Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Odd Austin" Aeschliman

"Odd Austin" Aeschliman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not seem notable. Personal webpage (Myspace.com) makes this like a lot like vanity.Hondasaregood 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not ready for mainspace, yet. Google return a lot of myspace pages. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. The article fails to assert his notability, and a Google search returned several myspace hits in the top ten. Unless he is on some charts or otherwise meets the music notability guidelines, he's not Wikipedia material. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said, heh. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable as far as I can tell. -- Diletante 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, only appears to have released demo albums, no apparent third-party coverage from reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability criteria Avi 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). Bucketsofg 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins comments. There is an obvious and clear consensus in the community that the article should not be deleted and so I closed the debate. The community's energy would be more appropriately directed towards improving the article and finding ways to right it that are acceptable to as wide a group as possible. I encourage further discussion about this article to be done on the article talk page. Bucketsofg 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian political violence

Palestinian political violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV minefield, from the offset it calls the people of Palestine terrorists without even mentioning that the violence may be legitimate. Very biased, must be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asucena (talk • contribs).

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics). ◄Zahakiel► 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian political violence

• DELETE - POV minefield, from the offset it calls the people of Palestine terrorists without even mentioning that the violence may be legitimate. Very biased, must be removed. --Asucena 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree that the article is biased -- because it is not named "Palestinian terrorism." But that is a different issue. Obviously there is no justification for deletion. 6SJ7 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per 6SJ7, though I would prefer to have it renamed Palestinian terrorism. --Leifern 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Bias isn't normally a reason for deletion of the article, but for improvement. However, I'm not sure an article with this title can be made NPOV, it only focuses on one side of the issue by definition. Balancing it would require making it into an article about, say Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Al-Aqsa Intifada ... but we already have all those articles. It's a complex issue, and I'm not an expert on the subject, so if someone explains how this article can be balanced, I won't argue for deletion, but unless they do, it does look bad. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Report the various points of view on the issue proportionally to their level of support, as usual? —xyzzy_n 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Edit it to make it what it should be, merge some of the other pages, or rename it yet again. An credible encyclopedia has to have an article on Palestinian terrorism, under whatever name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, The introduction to the article clearly states that the perpetrators of the violence maintain that the violence is justified. The only reason this article is being attacked as POV is the fact that such acts of "political violence" will invariably reflect badly on their perpetrators... hmmm, perhaps we should delete any article that reflects badly on anyone - for instance, Watergate scandal reflects badly on Richard Nixon, etc. etc. Also, it's pretty clear that there is some degree of conflict of interest in this nomination, but that's beside the point.--DLand^TALK 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename as Palestinian terrorism. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it's POV, make it NPOV. If there's a better title, move it. If it needs further sourcing to make claims for "legitimate" violence, source it. It's clearly an important topic that should be covered. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. -- Scientizzle 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On further consideration, I believe the current title is a fine NPOV choice. Convince me there's a better one. -- Scientizzle 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly legitimate topic that used to be called Palestinian terrorism, and which was moved to Pal political violence is order to be as NPOV as possible. It would be obtuse to pretend there's no such thing. It's also of concern here that the nominator says she is a "an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." [1] if that's true, there's a clear conflict of interest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the equivalent article for the Irish Republican Army called? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, badly written, badly sourced, entirely fixable; very unconvincing nomination with WP:COI potential. —xyzzy_n 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Title is factual, not POV; POV comes in the reader's point of view that political violence is not a wonderful thing. Gzuckier 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• SNOWBALL Keep - Nominator claims to be an official of the Palestinian Authority. Of course they would want this article deleted. Nomination is itself POV, and dishonest. Nowhere, especially from "the start" are the Palestinian people called "terrorists". It is very difficult to assume good faith with a nomination like this. - Crockspot 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad faith nomination by editor with self-confessed conflict of interests. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep POV issues are a concern... but that's not a deletion issue, it's something to fix. - Denny 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Even if the article's content was pov, it doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Might need a little cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it.--MONGO 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Small office/home office. Natalie 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOHO network

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

Barely discernible from a computer network. Topic is not notable. Kevin Walter 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to local network - Richard Cavell 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to local network. The first sentence calls it that. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. /Blaxthos 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant per Small office/home office. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is a definite Keeper - a SOHO is a particular, distinctive type of local network. It's not synonymous with it. I think that some of the above participants in this vote are not aware of that. Merely to redirect to local network would be to misinform readers. jamesgibbon 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Small office/home office, then. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to local network, then add a section called SOHO in that article. -- Wenli 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to local network. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thug (hip hop slang)

