a bit into those subjects, but at the very least the intro had enough of a "dumbed down" explanation for a general audience. I think the intro paragraph as it stands now is fine (the accuracy of it I'm not qualified to judge) as far as clarity, although if a nice "simple" definition exists, it may be good to lead with that. I think this AfD is pretty much moot now (hopefully an ADMIN WILL CLOSE IT SOON PLEASE). The article still needs some work for at least some basal understanding by commonfolk. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is VAST and just because there are articles out there that are not compliant with policy/guidelines, doesn't give an excuse to follow the bad trend. Expecting every editor to roll up their sleeves and take on every extant problem is unreasonable. Please don't take any of this personally. Thanks. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: I'll let the folks who know Wiki best discuss this for a while without joining in. Not clear what I can contribute here, in any case. Just let me know if you end up deciding you need my help in any way. I am more than happy to abide by the consensus, whether that means that someone else rewrites this (which would be just fine as long as the facts are kept right), the article gets deleted (hey, it isn't my encyclopedia), or I go back and restore some of the references -- although many do have my name on them. You can pull the reference materials up by looking at the edit history; they were previously at the very bottom of the page. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Birman (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:59, 7 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. I am tagging the article with {{Nofootnote}} to request that the current references be changed to inline citations. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene P. Watson

Eugene P. Watson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Biography does not seem to merit Wikipedia entry. Fresh 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Eugene Payne Watson", A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography Vol. 2 (1988), p. 828

Thus far, no one in A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography has been rejected by Wikipedia.

Billy Hathorn 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Does not seem to? Huh? KP Botany 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What has this person done to merit an entry? Per WP:BIO, "Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance." Where is that in this article?--Fresh 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That's not why you nominated it. Here, reread your nomination.[35] You couldn't decide whether or not it didn't meet these when you nominated it, you nominated it because it "didn't seem to merit Wikipedia entry." Please, at least read your own posts. KP Botany 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment'I didn't think I needed to specifcially state which of the criteria it didn't meet - to me, it was an obvious entry that did not belong. Not sure you need to bring the attitude - I nominated to delete because I think this is a very weak entry that is not properly sourced, and even if it were, the individual does not merit an entry.--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Oh, good grief--you don't have to state the criteria for deletion? Now I've heard everything. And I have attitude! Stunning! Awesome! We're debating not on criteria, but on what you think. KP Botany 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. It's in the first paragraph: "He fought to gain greater academic recognition of librarians. In 1950, Watson founded Alpha Beta Alpha, the first coeducational undergraduate library science fraternity in the United States. The fraternity held its first biennial convention on the NSU campus in 1952. At the time of Watson's death, the fraternity had twenty-nine chapters nationally."

Clearly meets academic notability. Billy Hathorn 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just did a Google search for "Alpha Beta Alpha", which returned no results, and there is no related page within Wikipedia. As such, I do not feel this meets academic notability as the organization does not continue. Additionally, with no in-line sources, I don't know how to verify if it's even true.--Fresh 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is Eugene P. Watson not Alpha Beta Alpha. KP Botany 02:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree, but if the fact that he started Alpha Beta Alpha is the only reason he would be notible, then I think it is reasonable that we would discuss how notiable that organization is. This arguement would seem to allow me to start my own organization and become notable enough for a Wikipedia entry because of it.--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if i find some additional real sources in the specialized references that the ed. did not think to examine. First, he's not really notable as a scholar. With respect to his being a university librarian, I'd say the head of one of the pre-eminent university libraries would be notable, because there will be discussions of the library & the librarian in professional journals, but I am not going to assume this of Northwestern State Louisiana, which is not actually a university but a 4 year college. The founder of a minor fraternity is not ipso facto notable; there are very few undergraduate library science programs in the first place, as compared to graduate ones. (Alpha Beta Alpha is now in WP--it was started in the course of this discussion. )

The argument from its listing in Dict. Louisiana Bibliog. is absurd, since we dont know who else it lists.

I tend to strongly doubt the notability of people whose article lists their membership in the K of C & the Rotary Club as elements of notability. Even if someone is notable otherwise, the inclusion of this, along with their elementary school and their high school and the bio of their siblings, indicates a lack of sophistication is writing historical bios that tends to make one look skeptically on the whole thing. I have been trying to convince the author that bios like this would be less likely to be nom,. for deletion if they were ! or 2 paragraphs long--its sort of like articles on commercial firms that are 90% puffery, so any actual notability goes unnoticed. DGG 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment Poorly written is not a reason to delete, there are tags right and left for this--tag it properly if it needs rewritten. This was done for Rock climbing --it was nominated for deletion because it was poorly written and unreferenced--this is NOT what AfD is for. That said, the author probably has a COI, and, most COI articles get nominated for deletion because they're pure unadulterated crap--you couldn't pay me enough to write my own biography after looking at the results of this endeavour on Wikipedia. And COI authors can never see how poorly written their article is because that's the only thing they've done on Wikipedia, write one poorly written, poorly sourced COI-laden article, so you're probably not going to convince the author of anything. KP Botany 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't think anyone has suggested that it being poorly written is reason for deletion. If it is deleted, the reason would be that the references provided in the article fail to establish the subject's notability per WP:BIO. DGG is offering the point about it being poorly written simply as an aside because, in fact, this article's author is definitely not a one-article, WP:COI contributor. He is, in fact, a quite prolific writer of biographical articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, though, as can be seen on his talk page, a great many of the subjects whom he has chosen to profile have not been actually notable, and thus dozens of his articles have found their way to AfD over the past few months, with the consensus usually being to delete. He's voiced some displeasure and personal offense over this, so DGG is simply pointing that he's been trying to offer suggestions and help to the author as to how to avoid continuing that same pattern. Mwelch 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Unfortunately nominating his articles for deletion because they don't seem to merit an entry isn't going to get the point across--it's just going to make it seem as if he was in the right in the first place by creating the article. After all, if someone else can't even decide if it should be deleted, but takes the time to nominate it, how can the author know it shouldn't have been created in the first place? KP Botany 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment Really? Shouldn't the author creating a page review WP:BIO as well to ensure they are entering someone who would pass the test? Especially someone as prolific as Billy Hathorn? At this point, you are arguing what I entered to delete the article, not the merits of the article actually being discussed.--Fresh 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, uh, that's what you did. The article has a talk page Talk:Eugene P. Watson, a rather nice place to discuss an article. Underutilized, but still, a good place to start. KP Botany 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment. Oh, I guess I'd agree with your basic point about the phrasing "doesn't seem to" in the nomination. I'm not sure I think it's quite as big a deal as you do, since I don't have much trouble assuming good faith and thus believing the nominator when he says that what he meant by that was that "I've read WP:BIO and in my opinion, this guy doesn't meet it" or something like that. Obviously, I cannot read his mind to make certain, but it seems reasonable to me that his overly concise wording in the nomination could have been an honest mistake. But that said, yes, I'll agree with your underlying point that the nomination should have been done with better and more precise deletion criteria language than "doesn't seem to merit an entry". Even granting that the nomination itself was imperfect, though, to me the larger issue is that, as I say, the article as it stands fails to provide references that establish Mr. Watson's notability per WP:BIO. So unless DGG or someone else comes up with better references, I'd still have to keep my vote at "delete". Mwelch 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment However, this falls back to the same old thing on Wikipedia: either the references exist on the web or they don't exist. Library research for references takes some time, that's why putting a note on the article's talk page and tagging it for missing references is a better start than nominating it for deletion. And, just because you can't find the information on the Internet, doesn't mean the person isn't notable, or that they are. There are clear criteria laid out for deletions, and especially for failure to assert notability, for non-notable topics, and similar. What really would it have taken to have made a thoughtful nomination, another minute? And how much time would it have saved, not to even mention discussing the issue with me? What is the race for deletion that's so important that articles like Rock climbing and Society for Creative Anachronism get nominated for deletion, that editors delete the assertion of notability and trivial information, then nominate it for deletion because the subject isn't notable?[36] Is there something powerful about nominating articles for deletion that I'm missing? There's a lot of crap on Wikipedia that needs deleting, enough that no time should be spent discussing articles that the nominator isn't nominating for deletion. KP Botany 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment. Well again, I don't think that anyone is claiming that references that aren't on the 'Net must not exist. Of course there are other references and of course researching them takes time. I'm not denying that, and I don't think anyone else is, either. But the "burden of proof" in providing references lies with the article creator and/or those who wish to keep the content. I freely acknowledge that there may indeed be such non-Internet references about Mr. Watson. So if they are produced, I will not be stubborn, and I will change my vote accordingly and be happy to do so. In the absence of such explicit references, though, WP:BIO is the guideline we use as to whether the subject can be expected to ultimately prove notable. And in my opinion, Mr. Watson does not meet those guidelines. Might a {{Notability}} tag been placed on the article prior to an AfD nomination? Indeed, that might be a good way to go first. I usually do so before I nominate for deletion. However, I'll confess that in the case of this author, I am not always quite so diligent, since from my past attempts with him, I feel pretty confident that his response to such a tag is not going to be actually go out and research and provide better references, but rather to either ignore the tag altogether or to reply to it by insisting that the article's references are fine as they are. With that background in mind, I have at times just gone straight to AfD with this author's article rather than bother with the non-notable tag first. I probably should be more procedural about it regardless of my knowledge of the author's patterns, but since I have to admit that I haven't always been so, I can't really throw stones at this nominator over the issue either. As for the rest of the above, I hope I haven't given the impression I would ever defend such a practice as deleting the assertion of notability and then nominating AfD. I agree with you that that's pretty awful. I just don't see that that occurring on that article is germane to my vote on this article. And with regard to how this nomination could have been better, as I note above, I agree with you and do not defend the wording of the original nomination here (beyond stating that I think it likely it was an honest mistake and don't see any reason to put it in the same category as something as nefarious as deleting the assertion of notability from an article and then nominating based on it failing to assert). I freely acknowledge that the path taken to get to this point was imperfect; but now that we are here, I still don't see that this article, with the references currently provided, meets WP:BIO. Mwelch 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Alpha Beta Alpha is poorly sourced as well. One source points to a Kutztown library page that doesnt seem to have any meaning, and the other is to Mr. Watson's biography, so I don't consider either a reliable source for notability purposes (see my comment above).--Fresh 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the reasons outlined by DGG, which is rather ironic considering that DGG is voting to keep at this point. If DGG indeed finds those anticipated additional sources, I'll reconsider, of course. Either way, I could not agree more with DGG's sentiments with regard these articles in general. Mwelch 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the fact that his university have renamed their library for him suggests to me that they think he is notable. Inclusion in a state biographical dictionary similarly points ot notability. It is unfortunate that no more is said about what he published, which might have established his notability. Peterkingiron 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes wp:bio. should have been cleanup, not afd, published materials clearly exist.--Buridan 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Providing sources can be provided, I'd say Keep this time - I assume that when the library was renamed there would have been coverage in the local press, which presumably Billy can dig out — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion of Alpha Beta Alpha, above, which is his only real claim to notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. To me there are two claims for notability: founding the fraternity, and having the library named after him. The article serves an encyclopedic purpose in that it seems plausible to me that users of the library might look him up in WP to find out who their library was named for. —David Eppstein 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP and admonish nominator. Nick 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Funpika should not be admonished for a good-faith nomination. (messedrocker • talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). I attempted to find something to show that the article is notable and found nothing (a few hours after placing {{Notability}} on the page). If someone brings up something to show that this article is notable I will withdraw the nomination. Please don't use the "Its a Wikimedia project!" argument. Articles about non-notable websites should be deleted, even if the website is a Wikimedia project. Funpika 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't disrupt Wikipedia just to illustrate a point. --B. Wolterding 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Assume good faith. Don't assume an AFD of a Wikimedia project is in bad faith. Funpika 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's not relevant whether the article is about a Wikimedia project; your nomination says it all. For notability of the subject, see the previous nomination. Such jokes seem to be common. --B. Wolterding 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• You still don't appear to be assuming good faith here. Funpika 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - At the moment, I don't have an opinion. However, I would like to say that here is a situation where WP:ALLORNOTHING might come up. So remember not to use that line. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"If you are referring to "Its a Wikimedia project!" then all I mean by that is that being a Wikimedia project doesn't automatically make something notable. Funpika 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were refering to me, then you missed my point. I was talking to those who would say, keep. WP:ALLORNOTHING, basically says an argument to avoid is, "Well if we can't have a wikisource article, then there should not be a wikiquote article." --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:24, 4 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. --Coredesat 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Gregory

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

Possible hoax article. Can't confirm that this person exists at all. (as per article's talk page) - I can't find this person anywhere on IMDB.com. I've checked the listings for the threee main films credited to her:

• Die Hard
• Beetlejuice
• Batman

The last one even lists uncredited grips. What are the odds of her name not appearing againt 3 biggish films if she worked on all of them? Lugnuts 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I checked IMDb for two of the major TV series, and she did not appear there either. Googling "pam gregory" + grip and "pamela gregory" + grip, yielded nothing verifiable. Fails WP:V Caknuck 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this is true (highly unlikely), first female dolly grip doesn't even sound all that notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree, it is not verifiable. However, remember WP:GOOGLEHITS Caknuck. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment By no means is Google the arbiter of notability. But if the article's author provides no references for what should be easily verifiable claims and the most widely used source for the industry has nothing, then Google is a logical third resource. I was hoping Google would turn up a "Women in Film Careers" type site or an obituary (the subject is recently deceased) to verify at least one of the assertions in the article, but the only three things found within the article's context were WP mirrors and a forum posting that quoted text from WP. Upon review, the article appears to be in violation of WP:MEMORIAL as well (assuming it is not a hoax, as previously suggested). Cheers, Caknuck 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Pamela gregory appears on imdb as an actress. All internet refs to her as a grip seem to return back to the wiki entry. Lynbarn 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Pamela gregory appears on imdb as an actress. Where? I can see a Pat Gregory and there is a character called Pamela Gregory in a 1931 film called Grief Street, but I can't see an article for her. Lugnuts 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops! It was the character I saw - NOT the actress! Very Sorry! anyway, I still say Delete Regards, Lynbarn 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Lugnuts 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable even if true. NawlinWiki 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I read her obituary in Below the Line (Dec. 2006 I think), a motion picture industry magazine. The FIRST female dolly grip in over 50 years of cinema, worldwide, that is notable right there with no other info necessary. The internet is not the only source for information. If the article is deleted, it will inevitably be recreated. Don't be so lazy (only looking at online sources) and quick to judge notability. User:Pedant 08:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for the ignorant, the dolly grip is the guy who pushes the camera dolly (with camera, cameraman, focus-puller all riding on it). It takes a special magic touch to do this well, as well as stamina. It's not an easy job, and there aren't very many MEN who can do it as well as Ms. Gregory did. User:Pedant 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know what a dolly grip is, thanks. Lugnuts 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Laziness isn't an issue here. As you are the person who added this information, then the burden is on you to cite the source of this info. Might I remind you to maintain civility in these discussions. Thanks, Caknuck 17:22, 5 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. --Coredesat 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case Racing

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

not sure what to make of this: hoax, unsourced essay, what? Postcard Cathy 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is not verifiable, and also is not notable per WP:MADEUP. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATT with no references, and there doesn't seem to be any sources to be had, judging from Google. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable and unsourced. Someone should create a Drinkinggamepedia. NawlinWiki 20:51, 4 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. --Coredesat 02:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Leslie

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

The only aspect of the article that would make this scholar notable is the "Case-File Method" he invented. By the article, this method is controversial; but it also goes completely unsourced. Also, judging by Google, the method is not highly popular outside the professor's department. (There are a number of hits, but only few of them refer to law teaching.) So the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article was on PROD in last August; PROD template removed without comment or discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No ghits indicating mentions in secondary sources. Not notable. Groupthink 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:Auto. Stellatomailing 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It appears to fail WP:COI, WP:BIO, and WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:01, 7 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. W.marsh 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gertrude's Dream Waltz