Thug (hip hop slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is simply cruft. WP is not a dictionary for slang. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - If any of this can be verified & sourced (which I doubt it can), then any meaningful bits should be moved into another article if one exists. The term thug has been around a lot longer than the "hip hop" era, so already the article is incorrect. The article smells of OR & as the nom said, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Delete. Spawn Man 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. I would also recommend deleting the original thug article/disambiguation claim and making it a redirect to Thuggee, because there's really not much more than dicdefs that can be added for it. JuJube 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. We have an article on "thug", and an article on "rap/hip-hop", to boot as well. --Haemo 00:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be a poorly written and unsourced article, but the concept is real and encyclopaedic enough. A quick academic journal search on "thug" did turn up plenty of sociological articles on hip-hop culture. As for already having an article on "thug", obviously the subject of this article is very different from thuggee. FiggyBee 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. We already have a thug article. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ATT /Blaxthos 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This should be deleted as OR. Also it does not cite any of its sources. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To parahrase: "thug in hip-hop slang is pretty much the same as thug in normal usage, only much more interesting because it's said inna hip-hop stylee" or something. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dictionary definition desperately stretched out to article length, including bits about "restored cars from the 40's-70's" (no, really). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delizzle my nizzle. M.C. OR & Diccy D in da house, yo. — Krimpet (talk/review) 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability and it's original research. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems very unimportant in an encyclopedia. -- Wenli 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Kill it like Tupak -- SakotGrimshine 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#DICT Captain panda In vino veritas 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although sort of interesting Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this idea is essentially unverifiable. --Hydraton31 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much nonsense. Artaxiad 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 White Spot. Natalie 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespot Restaurant

Whitespot_Restaurant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – This article smells of both OR, Copy Vio's & NN. The article reads as though someone has stripped it from a book & we all know how we hate copy vio's. Delete, if not speedy. Spawn Man 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction - Thanks to Charlene below, this article is now confirmed to be a copy violation. Spawn Man 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to existing White Spot. A definite notable family restaurant in canada, and this new article have some of the history available. HOWEVER, it is possible Copy Vio, since I thought I saw some of these in the restaurant. George Leung 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to White Spot - the actual content looks like it's copied and pasted from somewhere. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We're (coincidentally) going to White Spot in about 15 minutes. I'll print this out and take it with me - if it's a copyvio of anything there I'll report back. If so, Speedy Redirect. --Charlene 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • Speedy Redirect as copyvio. This article comes straight out of a brochure produced by the company. --Charlene 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - It's not wikified and reads as an advertisement. - Richard Cavell 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect -Already an article on it, and looks like a copy and paste. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per George Leung semper fictilis 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment since 1) it's copyvio 2) It's edited by one contributor, can we talk to the editor, then invoke the WP:SNOW and/or put a copyvio tag? George Leung 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In my experience, any article which is on afd & is found to be a copy vio is speedied right away. If parts were copy vios, then that would be different & rewritable. But this is the whole article & it is so obviously either OR or a Copy vio. What's the editor going to say when you message him? Okay, I commited copy violation, silly me delete it. Normally I would have left a note, but this blatantly CV. Spawn Man 04:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, i invoke the WP:SNOW and go speedy redirect.George Leung 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per George Leung. Incidentally I'd been under the impression for a long time that we had to delete these kinds of articles to get the copyvio out of the history first, but I guess that's not true as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. cab 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Amélie (soundtrack) (done, edit history taken care of). utcursch | talk 12:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comptine D'Un Autre Été: L'Après-midi

Comptine D'Un Autre Été: L'Après-midi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article has not assessed its notability as a stand-alone article. The information could well be added into the main Amélie article, as no content has been added since its creation in November '06. The author has been notified for a week and no modifications have been made. ALTON .ıl 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Amélie per nom. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Delete-(edit conflict) Small enough to be in the article of the film. Don't even redirect as no one would even bother to type this name out. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:15, 21 March 2007 ( UTC)
• Merge & delete per above. /Blaxthos 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- STTW (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If merged, GFDL requires the edit history of this article to be preserved (see WP:MERGE#How to rename a page). In any case, redirects are cheap. -- Black Falcon 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corpsehump