Gertrude's Dream Waltz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The statements in the article are impossible to verify. 99% of the Ghits for this piece of music are lists of sheet music and sheet music shops, and many of them acknowledge it wasn't written by Beethoven. DrumCarton 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A few sources from respected musicologists along the lines of "Ludwig van – did he write it or not?" would make it a very interesting keeper but as far as i can detect it's pretty sketchy at this stage (wp:v). tomasz. 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Mildly interesting, but that's about it. Basically, we don't know who composed it or when. That leaves us on the subterranean end of verifiability. YechielMan 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep We can easily verify that it exists, and has long been attributed to Beethoven. I have added a couple of sources that help to verify that there is a dispute over authorship. A trip to a music library seems indicated -- thsi isn't soemthing likely to be online at the level we would like. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Though it is not policy yet Wikipedia:Notability (songs) states that a song should be included if it, "...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group." Plus it is verifiable, now that sources have been added. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Several of the google hists (most of which are for sheet music sales or various lists of musical works) indicate that fairly notable orcheestras have performed this at one time or another. If anyone thinks such refs would help, they can easily be added. None included useful program notes, unfortunately. DES ^(talk) 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think they would help, since I've seen no reliable source that even suggests beethoven wrote the piece, and "a piece that Beethoven didn't write" seems to be a pretty weak argument for including it.DrumCarton 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • But this is about "A piece frequently, but incorrectly attributed to Beethoven" which means that it is useful, when people want to know the accurate list of his compositions, and may see this cited by a source repeating the incorrect assertion. I'll try to post some of the refs I refered to above tomorrow. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable piece of music, with sufficient sources. --Elonka 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment I have added a couple of references. DES ^(talk) 13:36, 9 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. -Doc^g 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kayla Rolland

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

Private person, non-notable, but the victim of a notable tragic event - Issues with unsupported notability, lack of reliable sources, & biographies of living persons. Ssbohio 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep seems both sourced and notable. Though if the nominator cited any policy which would defend his point about her being a private person, I would likely switch to delete. BH (Talk) 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

changed to delete per policy stated below. BH (Talk) 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See the policy guidance on articles about living people notable only for one event, which, while specifically about living people, eloquently expresses my concern: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.

Also, see the criteria for the notability of people: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Media coverage was focused on the shooting incident, and the coverage of the victim was incidental to that. The article on the shooter has already been deleted.--Ssbohio 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Being the victim of a crime does not make a person notable. And, of course, a 6-year old girl must otherwise be considered a "private person", leaving the point aside that she was a crime victim: What notability criteria should she fulfill? It is not the person, it is the crime that may be notable. Maybe it could be mentioned in conjunction with the "Bowling for Columbine" film, or elsewhere. --B. Wolterding 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: Since the mother of the child is named in the article, and she is still living, I was wondering whether this is in line with WP:BLP? --B. Wolterding 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The mother, the shooter, and the relative from whom the shooter got the gun are all named. Perhaps that would be appropriate in an article about the event, but not here. --Ssbohio 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In What Wikipedia is not says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary as they could largely duplicate relevant information. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." In Biographies of living persons is "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." The shooting victim is notable only for the one event. We are not a memorial site, and the reference websites are self-described as memorials. There were in fact 5 or so independent wire service stories, showing thaty WP:N is satisfied, but as argued inthe essay WP:NOTNEWS we are not a newspaper archive or crime archive. In this instance, the shooter (now a teenager) was a 6 year old and was not held legally liable for the event. The references tell his mother's name and will forever brand him with this, even though his own name is not explicitly stated. The victim's mother's personal issues do not need to be published in a prominent website, any more than info about the shooter's father having been in jail. The harm done outweighs the slight encyclopedic importance of a 6 year old shooting and killing a 6 year old. It did not lead to major effects on society like new laws, nor to books or movies. Just a sad event with a burst of news stories, one of 11 thousand homicides by shooting each year in the U.S., each of which gets multiple press stories. [37] Edison 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep we will have matured as a civilized society when each homicide is notable. As we are not nearly there yet, we need to consider what ones are-- ones with an unusually situated victim or perpetrator, or ununsual circumstances, or unusual nationals coverage for other reasons. I doubt this is the very youngest person yet to be involved in such circumstances in the US, but it probably is one of the youngest. It is therefore noteworthy. The age of those involved is a problem however, because the shooter was not actually convicted. How great social importance something must have to overcome that is subject to different interpretations. Mine is that the circumstances is so horrific that it shifts the balance to keep as a permanent indication of the problems of our society. DGG 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to write an article about the event, I'd personally have no objection, as long as it doesn't go into excessive detail about the people involved. But, this is a biography of the victim, rather than an article about the incident itself. The victim is only notable for one event, her victimization. Her life tragically ended too early for her to achieve notability in and of herself. --Ssbohio 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The event is certainly notable ([38]). It is often cited in gun-control discussions (e.g. [39]). Stammer 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Since when is she not notable? She was one of the youngest school shooting victims. 44,000 hits on Google, 1200 stories on Google News, and a feature in a big-name documentary. Yes, this entire article is pretty much about her death, yet I see no stories about her on Wikinews, leaving no document of this story available here. --FlyingPenguins 21:21, 9 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 Pink Floyd, edit history remains intact. Merge at editors' discretion. See WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA for rationale of closure. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd trivia

Pink Floyd trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is 100% WP:OR. The nature of the content makes it perpetually unverifiable except by OR. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and trivia is, by nature, an indiscriminate collection of information. The Parsnip! 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge any marginally encyclopedic factoids into Pink Floyd, and delete.--John 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete and do John's suggestion. Fails WP:NOT Whsitchy 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and obey John. --Evb-wiki 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete I'm unable to find reliable sources for any of this. JoshuaZ 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, but leaning towards delete A lot of information there, but poorly presented. Floyd are too important for this to be destroyed - IF it was sourced. Merge most of it into the relevant album/song articles. Stuff on who covered Interstellar Overdrive isn't needed in it's own article, for example. And using that as an example, the info is duplicated in the song's article anyway. Does anyone really need to know a list of "lengthy recordings"? The correct answer is no, by the way. *edit* infact, from what I can see, most of it is already in the articles it refers to (check the South Park ref, etc, etc), Lugnuts 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move to a subpage of Talk:Pink Floyd and keep. I agree that most of this stuff isn't very good. Much of it may never really belong in an encyclopedia article. Some of it might, and the material is largely self-referencing; sound clips and lyric quotes in other published sources don't need any further references than noting where else they appeared. But deletion is not the only or best way to deal with lists of factoids that are thought to clutter up articles in chief; and someone may ultimately find themes in this material into which lists of examples might be woven. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another one of this trivia articles. Useight 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Remamed if it's son necessary, but this is pretty useful for PF fans. --69.79.50.122 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should probably be reworked to be more encyclopedic, but most of the material here is stuff that is interesting and do not fit any other place. Much of the material should probably be deleted, but that does not defend deleting the whole article. Coq Rouge 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:TRIVIA "Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." seems to indicate anything encylopedic shld be integrated into the band's article.  ⇒ bsnowball  12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Remove unsourced material and what's left can be mergted into main article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Haven't we been here before? Merge and redirect to Pink Floyd. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge notable information into main article. Creating separate trivia articles for musicians sets a very bad precedent though. --musicpvm 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge -- anything useful into the main Pink Floyd article and redirect. I understand this article was created as the main article on Pink Floyd became too large to manage, but trivia seems to be on the way out of Wikipedia, and this is the best suggestion I can offer of keeping the interesing and useful bits. -- Longhair\^talk 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the title of the article says it all I would think. RFerreira 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but disagree with the nominator. The article is not 100% original research (more like 50%). It is almost 100% insignificant, but it is not original research to write that Homer Simpson says the words "Pink Floyd" in episode 13 of season 5 (hypothetical example). That can be easily verified by simply watching that episode. I think the article ought to be deleted rather than merged. Pink Floyd is a featured article and it would be difficult to merge this into it without compromising the quality of the target. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 10 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. --Coredesat 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bananask.com

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

Doesn't satisfy notability requirements of WP:WEB Cheers, Afluent Rider 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website. BH (Talk) 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The main assertion of notability is that it imitates Google Answers. That's not good enough. YechielMan 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Also, WP:SPAM intending to replace Google Answers. --Evb-wiki 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication that this website is notable. NawlinWiki 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this website shows an evolution of Internet. It does not imitates or try to replace Google Answers. There are significant differences between those two websites that makes Bananask the only site that applies the crowdsourcing model to questions and answers. CactusNet

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr complex

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

Entirely original research. A "pop pysch" term with little currency in mental health community. Been listed as OR for months with no improvement whatsoever, so out it ought to go. EngineerScotty 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this is definitely a known term that I hear occasionally, but surprisingly it doesn't seem to have any play in the psychology community, as the nominator notes. There don't seem to be any good, scholarly references to it - all the refs I found were just this term in use, and not definitions or anything to legitimize it. If someone finds an academic reference to it, let me know, and I'd be glad to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I rewrote the content to address the OR and lack of citations. The term is certainly not in wide use, but has received play since at least the 1940s. Serpent's Choice 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since Serpent's Choice has rewritten the article with references. Good work. utcursch | talk 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks to Serpent's Choice's work this is more than worthy of inclusion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:25, 10 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. Spike Wilbury 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Curtis Parsons

Michael Curtis Parsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hm, I hate the expression, but really just not-notable -Doc^g 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. tomasz. 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, plenty of source material, on noteworthy programs, will simply expand as his career progresses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. The links for the first three refs seem to be stale; searches for Michael Parsons (per ref 4) and Michael Curtis-Parsons draw blanks at This is Grimsby. M C-P gets about thirty hits on google, but mostly Wikipeida mirrors or IMDb stuff, and others only mention him in passing as far as I can tell. Leave it to IMDb until he's notable. Mr Stephen 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - as Mr Stephen points out, the local newspaper wasn't giving any results for searches under this fellow's name, but I'll give benefit of the doubt there; the thing is, that's one local newspaper, even if they are available. I think being on one TV show run in the after-school slot once is a little bit weak for notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:02, 7 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. --Coredesat 02:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instrumentality (Ill Eagle album)

Instrumentality (Ill Eagle album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a possible upcoming album by Ill Eagle. The artist does not have a WP article, but his previous work is available through amazon.com. Unreferenced. Google search on Instrumentality "Ill Eagle" gives ten hits including WP. WP:NOT a crystal ball, or for promoting forthcoming work. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced, hence a look into the crystal ball. --B. Wolterding 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Subject is not notable as nonexistent. --Evb-wiki 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to me that if the artist is not notable enough for an article, then neither are their works. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nonexistant album by a non-notable artist. Closenplay 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:02, 7 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Livingston

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

Previous editor added AfD tag, but didn't get this page made. My guess as to reasons would be that it's an autobiography without sources that clearly show notability. (I'm neither for or against the deletion -- just doing some housekeeping here. Kathy A. 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Moved from article talk page:
  • Delete? This article hints at notability, and does contain some citations, but it doesn't quite seem to qualify as a wikipedia article. I suggest deleting it. Davemcarlson 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No,it is valid and should be kept. I totally disagree, I've been trying to find details about artists responsible for the pioneering dance scene started in Scotland called RAVE, yes RAVE it started in Scotland and this guy was one of the originators of that sort of music alogn with trance. I'm from Scotland too and have bought lots of the guy's records. Along with lots of other Scottish dance music. Maybe not known by the whole world but STILL in a popular minority nonetheless.

This article is as valid as other songwriter articles and should be kept and put in the same category as these for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Tanneberger (he covered one of the guys songs!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_Nations and even as valid as this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_abbot

It should be in this category : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trance_artists because if anyone knew anything you would know that there are lots of other artists in this category that have had songs released on the same compilation as dave livingston and dymension. In fact I'm gonna do some research and update it and add others for the history of the Scottish Dance Music Industry in Scotland and to try and stop people deleting things about it.

Just spent a long time trying to find out where to put my comments against the deletion of this article at : this article's entry could not find any mention where to put comments, can you tell me how please ? thanks. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.81.95 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 May 2007

• Delete for now. This article has no sources, let alone reliable sources. If mainstream press accounts surface to demonstrate the notability of this artist, the article could be re-created at that point. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) ——Oops, I misspoke (typed?). There are sources, albeit inline and not formatted to be easily recognizable. However, they appear to be of the less-reliable type. My vote will remain unless some more substantial sources are cited by the end of the AfD. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent and reliable sources appear that demonstrate notability. Right now it's limited to primary sources and unreliable sources such as discogs.com. (I reformatted the references to eliminate confusion. Note to author, please do not manually number your references.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am Trying To Stop Deletion Added independant links for a few of the guys remixes. ie you see the name in a tracklisting to prove claims are not rubbish. When I get the chance I'll go through my record collection and note down the catalogue numbers, record labels and barcodes if you want.Though some of the links I added show this. I even put an internal wiki link for one of the artists the guy remixed and her (Mary Kiani) page isn't up for deletion or all the other notes !!!! And she has had just a drop in the ocean amount of releases as this guy livingston. I would add a content box but don't have a clue as yet. Plus I must remember to join/register properly I keep forgeting. I hope there's enough done now to keep people happy and I will add more when I can of indepth accurate detail, pics of records/gigs and so on. Thanks guys !! alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.78.244 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, asserts notability for having a hit on the Scottish dance chart. John Vandenberg 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No Clear consensus as yet, relisting to allow fuller consensus to form. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as per John Vandenberg, having a hit on a chart does constitute N according to WP:BAND. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If he's had chart hits, he satisifies the notability criteria Lurker 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, since it has not been established yet, that this article passes WP:MUSIC. The assertation that a single from this artist was on a [national] chart has not been ascertained by independent and secondary sources. In case someone does put up a link here, please ignore my comment and keep the article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:37, 11 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, defaulting to keep. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunpendulum

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

Non-notable artwork, I can't find any good reliable sources on the material. Only significant contributor shares a username with the artwork, which is also a bad sign (while of course not being a sole reason to delete). (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:COI at work. --Whsitchy 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Conflict of Interest, very unpromising Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 10:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like an interesting artistic conceit but this here's conflict of interest, original research, non-verifiable and crystal ball-ish. Should be on the artist's own webpage. tomasz. 11:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:COI This was my first Wikipedia contribution and the sunpendulum was the only project that interested me, hence the use of its name as my user name. I have followed the progress of this international project since its inception and considered it was worth an encyclopedic entry. Regards crystal ball, only one part of this project is unrealised. The major part has contributed to several major international art events. Crystal ball elements can be edited out. Similar wikipedia entries: Spiral Jetty, Christo, Bill Viola.

Non-notable: follows a list of references (including one wikipedia link): Sunpendulum - published facts / links: Sunpendulum lecture: http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/10_3/hofstetter15.htm Sunpendulum parallel installations: http://hosting.zkm.de/lichtkunst/stories/storyReader$78 http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/ned/search/film.aspx?ID=081c7fb6-e450-45a8-94e6-2a12954e8524 http://www.kunsthausgraz.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/10215678/5354672/_1?c=5354672-

Vienna: http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/ --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/star-05-2004.jpg

Maui / Hawaii - USA: --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/maui/hightechmaui.jpg

Ensenada / Baja California - Mexico - Niederkalifornien: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederkalifornien --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/ensenada/el-mexicano.jpg

New Orleans - USA: http://www.victorymedianetwork.com/artist.php?id=65

Bermuda - Great Britain: http://www.buei.org/ (click on 'education button' and then 'research button' ) --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/bermuda/the-royal-gazette-19-08-1999.jpg

Azores - Portugal: --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/azores/diario-insular-13-07-2001.jpg

Granada - Spain: --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/granada/ideal-18-09-1999.jpg

Cairo - Egypt: --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/al-ahram-16-4-2000.jpg

Dubai -United Arab Emirates: http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/ktarchive/130202/uae.htm --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/gulf-news-13-02-2002.jpg

Kolkata - India: http://www.jugraduates.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IEMR6pOdZB4%3D&tabid=63&mid=429

--- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/delhi/triennale-01.jpg

Hong Kong - China: http://www.ust.hk/en/pa/e_pa030314-722.html --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/south-china-morning-post-06-04-2003.jpg

Tokyo - Japan: http://www.mofa.jp/region/europe/eu/report/calendar/japan/01.html --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/asahi-shimbun.jpg

Marshall Islands - RMI: http://www.yokwe.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1522 --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/marshall/RMI-Journal-Sunpendulum-22Sept06.jpg

Sunpendulum 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis ofthe explanation and the links. DGG 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs work, but for now give article chance to grow: i.e. incorporate WP:RS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The edits currently being undertaken on the Sunpedulum article are a result of comments in the discussion, i.e. they attempt to clear up issues of conflict of interest, crystal balls and reliable sources. They are not an attempt to exacerbate the problem further. Sunpendulum 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why doesn't the artist have his own article? The artwork can only be notable if the artist is (Robert Smithson was notable before Spiral Jetty and would be notable without Spiral Jetty). It seems the cart was put before the horse (apologies for the cliché). I would also like to see significant edits to the article: it's far too long at the moment. Suggestion: merge this into an article about the artist. Scanning his bio, he's more than notable to warrent an article.