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Belongs in Wiktionary. Chevinki 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nn neologism semper fictilis 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not even sure it belongs in Wiktionary. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Teabagging. FiggyBee 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and pointless. Bridgeplayer 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. /Blaxthos 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete abject nonsense Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't belong here or in Wiktionary. Besides, it's called "skullfucking". Recury 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment why not just prod this thing? Hasn't been prodded before, nothing remotely controversial about this. --Xyzzyplugh 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scienter 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and set the perps on fire. fails WP:NEO, WP:ATT. Christ on a crutch, who in the hell felt it necessary for there to be an encyclopedia article on this subject? RGTraynor 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even belong in Wiktionary. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following transwikification to Wiktionary. WjBscribe 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thick and thin (phrase)

Thick and thin (phrase) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The creator moved this from a perfectly decent disambiguation page here. It will never have enough substance for a stand-alone article. Wiktionary is not a home since it is a phrase not a word and the Wikiquote would only be suitable if a specific quote is found (the example is just made up). I see no merit in a redirect since the article title will never be the search term. If deleted, I will restore the previous version of Thick and thin. Delete. TerriersFan 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You created the page Thick and thin, someone changed it, and now you want Thick and thin (phrase) deleted so you can restore your original version? Just revert. But now it's here, Delete. The disambiguation page isn't much better either, there is little point in creating a disambiguation page when no articles by that name even exist yet. Croxley 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all pointless/useless/nonsense. /Blaxthos 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for the same 3 reasons stated by Blaxthos. Speedything 11:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I had not realised that it should have appeared in the wiktionary - sorry. So you should revert to [[2]] - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary - I had not realised it was possible. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary Just a quick reply to the nom, but the number 1 bullet pointed policy of Wiktionary is that "it is a dictionary, thesaurus and phrase-book. So a phrase like "thick and thin" is perfectly acceptable as a Wiktionary entry. Dugwiki 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary per above. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Let Wiktionary write its own, it's rubbish. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD after the article has been transwikied. Already tagged as such. As for the disambig page, a selective revert to a previous version should do. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• It has now been transwikied. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The issue here is not whether this is self-promotion or not -- the issue is lack of multiple non-trivial mentions from independent sources. utcursch | talk 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Charles Smith

Michael Charles Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Keep, but reduced links to it. Presuming he appears on a ballot anywhere, he should be able to be found here, because people will be curious who he is. But he doesn't need to be given the treatment of being a full-fledged candidate, by having all other articles about the primary or candidates link to him along side the real candidates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
• Comment: Does not meet WP:BIO for notability in political figures and violates WP:SOAP for self-promotion. Merely filing FEC papers does not qualify for notability. See User:Mikesmth. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. Mr. Smith has not demonstrated his own notability. Just filing with the FEC is insufficient basis for inclusion in Wikipedia; filing carries no guarantee of ballot status. —Sesel 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable candidate campaigning in one state for a nationwide office. This has resulted in failing to gain other than local media coverage. Article reads like a campaign brochure, non-encyclopedic. - Nhprman 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Yaf 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, but cut most of the content. Article contains two citations from mainstream press. Smith may not be notable when judged on a nationwide scale, but his Oregon campaign appears just as notable to Oregonians as numerous articles of local significance. In addition, his approach to the Presidential race sounds unique, notable for its contrast with other candidates. I agree the current article reads way too much like a campaign brochure; the Platform section should be cut in its entirety, and much of the other sections as well. (Disclosure: I'm from Oregon, but know nothing about Smith beyond what I found via this WP article.) -Pete 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotion. /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, slf promotion an he wants to be president? uuuuurgh. --Zedco 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• User's 3rd edit. Tyrenius 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Self promotion, and basically just his points of view on some issues and his ambition. Not worthy of an article. Bensmith53 09:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self-evident campaign page, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While he does not meet the criteria for notability that in itself is not a criteria for deletion and should not stand alone. However, this article also does not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. That is why I believe it should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can any of those supporting deletion please comment on my remarks, and on whether my deletion of about 2/3 of the material impacts their position? -Pete 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's certainly shorter, but the (true) phrase in the article, "Smith is unknown outside of Oregon, and has no previous experience in political office," proves non-notability. An article on a movie actor who simply said he was an aspiring actor who hoped to be a movie star, but admitted he wasn't even actively seeking film roles, wouldn't meet muster for an article here, either, for the reasons Djma12 cited above. - Nhprman 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Incidentally: How should we deal with the John H. Cox article? Djma12 ^(talk) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, another article's possible lack of validity is irrelevant to this one's possible deletion. That said, this is an eggregious and obvious case of a non-notable non-candidate with zero exposure nationally, while Cox is an increasingly irrelevent candidate who is at least making pretentions about campaigning nationally, and at least has done it in the past. But deal with that one on its own merits, and not just because this is a bad article. - Nhprman 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see my position is rather shaky, but the whole discussion seems perched on a slippery slope. Self-promotion? Much of politics is essentially self promotion. If you adopt that criteria, you need to be prepared to remove John Cox, and Michael Savage, Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton and probably all the Third Party candidates.