Freshacconci 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Freshacconci but want to add that an artwork that connects 12 different cultures in such a way is notable already based on this. Icichir0 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup, but notable enough. — Athaenara ✉ 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:04, 7 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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Bauer (Artist)

Wolfgang Bauer (Artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person does not fulfill the criteria for notability of people (WP:BIO). For the same discussion in German, see [40]. Kolja21 11:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If he's a notable artist, the article should name and source at least one museum or festival where his art has displayed. It doesn't. YechielMan 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have added additional biographical information. Bauer is a notable artist with an established body of work who has exhibited internationally. His work is currently showing in Los Angeles and has shown in Germany and Austria as well. The quality/worth of art is extremely subjective. Perhaps user Kolja21 has a personal objection to Bauer's art? There are many many artists listed on Wiki that are clearly of the same level of notability as Bauer (Daniel Conrad, Barbara Tarantino, Maritza_Morillas, Bouktje Medema, Sofia_Minson, Altoon Sultan, and many many more) What are the requirements for an artist to be judged as worthy of being included in Wiki? If we delete Bauer there are quite a few artists that need to be purged from Wikipedia. Bradybd 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think he's notable enough. To respond to Bradybd's question - notability usually comes from inclusion in museum collections or at a major international exhibition - the Venice Biennale is often cited in these discussions. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, there are plenty of articles that should not be on wikipedia. If you see them you should nominate them for deletion. Often articles will be left unnoticed for a long time. However, citing the existence of a non-notable article as a reason to keep another is a bit of flawed logic. ("I robbed that bank because so many other bank robbery cases go unsolved"). Freshacconci 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Freshacconci 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:04, 7 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, since it has been illustrated by the participants that the article does not meet WP:CORP criteria. There are WP:COI issues as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DecorActive

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

Being a Young Enterprise company is not notable per WP:CORP unless they have done something significant. Gaz (talk?) 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, it is WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I may have started this AfD, but I can still go against my original decision. Add that video as a reference, and that would make you notable enough for Wikipedia. Oh, and Fortan is right, there is some COI which requires editing (see here). Gaz (talk?) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the nature of the article and the contents so far added is an indication to me that it is most unlikely to be N. If kept, every word after the first two sentences is puffery, and Im not sure of the second half of sentence two.DGG 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Not only is this article completely PR spam, it is filled with WP:AUTO and WP:COI violations. --Evb-wiki 12:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • While the article might be salvageable from WP:SPAM (as I noted on the talk page), please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines concerning autobiographical articles and conflicts of interest. --Evb-wiki 14:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - While there are definitely issues with the article reading like an advertisement, that's something that can be fixed in time. The main question (at least in my view) is one of notability. While the depth of coverage isn't great, there are multiple independent sources. Of course, several of the sources appear to be in the Maltese language. This shouldn't be unexpected given the subject of the article is Maltese, but it does make verification challenging. - Fordan (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from the article creator

In order to improve readability and make it easier to follow the conversation, I have moved the comments from the article creator to this section. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DecorActive

Dear Fordan,

Thanks for your time and understanding. I see you are quite interested regarding the coverage we as a company have achieved.

Times of Malta is far from the only thing that we achieved as coverage.. We recently had an article on mument.. pg 3!! (times is the most popular newspapers and that mument sold over 400 000....of which 100 000 went to international countries) – the photos I can send you by email if you want.. + We had live television promo.. http://www.youtube.com/decoractiveye we have two videos on you tube to prove this. (Its in Maltese obviously) so we are quite renowned within Malta.

One is on Xarabank.The most popular Show in Malta (xarabank hit over 185 000 people and one must see that it is the highest amount (comparing with the 400 000 population of malta its a lot! and that shows how popular the program is)

Pjazza fir-raħal – another popular show!

SO Coverage from secondary sources we satisfied it.. BUT you didn’t gave us a chance to write it in the actual article on wiki.. cause as soon we start introducing ourselves on wiki you started talking on deletion without giving us a chance to write regarding our popularity. You must understand we are students as well whom right now are going through exams.. so you have a little patience with us.. --Decoractive.ye 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the article is one which is neutral and not business minded. It is notable enough for a feature on wiki. Due to its appearence of national level. In fact in the references one can see the media with DecorActive.

If there are other sentences that you would like to remove or rephrase, please communicate them here..

Now you can remove the tag of deletion please --Decoractive.ye 10:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are claiming that our article is regarded as PR Spam right?

We do have references to the Times of Malta (local Maltese Newspapers) and to our company Youtube however, these were placed by a Wiki person (User:Fordan) yesterday after he decided that our article was one that should be placed on Wiki however he claimed that it needed references and he added them himself. Are these the problem?

May you please advise us on what we may edit,remove or change to our article and other possible tips to solve this problem as we are unaware of such rules since we are quite new to wikipedia and we don't want our article deleted.--Decoractive.ye 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So Mr. Evb. Wiki, since you are accusing this article to be spam. We have rectified the article and it is written according to the guidelines of Wikipedia and it is written in the Nautral Point of Views. Now there is NO spam whatsoever. Your point of autobiography is not valid because the article is entirely written in the third person past tense.

Please pin-point sentences which are not written according to the Wikipedia rules and just for the record DON'T give me links anymore because you're not being clear. If the references are the spam, please note once again that those were put up by (user:fordan)to back up our notability which we satisfy with the Wikipedia Rules.

If you have other concerns please point them out otherwise I kindly ask you to remove the deletion tag.

Thanks in advance. --Decoractive.ye 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - You still didn't give us some examples regarding advertisment, its irrelevant of continuing accusing if you can't pin point the advertisments so we can remove them.

Notability, i added another article on times (in references section) to make sure that you believe that we had sufficient coverage. Its not my fault if its in Maltese. Its the language we speak here in Malta. So if you can't understand it, instead of doubting.. have a little Good Faith and besides can't you tell its us from the photos and the programs???

Another thing it is NOT an advertisment.

1. the company liquidized in 17th May, so i don't know what we're advertising.

2. With our popularity amongst the maltese, we satisfy all terms for an article, so i don't see the point.

We need you to help us, we can't improve it if you can't be concrete on what you're saying.

If you have no other comments, I kindly ask you to remove the tag.. its quite unpleasent to have it.

--Decoractive.ye 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Users Fordan and Evb-wiki please answer our posts and pin point any mistakes we may have in our article. If you keep on saying : Youn seem to have written in a sense of advertising and not pin pointing we will have no clue what you will be referring to as for us its good and Wiki worthy. Also please don't take long to answer. This should be an on-going discussion and should you fail to answer for long periods we do have the right to stop this discussion as the discussion is indirectly closed. --Decoractive.ye 09:46, 7 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. --Coredesat 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Blur of Insanity

The Blur of Insanity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

prod removed so taking here; The only thing notable about this film is that it involved a non notable actor from a notable film. Nothing else here indicates notabilty. After the prod was removed, no effort was made to address these concerns which were listed in reasons for prod. Postcard Cathy 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because it has too many wikilinks. Oh, and it's not notable. YechielMan 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable independent film. NawlinWiki 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too little to stand on its own to feet. Must have be written in a blur of sanity. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability concerns. —LactoseTI^T 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:04, 7 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. W.marsh 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Romig

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

Fails WP:Music,WP:BIO Stellatomailing 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Few GHits, the most for Luna Nova Ensemble (who does not have an article), and even that, mostly if not all trivial sources.Stellatomailing 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:05, 7 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College of Dracology

College of Dracology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable organization, no independent sources --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it doesn't seem there's any widespread notice of this minor organization. I'm willing to change that though if some sources can be provided, or coverage of their newsletter. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of their newsletter has been demonstrated - see below Ednan 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The College of Dracology is a respected organization among serious heraldists, and its newsletter is read internationally. It's cited a number of times in Heraldry in Canada (the journal of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada).Tressure 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — Tressure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please provide those citations. FrozenPurpleCube 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Darren S. A. George, Heraldry in Canada, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2005, p 35 and Darren S. A. George, Heraldry in Canada, Vol. 40, 2006, p. 60.Tressure 23:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell us about them. What do those articles have to say? Do you have online copies, or scans? For all I know, they don't exist, and they don't make for reliable sources simply by name. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They are both articles concerning obscure heraldic monsters- the first deals with lion-human hybrids (including manticores), and the second deals with centaurs, satyrs and related hybrids. I may have time to scan the first one for you later today- where shall I send it? I can't scan the second, since Heraldry in Canada switched to an annual format that year, and the spine won't take scanning.