I would propose you think more in terms of a broader wiki “mission.” Although it’s not practical to publish an all-encompassing catalogue – it should be the objective to capture meaningful perspectives and serve as a resource for voters to assess candidates on the basis of political philosophy. From that perspective it could be argued that my presence is more meaningful as a philosophical contrast than the myriad social conservatives who offer little meaningful distinction between their positions.

The internet and wikipedia hold a promise of increased information and “democracy” of ideas and access. You seem to be working contrary to that objective, ironically falling into patterns established by the conventional media that wikipedia aspires to replace.

Mikesmth 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You raise some good points. On the other hand, Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for your philosophical contrast. We're just here to write a really good encyclopedia. As far as self-promtion, well, "That other guy over there is doing it" doesn't really hold water as an argument around here. Since interested third parties are involved, I would suggest you refrain from editing your own article and discuss any changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Pete. Comments like "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race" don't do anything to support the Delete argument. Scienter 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Pete, with the caveat that outside editors maintain the article and not the candidate, per my comments above. (Full disclosure--another Oregonian here, but it's rare I vote for anybody of Smith's party.) Thinking in terms of Wikipedia being a useful resource, I would expect that interest in outsider candidates would be strong enough that a person searching for this candidate might expect to find an article on him, especially since his candidate profile is listed in the Baltimore Sun. Heck he's even got several interlanguage wikilinks. Or alternatively, a redirect to the page on 2008 Republican candidates that has a paragraph on him. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the caveat Katr67 has attached to their Keep opinion. Scienter 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It doesn't look like this fellow's thought of as notable IN Oregon either, given that a directed search has only 125 (not entirely relevant) G-hits [3]. To address Mr. Smith's altogether-too-familiar rebuttal, Wikipedia is a private website with the right to decide what it is. The Wikimedia Foundation has decided it is an encyclopedia ... not a blog, not a soapbox for self-promotion, not some fuzzy New Age outreach program. Many of those exist, and I suggest that this is less about What Wikipedia Could Become than in hijacking a popular and highly visible website for promotional purposes. RGTraynor 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. There are a lot of minor presidential candidates who have no chance to win, that shouldn't be a reason to remove this article. If this candidate has enough coverage to have a fully-cited non-stubbed article, then keep. I will change my vote if this is rewritten according to that and I am notified on my talk page. Without this, anyone could run for president with no campaigning/notability and not even try to win just to get a Wikipedia article. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is better with Pete's cuts (less violation of WP:SOAP), but still fails to meet WP:BIO notability. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "has minimal background as a politician," If he gets the party nomination, he'll be notable. DGG 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates (which actually does not have a paragraph on him, though he's link in the template at the bottom of the page). His name is a possible search term, and if we're going to remove the stand-alone article, at least send readers somewhere useful. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's a declared and active (campaigning) candidate for President of the United States. The fact that he isn't a current office holder or subjective determinations that he "doesn't have a snowballs chance" are completely irrelevant. Smith has received press coverage and a lot of attention on the internet, and is embarking on a novel endeavor. Subjective determinations on how much press coverage is needed to justify an article are shaky at best, as the mainstream media tends to focus on the horse-race aspects of an election. Active campaigning is enough, and the "self-promotion" claim is basically irrelevant when it comes to political candidates. I'll close with this: when in doubt, keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.116.249 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC). — 172.164.116.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Active campaign is one thing, but his strategy of campaigning for a national office in one state (the equivalent of wanting to be a professional boxer but refusing to get into a boxing ring) makes him non-notable, and it can hardly be seen as "actively" campaigning. His coverage has been limited mostly to local papers curious about his Quixotic run. I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who wants to run, and if he became notable for his longshot run, that's one thing, but many other candidates are putting efforts into all early primary states and have gotten coverage for doing so, making them notable. - Nhprman 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates per Lyrl. I do have a question, though: how does one conclude this is self-promotion? The article was created[4] by an account that is not a single-purpose account and generally edits articles related to the Western United States.[5] It's possible that somewhere along the way, Mr. Smith actually edited this article to promote himself, but should that claim be made so lightly and without evidence? If incorrect, that claim may be offensive both to Mr. Smith and this article's creator. What happened to assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Have I perhaps missed some obvious evidence linking User:Stlom to Michael Smith? -- Black Falcon 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heartbreaker (Pink song)

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

This is non-notable Pink song. It was the B-side to Stupid Girls, and was never released in it's own right. It is not going to be released. User:FergieFan101 created this article, and is linking to it as if it will be released. I nominated it for deletion and this user removed my deletion notice without giving any reasons why the article should remain. Guylikeu 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - or redirect to Stupid Girls. Looks like FergieFan101 is on a roll of creating these articles. Possibly connected to Weirdo1717. Masaruemoto 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There is no chance this song will become a single and the article is written terribly. A redirect wouldn't work because the song is different. It may be a B-side to the first song, but it isn't the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bensmith53 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - This is a very confusing article. Not only is it poorly written, but it also seems to be about a song that does not exist on any album yet. A complete overhaul would be needed to salvage anything, and that would be pointles given that the article is about a non-notable song.--Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The song isn't scheduled for release as a single, the article establishes no other notability about it (not surprising, given it's a B-side), and there's no useful content to merge into another article. Extraordinary Machine 16:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Very bad article, and it isn't really a notable topic. -- Wenli 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of romantic leads with actress older

List of romantic leads with actress older (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture examples of any film where the lead actress is older than the lead actor, regardless of whether the age difference has any significance either in the film or in the real-life relationship between the two. The entire intro is POV/OR, a number of the listed relationships are not clearly "romantic leads" which thus requires POV judgment in deciding to include them and the standard for inclusion can never be anything but arbitrary. Whoever made the list apparently decided that a three year age difference was the cutoff point since that's the closest in age that's listed, but there is no possible objective reason for setting the age gap at any number. Otto4711 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft. How incredibly arbitrary! --Action Jackson IV 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In most of those films it's not even significant to the plot, and List_of_films_featuring_May-December_romances#Older_Woman.2F_Younger_Man deals with that subject. Interesting fact: There's the same age difference between Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta as there was between Anne Bancroft and Dustin Hoffman, I'll have to remember that one Croxley 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom much arbitrary and in most of them age diff is not in the plotline.--Paloma Walker 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete get your list on. /Blaxthos 05:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not a place for random lists. /Callix 21:18 21 March 2007 (EDST) (Aus)
• Keep Ageism against women in Hollywood casting of romantic leads is a frequent topic in the news. A list of movies, with stars and their age differences, which defy that trend is an important resource. The List_of_films_featuring_May-December_romances does not address the same issue. A call for deletion needs a discussion at Talk:List_of_films_featuring_May-December_romances since if these entries were added to that page, it would be distracting to people seeking intended May-December romance films and not ones due to casting. Ignoble 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ignoble. This is hardly an "indiscriminate list"; the criteria for inclusion are clear enough, and can be verified by linking to the pages about the actors in question. If differences less than two years should be added, let them be added. The data compiled here are of interest to some folks for the reasons related by Ignoble, among others. The list helps interested people find and compare them, and as such serves a valuable indexing function. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• What, specifically, quoting from the article, are the clear inclusion criteria? Otto4711 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• ". . . (W)here the actress is older than her leading man. . . " It's hard to get more algorithmic than that. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• How much older is old enough to warrant inclusion? The editor who started the list seemed to feel that a three year difference was the cutoff point, but did not offer any explanation as to why. You have suggested that age differences of less than three years can be included. What objective standard is there for choosing any age difference? Otto4711 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that a list is incomplete, or that the original author chose not to add to it any more after some point, is not grounds for deleting it; much less does it turn it into an "indiscriminate list" as the nominator claims. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The question that I asked was "what objective standard is there for choosing any age difference?" Do you have an answer to that question or not? Otto4711 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• By now I haven't a clue what you're continuing to argue about. The criterion is as simple as could be: if the figure from column A is greater than the one in B, it belongs. The fact that the creator chose not to go deeper than a certain point does not change that, and doesn't need to reflect an "objective standard"; it's just a point where they chose to stop writing, that is all. We should delete the article on pi until the final digit is reached, right? - Smerdis of Tlön 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying, I'm saying exactly that pi should be deleted unless it's calculated to the last number. Oh wait, I'm saying nothing even remotely similar to that and have no idea why you even bring it up! Otto4711 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete how much older? Is it stated in the script, or do we have secondary sources? Is it significant to the plot? Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs. Robinson? Oh, that last one might be a quote. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. The specifics are pretty well covered by the above. Arkyan 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Arkyan. Sheesh. JuJube 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this list as a topic completely unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO and OR/POV: the list is clearly trying to promote an agenda, which is hardly the purpose of Wikipedia. Of minimal, if any, encyclopedic value. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Wikipedia doesn't need a list for every single obscure topic. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. utcursch | talk 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who have played Elvis Presley