Okay, the first article mentioned has been posted as a PDF file at http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5a.pdf, http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5b.pdf, and http://mad-alchemy.com/hsc/MadMen5c.pdf. This is from Heraldry in Canada, Volume 39, No. 4, Winter 2005, ISSN 0441-6619.Tressure 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where the College of Dracology is mentioned in this article; I do see a citation to Dragonlore but this does not establish the College's notability as such.

--Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article isn't about the College of Dracology, so it does nothing to establish the notability of that subject. Since the others are apparently the same from the description you've provided, it's not enough to go by. FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article cites Dragonlore, which shows (as I have stated) that the College of Dracology's newsletter is read by heraldists internationally. If you want a full article discussing the College itself, I'm afraid I haven't got one.Tressure 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I have, as I have already stated below. It is The Coat of Arms (ISSN 0010-003X), XV (new series) no.206, 223-231 Ednan 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that means you don't have a third party source about this organization, which calls into question what you can say about it. If the book/journal named above does indeed cover it, that might mean something, but without seeing it, or even an index of it, how can we know that the claim is true? FrozenPurpleCube 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article about Dragonlore is real, but it is written by R. Brocklebank, who is a founder of the College. http://direct.bl.uk/research/58/21/RN152606113.html Polenth 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as an independent source, then. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. The fact that the article has been accepted for publication by the editorial committee of the The Coat of Arms makes it "independent". A reputable journal like The Coat of Arms does not publish spurious or self-promotion articles. See their guidance for contributors which states: "All articles will be considered by members of the editorial committee or other relevant experts before being accepted for publication." The Heraldry Society (one of the leading organizations in the world devoted to studying heraldry) clearly regards the College of Dracology to be notable enough to warrant an article about it in its journal! Ednan 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: the only publication about the College itself that's been published by someone other than the College is by the College's founder. This is not a strong indication of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a concern that this person is the founder of the college and writing about it. I'd certainly accept it for content purposes, but to establish the overall notability of the organization? I'm not sure if it works, even if published by somebody else. Still, it could work. But without a summary of the article, it's hard to be sure. The title is simply "The World of Dragonlore" which could mean a lot of things. FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely a founder of the College of Dracology is one of the very best people to write an article about the organisation, as he will know it inside out. The article in in question begins with the statement: “Dragonlore is the name of a Newsletter or Journal issued at irregular intervals by The College of Dracology for the Study of Fabulous Beasts.” It then goes on to give details of the history of the College and the journal, illustrated with numerous examples of front covers of Dragonlore (which feature mythical beasts). The origin of the word “dracology” is discussed. On p226 brief information about membership of the College is given. The article then continues with illustrated examples of certain beasts that have been studied and reported on by the College (e.g. manticor, enfield, iguana, lamia). At the end of the article there are two further pages (pp230-1) reproducing an article that appeared in Dragonlore in 2002 on three-fold cubic symmetry with a family of fabulous beasts. Ednan 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence my willingness to accept the content for use in the article. Now convince me to have the article with third-party sources. Slight difference, but an important one. FrozenPurpleCube 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if the organization is notable, people who are not connected with the organization will write about it. So far, we've seen no indication that this has happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not the only test of notability. It has already been shown that: 1) The College's journal (Dragonlore) is cited in other heraldic publications; 2) A prestigious heraldic organisation (The Heraldry Society) is willing to publish a lengthy article about the College in its refereed journal. I think that demonstates notablility. Ednan 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The College of Dracology may not be as notable as, say, The Heraldry Society, but it is taken seriously by heraldists in the United Kingdom, many of whom are members of both organisations. It is notable enough for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Bristol to include among his list of memberships of other bodies [41].Ednan

Nope, a person being a member isn't in itself a reason to keep an article. Try finding sources actually on this society. FrozenPurpleCube`

Right, here is one: The Coat of Arms (ISSN 0010-003X), XV (new series) no.206, 223-231. Ednan 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about this society specifically. Exactly what would you be pointing to? You do need to be specific. FrozenPurpleCube 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the article given by the journal reference - now in bold and italics (not to the webpage link, which is to a page about the journal to show sceptics that it exists). I note, by the way, your comment above about references: "For all I know, they don't exist, and they don't make for reliable sources simply by name". You are now being unreasonable. Are you expecting every reference cited on Wikipedia to be scanned and uploaded? (There would certainly be copyright issues there!) At some stage you either have to believe the contributer, or get down to your local library inter-library loans department, order copies of the references and verify them yourself. Ednan 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that I'm being unreasonable, I'm merely pointing out that not everybody has access to certain sources. The way to respond is not to say "I'm not going to do that" but to offer some demonstration of the sources directly. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not going to order something just to prove whether or not your sources exist and say what you say they do. It'd be much simpler for you to just scan a page so everybody can see it. That alone might be enough to pass muster. However, I'm not going to take your word for it. Sorry, but Wikipedia has run into problems with that before. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note None of the follwing articles cite any references demonstrating notability (or anything else): American College of Heraldry, Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, Heraldry Society of Scotland. More evidence of notablitly has been provided here for the College of Dracology than these organisations have. Ednan 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to propose those articles for deletion, or if you wish put {{importance}} or other such tags on them. FrozenPurpleCube 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't be nominating these articles for deletion becuase I am quite happy that they are notable organisations worthy of an entry in Wikipedia, just as the College of Dracology is. Ednan 08:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you can try the tag I suggested, otherwise somebody might well decide to nominate it for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The College of Dracology certainly is notable on this side of the Atlantic (UK). I see FrozenPurpleCube and --Akhilleus are from the other side. Is this American bias against British institutions? Can't say I've ever heard of the Committee on Heraldry of the New England Historic Genealogical Society and I'm a bit dubious about the American College of Heraldry.
  • This is the only contribution by anon user 86.143.57.9. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's indeed notable on your side of the Atlantic, then show it, don't just assert it. As for the other institutions, I see no reason to keep them myself, in fact, I've said right above that they could be deleted, or tagged if they are a problem. Therefore accusing me, or anyone else of bias is highly unwarranted. In fact, the whole argument that these other pages exist is a widely known one on Wikipedia AFD, and it's highly unlikely to convince anyone. I suggest you read WP:ATA to see why.

• Strong delete: the external link in the article shows that this is something made up in school one day - admittedly one day in the 1940's. RLIN has no listing at all for Dragonlore (there is an unrelated book by the title which links here) - by contrast they have dozens for Coat of Arms.

The article from Coat of Arms is by Brocklebank, and says that the College was invented by a group of boys and girls at a West Country school, which dispersed at the end of the year. Brocklebank's hopes of continuing this over the summer dissolved, although he went as far as commissioning a newsletter at the local printers' (they had a fire). He has now restarted Dragonlore in his retirement; it's a four- to eight-page desktop publication, mostly in black and white (and, since he began with the newsletter which didn't get printed when he was at school, much of it is anachronistically dated.)