List of actors who have played Elvis Presley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - actors play dozens or hundreds of parts in the course of a career. There is nothing so significant about playing Elvis Presley that warrants an article. Otto4711 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. I agree there's nothing significant about this list of actors, but Elvis is an icon. If Elvis becomes the focus, rather than the actors, then it could be improved.

As it stands the current Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley doesn't seem to know what it is, and the first five sections don't even belong. (I was actually going to suggest renaming to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, before I realised an article with that name already existed) Croxley 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft. WP:NOT a collection of lists. Categorize the notable ones if you must. /Blaxthos 05:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per List of actors who played President of the United States, this has nothing to do with importance of the role within listed actors' careers. Like the U.S. President, Elvis is a cultural icon and it is notable which actors have seriously portrayed him in notable films and television series. --Canley 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• See, this is exactly why the rationale given for keeping the POTUS article is bogus. There is nothing culturally significant about playing either Elvis or a president. People advocating to keep the POTUS article did so on the basis of the POTUS being such a special case. Now here's another such article and the arguments about this being a special case start up. If every case is a special case, then there doesn't appear to be anything all that special about any of them. Otto4711 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Two cases in which a rationale may apply does not make "every case a special case". As I've said before, I believe in judging each case on its merits, and accepting the consensus of the community. I do not see one or two AFD keeps as setting a precedent, or violating policy. --Canley 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• All well and good to say, except that you cited the POTUS article being kept in your opinion to keep this article. You know as well as I do that people look to similar closed AFDs in evaluating new ones, and should another of these lists come up for deletion then just as sure as God made little green apples this AFD will be pointed to just like you pointed to the POTUS one. Otto4711 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair point, I was actually citing the POTUS example because I believe that your deletion rationale there was equally as questionable - that playing the President is not an important acting role out of many - not because it was kept. As you've correctly pointed out though, it looks like I'm citing a precedent and saying it's not a precedent! --Canley 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which points out yet another problem with these sorts of lists being kept under the premise of "the person being played is a cultural icon" or "the person is a special case." It requires editors to make POV judgments as to what historical characters are "icon" or "special" enough to warrant articles. There can be no objective definition of what historical personages have achieved that status so looking to such alleged status is problematic to say the least.
• Nor, I have to say again, does keeping the article under the theory that people will use it as a research tool on how actors approach the role make any sense. These lists tell us nothing about how actors approach the role, only that they did. The same argument could be made for any role or character type and unless we want bloated lists of every actor who ever played a cop or a bank teller the argument should be put down as well. Otto4711 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but Wikipedia pretty much requires editors to make POV judgements on "cultural icons" and "specialness" every single day, especially on AfD, due to a little thing called "notability". Once again, you're conflating something notable with non-notable slippery slope portents like "unless we want lists of every actor who ever played a cop or a bank teller" - I would agree that such lists should probably be deleted (including last week's Nazi one): anyone, actors or otherwise can play many such roles - so I definitely see your point, but I don't agree that it applies in a small number of cases. --Canley 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley per first unsigned "Merge" comment. Old american century 08:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did sign my "merge" comment. Croxley 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as per above. Unnecessary fork of an already existing topic. 23skidoo 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, redundant, fork. Terence 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Note that in my opinion this probably passes the relevant section of WP:NOT, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", since the list's entries are directly associated with a specific topic (Elvis). As an example of how this could be useful, consider if someone is researching or writing about Elvis and wants to look at how various people have portrayed him. The first obvious course is to find a list of either movies and shows that have included Elvis as a character or to find a list of actors who have portrayed Elvis. Both lists would produce the same general list of entries for further study.