In short, this is a one-man fanzine, with a spoof society to go with it. Brocklebank himself may be notable (he is a Fellow of the Heraldry Society); but neither the College nor its publication is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete No claim to notability, and the debate here merely reinforces that fact. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per PMAnderson. There are huge numbers of similarly productive small fannish communities, nowadays on the web, that we wouldn't even think of including on WP. The older start date of this one adds a little interest, but not enough, and the fact that they publish their fanac on paper instead of on the web doesn't seem important to me. —David Eppstein 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, valid redirect. Yes, there is a potential for more than one topic, but until such articles are created, this does not need to be a dab page with only one entry. Leave as redirect for now, convert to dab if articles on other churches in Clontarf are written. AKRadecki 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clontarf church

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

This "article" and a number more, all of which relate to multiple potential topics, appears to have been created only to be a redirect to one such topic, which has its own article and is findable in search. Clontarf has at least 6 churches, belonging to at least four different denominations. SeoR 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Disambg no need for deletion. Whsitchy 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I could buy that, although it does not apply to say, C of i, another of this set, at all - but there was no ambiguity to be disambiguated. 217.213.100.112 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Concern is simple, should redirects be created to "capture" users searching for a general term, such as "C of i", which could have many other meanings, or a term like "Clontarf Protestants", when the area has many communities of Protestants, and en masse (some seem valid but were they needed?, the search engine finds the page anyway); some examples:

08:40, 24 May 2007 C of i (←Redirected page to Clontarf Church of Ireland) 
08:35, 24 May 2007 Clontarf protestants (←Redirected page to Clontarf Church of Ireland) 
08:35, 24 May 2007 Clontarf protestant (←Redirected page to Clontarf Church of Ireland) 
08:34, 24 May 2007 Clontarf protestant church (←Redirected page to Clontarf Church of Ireland

If I, and others, misunderstand and this is a valid way to use redirects, fine. SeoR 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to fit the same pattern:

C of i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Clontarf parish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I will leave it at that, will go do other editing later. SeoR 16:20, 4 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 -- Y not? 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Megan McArdle

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

This articles makes several claims of notability, but none of them qualify the subject for an article under the terms of WP:BIO. She is a writer for a notable publication, but that is not a qualification. Efforts have been made to prove notability: one source has been found, a online article about her. However, the article is from an organization whose mission "is to find and publish young and undiscovered conservative and libertarian writers". Additionally, her blog tied for an online award for Best Female Authored Blog in 2003 at a site entitled "The Weblog Awards". I have not been able to determine the notability of these awards, but they are not to be confused with the notable "Webby Awards".

In summary, despite these minor online whiffs, the subject of this article is non-notable. Spike Wilbury 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete I think she is borderline notable. Perhaps in a couple of years she will become more notable, write a book or something. I could, however, be easily persuaded. The Economist does not give bylines to its editors; I think this is one area Wikipedia could fill a void, by detailing who, exactly, writes for them. But that's my own desire, and I can't back it up with any policy or guideline. --David Shankbone 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maybe someday. --Evb-wiki 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm aware that there is no clear-cut case to be made for Wikipedia notability, given the guidelines. However, it seems that in practice Wikipedia standards for journalists and bloggers are broader than the guidelines would suggest. Let me point to the examples of the entries on William Arkin, Rosa Brooks and Kevin Drum - none, as far as I can tell, satisfy the restrictive standards of WP:BIO (all happen to be left-wing as well, but I'm not trying to make a political point), though all have a fairly notable online and/or journalistic presence. If those three articles, and others like them, can exist, I don't see why this one can't remain as well. Korny O'Near 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  I do respect your position here, but it is a logical fallacy to point to other articles' existence as proof that yours should exist. Articles need to be evaluated on their own merit. If those articles you mention are non-notable, then they should be deleted also. As to the notability of McArdle, we simply can't take your word for it; that's why we have notability tests like WP:BIO. If she is notable, then there should be multiple, independent sources backing up the claim. --Spike Wilbury 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  I agree half-heartedly with what Spike writes. But I also want to point out the inverse: just because certain articles or categories of articles do not exist doesn't mean they shouldn't. I don't know if that is particularly relevant to this discussion or not, but it's an argument that is often raised elsewhere. --David Shankbone 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now. I should have made myself clearer at Talk:Megan McArdle: I have only started looking for info. I will continue to do so, but it will take me some time, probably several weeks. (It's not one of my high priorities.)

Comment: As I said at that talk page, it seems to me that Megan McArdle the person does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but janegalt.net may be notable enough. (I contend that second-tier political blogs like this one probably should get Wikipedia coverage.) If that turns out to be the case, we should rename the article.

Meanwhile, please give me time to finish my inquiries. CWC 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. I did understand that you have started to look for info, I just don't believe you'll find any. You managed to dig up that her blog tied for some award in 2003 that itself is not notable - so that does nothing for the article. I actually tried in earnest to find sources proving her notability, including a LexisNexis search that accesses periodicals and journals. Mentions of her here and there, but no articles about her as specified in WP:BIO. There as been plenty of time to prove notability, and it hasn't been accomplished. If you find sources sometime in the indeterminate future, you can recreate the article. I will even give restore the old article for you so you can add your sources. --Spike Wilbury 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So I was right: Megan-McArdle-the-person does not currently meet WP:BIO.

Since I'm not going to be given time to make a proper investigation, I just spent an hour searching for libertarian blog awards. I didn't find any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist — my Google-fu is far from perfect. So on present information, McArdle's blog does not meet the current version of WP:WEB.

However, WP:WEB is only a guideline. Moreover, it is now clear to me that it is quite a defective guideline when applied to blogs. (There's a catch-22: blogs don't count as a RSes about other blogs, but the MSM hates giving blogs good publicity for some obvious reason ...) This is just the sort of blog that Wikipedia should have a short article about: not one of the top ten, but one whose posts make a big impact (especially when Insty points to them.)

So I contend that we should have an article named Asymmetrical Information (blog). FWIW, I seem to recall that the GFDL encourages us to rename and edit the current article rather than delete Megan McArdle and create the new one. Cheers, CWC 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. On what grounds to you propose that her blog is notable? Other than tying for a dubious award in 2003? I can't imagine that Ms. McArdle thinks that highly of the award since she doesn't advertise it on her site as most Web sites who win notable awards seem to do. Her posts seem to get a fair number of "comments" but that only means that she has a little gaggle of followers. When I click through to some of the Libertarian sites and blogs that she links to, I don't find that they link back to her site. So their organizations do not consider her blog notable. What other measures are there? I'm not against the idea of creating an article about her blog, but I'm still not convinced that it even has a claim to notability, let alone solid proof. --Spike Wilbury 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:08, 7 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. W.marsh 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Scalabrino

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

Fails WP:BLPWP:BIO (sorry) Stellatomailing 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable translator.Stellatomailing 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The article says nothing bad about him, so a nom that says he fails WP:N or WP:BIO would make more sense than saying the article should be deleted because of WP:BLP. Found 974 Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia mirrors, but they are in Italian or Sicilian. We need input from someone who can better evaluate these or print sources in other than English to determine if there is substantial coverage in multiple independent sources to satisfy one or more of the bases for notability. For what it's worth, he does not appear to be in the Italian Wikipedia [42].Edison 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment None of the sources are from the main newspapers/sites in Italy. The links mostly speak about his credits in translation. He wrote two texts with minimum Ghits. He does not have a page in it.Wikipedia. The page was written by somebody who had a book translated from Pt to It by the subject.Stellatomailing 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:08, 7 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. W.marsh 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] João Weber Griebeler

João Weber Griebeler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BLP Stellatomailing 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable writer. 7 Ghits for his only book.Stellatomailing 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into Victoria Cross with a redirect from Canon William Lummis to Victoria Cross. The individual on his own isn't notable, however his work is relevant to the Victoria Cross article and would be best included there. This should also go someway to keep both parties happy here. Nick 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canon William Lummis