However, all that being said, I am concerned that the list appears to be original research as it is relying on an original collection of inclusion criteria not apparently found in previously published sources. So I'd only be willing to keep or merge the list if the consensus is that this list isn't a form of original research. Dugwiki 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per everyone. JuJube 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley per everyone else in favor of merging. This needs rewriting once merged. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. --kingboyk 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, neither article is so large that the page would be overlong. And you do NOT mess with The King. Don't you know that? Noroton 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Cultural despictions of Elvis Presley Captain panda In vino veritas 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Satter. NawlinWiki 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Satter

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

• Delete. -- Vanity page. Individual is not widely known. Yaf 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a duplicate of the nominated article:

Michael (Mike) Satter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Bridgeplayer 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Include in the list the page Michael Satter SmartGuy 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non notable [6].--Paloma Walker 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not particularly notable - just a regular guy doing a regular good job. His photo should go from National Institute of Corrections as well because he is not notable in that context. In fact, if you look here his photo has been plastered everywhere! Bridgeplayer 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does anone want to knw im? not notable --Zedco 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, fails BIO/N, vanity page. - Denny 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with fire, entirely the work of single purpose accounts, looks so much like vanispamcruftisement that it's hard to reach any other conclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom SmartGuy 15:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - we have User:Dr.Shartell, User:Gregwolen and User:Seaninwashington all promoting the same guy with similar text and pictures! Bridgeplayer 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the obvious reason jamesgibbon 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete {{db-repost}} per all the reasons from the first time --Onorem 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and maybe look into any other users created by NateinFlorida (talk · contribs)...I mean Gregwolen (talk · contribs)...I mean Seaninwashington (talk · contribs)...I mean Carlostexas (talk · contribs)...I mean Gregsteres (talk · contribs)...I mean Timwiller (talk · contribs)...I mean Glenwolling (talk · contribs)...--Onorem 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - and don't forget Parkermax (talk · contribs) (Satter is also a rapper it seems!) Bridgeplayer 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - well spotted; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Satter refers. I have tagged all three pages for speedy. Bridgeplayer 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and don't forget Billrusslen (talk · contribs) who inserted a Michael Satter reference into a picture caption (vandalism) in the Police article. Yaf 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is Joeinalabama (talk · contribs) listed here yet? --Onorem 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Burnsvillemike (talk · contribs) & DeaninDetroit (talk · contribs)...yawn --Onorem 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• NickOwnes (talk · contribs) - OK, I'm just going to stop looking for connections. I hoping there's enough here to justify a CheckUser... --Onorem 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• 66.41.155.45 (talk · contribs) - Another one... WP:RFCU anyone? Yaf 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pawel Plaszczak

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

Not notable. Reads like business advert/cv.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Self-promotion. /Blaxthos 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Member of the Ian Foster' Globus Project and author of very first book for managers concerning Grid computing /Paladin1979 11:52:21, 21 March 2007 (CET)
• Delete worked in some cool places, did some cool stuff, no non-trivial secondary sources. Not notable per Wikipedia standards, which is not in any way a reflection on his worth as an individual. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Classic self-promotion. Biruitorul 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless the article is re-written, it is blatant self-advertising. -- Wenli 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO and violates WP:SOAP. --Roswell native 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep he's among few people mentioned in Grid computing article. If you would like to look for second sources, here's an interview with P.P. in PrimeurMagazine. So why keep the articles of others listed in biography of Grid computing term? /Paladin1979 13:40:21, 22 March 2007 (CET) Please do not vote multiple times.--Seattle Skier (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rather Keep And I've just found some better article about that guy on GridToday /LukeWolf 14:40:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) User has no contributions other than this vote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self promotion, not notable. Note: multiple keep votes above are from same account. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OK. If the majority see that topic in such a way so delete it. But will it last empty ?? Note: I didn't know that I cannot answer your arguments more than once. --Paladin1979 16:19, 22 March 2007 (CET)
  • You can comment as much as you want, just note that the vote is 'comment' and don't begin this with 'keep' or 'delete'. If you change your vote, delete or strike out the old one. It's all described here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm still very curious why there can't be article about this guy and there can be articles about others, mentioned in Grid computing topic. If this guy is the author of the very first book form managers concerning grids, so he done something as first right? So it should be notable fact, right? And please don't right it's self-promotion because I am not Mr. Plaszczak and that's funny. --Paladin1979 20:56, 24 March 2007 (CET)
  • Please read WP:BIO and show here that this person indeed fullfulls the criteria of our policy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Grid computing, the savvy manager's guide - considering the number of reviews I come up with on a Google search (EnterTheGrid, Globus Consortium Journal, GridToday, and that's just on the first page of hits), I think this may qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic books. If there was only one author, I'd say just keep the author article (and not have one on the book), but there's not enough notability to justify having an article on both authors. Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcin Chumiecki