Canon William Lummis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Just because he made a database of medal recipients doesn't mean he's famous. That, and the only source is an obit. Whsitchy 15:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep That one paragraph from an obituary is not much, but it's better than nothing. I don't have a strong opinion on this. YechielMan 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment but it's not his obit to begin with, bringing the source into major question. Whsitchy 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not even sole author of single credited book. Has as much chance as the Light Brigade. Clarityfiend 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have added to the article if that helps Jack1956 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There's nothing in Wikipedia's rules to say that articles must use multiple sources, only that they must be verifiable. An obituary (even for someone else) in 'The Daily Telegraph' meets this criteria. It also meets the Wikipedia criteria for reliablity as internationally reknowned newspapers check their sources, I don't think anyone disputes this article's contents. Lumis is notable as his work, which would have taken a considerable amount of effort prior to the advent of information technology, was the basis of David Harvey's seminal book Monuments To Courage. He was also an author in his own right. Unknown Unknowns 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If Lummis isn't notable then why do six Wikipedia articles (Victoria Cross, Charles Irwin, The Irish Sword, David Charles Harvey, The Victoria Cross and George Cross Association, Padre George Smith) link to him? Barnaby Wild 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because he has several articles linking to him, doesn't mean he's notable. His actions make him notable, and I don't see how finding the resting places of Victoria Cross holders makes him notable. Whsitchy 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Because of the thousands of hours he must have spent doing it. The Victoria Cross is the highest award for galantry awarded to members of the British armed forces, they're not given out like campaign medals. Barnaby Wild 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I could spend thousands of hours of my life talking to yaks, but that won't make talking-to-yaks any more encyclopedic than it currently is. The defence that collating the list was labor-intensive is a case of argumentum ad misericordiam. --Agamemnon2 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Also see WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE Whsitchy 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Add on comment It's also a little odd that your last contrib before this was on 9/11/2006. Whsitchy 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean but I frequently browse Wikipedia. I only make an edit when I have something worth saying, unlike some people. Barnaby Wild 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - his work is clearly notable. American users should note the the Victoria Cross is the British medal awarded for conspicous bravery before the enemy; the George Cross is the equaivalent for other situations. These medals are rarely awarded, and a study of the holders is thus a notable subject. Peterkingiron 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get how documenting the resting places of medal holders is notable? Whsitchy 16:58, 8 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 g1 nonsense/hoax, g3 vandalism, user now blocked. NawlinWiki 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Presto's! Barney & Friends

List of Presto's! Barney & Friends (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoaxy partial copy of the actual Barney & Friends episode list. Otto4711 14:31, 4 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 speedily deleted by Deb as an attack page. --Coredesat 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Duffy

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

I am nominating this article about a British actor for several reasons: the subject is not notable by all information given in the article; the article is not verifiable due to lack of sources; the article is most probably a hoax. Detailed rationale below. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To get a bit more into details:

• The article claims that the actor is „most known“ for short appearances in a TV drama. This might be true, but it is not enough to establish notability by WP:BIO.
• The artist is claimed to be an inductee of the „rock and roll hall of fame“. I was unable to verify; at least he does not seem to be in this Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
• Large parts of the article, inserted by an anonymous user, consist of unsourced statements about the private life of the subject. This information shouldn't be there in the first place.
• No sources are given in the article, making it completely impossible to verify its content, which seems doubtable in many respects.
• No evidence found on Google (a problem being that „Christopher Duffy“ is apparently a very common name).
• The original author of the article, User:Duffymufc, vandalized the article Chris Duffy before [43].
• The only affirming comment on the talk page was made by the original author.

Summing up, I think that at least parts of this article are a hoax. I am still not completely sure about the entire article. Opinions welcome. --B. Wolterding 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible. Most of the article is obviously crap, and you'd think that anyone who bothered to add real information about this guy--if he were a real actor--would have done something to make the article less terrible. No reason to believe any of it. Propaniac 15:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if the little bit of acting is true, it doesn't meet WP:BIO. Everything else is zero on notability. Did he meet his lover when he was 1 or when he was 17? Who cares? --Evb-wiki 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have a sneaking suspicion why this was done: there's a Chris Duffy who was a member of Manchester United (MUFC) back in the 90s. Perhaps the editor who wrote the article is a bit ticked that an average American baseball player gets the main space under "Chris Duffy" and not a superstar English footballer? (edited) --Charlene 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recommend personally turning Chris Duffy into a disambg, moving the baseball player to Chris Duffy (baseball) and creating Chris Duffy (footballer) (which I just created as a stub). Whsitchy 15:56, 4 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 article as it now stands bears no significant resemblance to the nominated article. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)`

[edit] Understanding by Design

Understanding by Design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Freechild 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the topic per the importance suggested below, and it turns out this is a notable topic. It is a commonly accepted neologism that clearly demonstrates its own importance. I rescind my original statement and say keep. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Apparently an important new theory in educational practices. 927 google scholar references must mean something. JulesH 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless edited into something with context and meaning. It may well be an important new theory, but describing it as a "framework for designing curriculum units, performance assessments, and instruction that lead your students to deep understanding of the content you teach" tells us nothing at all about it. Regardless of any widespread discussion in academia, I remain deeply leery of any article that purports to describe some new method that claims to offer great benefits, but then describes it purported subject in the vaguest possible terms. All such articles sound like a come-on for some commercial operation. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Doesn't this describe all stubs? JulesH 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Not at all. Compare, for example, the more appropriate level of abstraction in a education stub like blue book exam. This stub, by contrast, promises to "lead students to a deep understanding of the content", but describes it only as a "framework." Its inappropriate level of abstraction reads like a teaser. It promises great things, but in order to find out what the great secret is, you're going to have to shell out the money. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 5 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 g3, vandalism, hoax article from now-blocked user. NawlinWiki 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Go To The Beach

Let's Go To The Beach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - hoax article, there is no such show as Presto's Barney & Friends. Otto4711 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think this line from the article sums it up: This Episode is not featured On Televsion Wildthing61476 14:50, 4 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 g1 nonsense, g3 vandalism, user now blocked. NawlinWiki 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use Your Imagination

Use Your Imagination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - hoax article, there is no such show as Presto's Barney & Friends. Otto4711 14:42, 4 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 (per snow and boldness) to Human physical appearance, non admin closure Whsitchy 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human body shape

Human body shape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I started cleaning up this article and then realised that (a) it's all covered much better elsewhere and (b) it's an attempt to recreate by stealth Human figure which was AfD'd recently. The editors of this article were editors of Human figure (some of them apparently block evading sockpuppets). Many of the statements in this article aren't borne out by the references. The material is covered perfectly well in excellent articles such as Human physical appearance and Secondary sex characteristics. I propose delete and redirect. andy 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. per Occam's Razor: we have Human physical appearance much better written than this. I don't see any reason to keep both articles at the same time. --Neigel von Teighen 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per nom. Subject already covered. --Evb-wiki 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per nom. Oh, and I don't agree with the "by stealth" part - it's more blatant than that. Vinay sockpuppets abound. :) --AliceJMarkham 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect will do in a second. Somehow, I don't think it's Vinay's socks doing it, more so if he made the original redirect. Whsitchy 15:35, 4 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. --Coredesat 02:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bebe Green

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

This is not a real person and there are no citations for this person actually existing. NYC2TLV 14:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Spam page for YouTube "hoax-artist." Most likely WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (Get rid of this sounds more suitable for this case, I think). Per above. --Neigel von Teighen 15:12, 4 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. — CharlotteWebb 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coşkun Can Aktan

This article on a Turkish professor lacks sources and contains numerous vague assertions ("He published many books and articles" without explaining further). I am unsure whether an article on him would be encyclopedic, and think some discussion on this would be useful. >Radiant< 08:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't speak a lick of Turkish, but this fellow has over forty thousand hits on the Turkish Google, which is fairly huge, and they're not random; scanning the list shows that the vast majority have academic references. The article needs a good bit of work, but.  RGTraynor  13:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'll just mention the internet site he originated: referred to in the article [44] -- is it as good as it looks?DGG 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've put in a call on Wikiproject: Turkey for help. Let's see if someone will improve the article. --Charlene 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep:Some printed works, references added to the article. This is a notable person,deletion is not suitable, but article needs improvements.Must.^{T C} 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He looks pretty notable from the sources on the web. I asserted notability and cleaned up the article, which took less work than nominating for deletion. It still needs sources and work, and input from Turks--if he's as well known as he appears to be, one of the Turks should be able to fix it without problem. Why not discuss it on the article's talk page and with the WP Project Turkey folks instead of nominating for deletion when you don't know? In other words, discuss it with the editors, on the talk page, where such discussion is designed to take place. KP Botany 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable person. I will try to improve the article if I have time. Cretanforever 14:59, 5 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 Kept: nom withdrawing, consensus, meets WP:BIO. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Boyer

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

I feel a little guilty nominating this one, as it was contributed by the same user who contributed CJ Johnson. I nominated that article and it was rather promptly voted down. This article may be closer to notability. Still, I am not seeing that this measures up to WP:Bio. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)