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

Not notable, advert/cv.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable [7], no attempt to prove notability.--Paloma Walker 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of work, 2 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO. --Roswell native 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per evidence above. Artaxiad 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no assertion of notability, how-to, nonsensical, made up in the pub one day, and several other things Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Bat

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

Non-notable drinking game. Google returns nothing relevant, beyond an urbandictionary entry. Neologism, WP:NOT a dictionary, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NFT Action Jackson IV 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no WP:RS for WP:A. Leuko 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete textbook WP:MADEUP Citicat 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Old american century 08:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Keller

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

Likely a hoax. Google search for "Nigel Keller"+MIT came up with nothing, and neither did a search for "Neuro-incisor" (or any of its variants). Contested prod. Delete due to lack of verification. ... discospinster _talk 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Most likely hoax. Seems to be talking about the Gamma knife, invented by Lars Leksell. -- Selket ^Talk 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax it is. Citicat 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOAX /Blaxthos 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (the band). No assertion of notability, WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q (the band)

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

The article asserts no notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC /Blaxthos 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. StaticElectric 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The wood whisperer

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. Leuko 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It would take significant cleanup to keep the article, and is written in a way to seem like an advertisement. --Sigma 7 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, just delete it. I have no desire to jump through hoops. Rtwpsom2 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN /Blaxthos 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete common newbie error, userfy if the creator wants it, but does not meet the guidelines and policies for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: An anonymous post on Talk:The wood whisperer claims notability: -- intgr 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  I have only suggested an edit a couple of times in wikipedia (once where someone had spelled my wife's name incorrectly as she is a notable person but just barely) thus if I am doing this incorrectly forgive me. A couple of things about Marc, his podcast is #1 in the catagory of hobbies on iTunes, He made the best or podcasting list on iTunes for 2006, his podcast was featured on television in Canada, he has been sponsored by Finewoodworking.com and has been featured in their print publication, he has also been sponsored by Festool and Powermatic which does not come easy. Within the woodworking (online) community he is very well known and well regarded.

  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.137.30.2 (talk)

I have added a link to the article published in WoodCraft Magazine. Rtwpsom2 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Article needs work, but with the recent "appearances" section, appears to pass the (vague) threshold of notability. -- intgr 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FCYTravis. MER-C 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Confused

I'm Confused (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Article is full of nonsense - the album is coming out in either "late 07", "August 07", or may have already gone platinum. I say delete this, and recreate it when the album passes from quantum uncertainty to reality. Action Jackson IV 03:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete borderline hoax, it's written in the past tense about future events. -- Selket ^Talk 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Possibly can be speedied under " vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous" Citicat 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious tomfoolery. /Blaxthos 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was page reverted to redirect and nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goosing

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

This page led a happy little life as a redirect until someone decided to use it for something they made up it school one day. It's possibly speediable as patent nonsense as well Citicat 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Revert back to the redirect It's a real term, but this article is clearly written for the author's buddies and no one else. - Richfife 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did revert it[8] and it got put back. Needs to be protected. Citicat 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Try this page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Richfife 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okey-doke Withdrawing nomination Citicat 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military deception. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maskirovka

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

del unnecessary russian language dicdef which is more than adequately rendered by the term military deception. A quote from Russian military encyclopedia is a definition of the Russian langauge term, which is exactly how "military deception" is defined. We are not going to have articles such as oborona (defense) Nastupleniye ("attack") just because the Russian military encyclopedia defines them. `'mikka 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: S: Society topics. ◄Zahakiel► 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Term is used in many English language essays.[9] Having an explanation of the term here seems okay to me, although the article needs some expansion. Citicat 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with more usage examples --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator... an encyclopedia isn't the place to define every foreign language word that may come into use in English. Bad precident. /Blaxthos 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military deception. WP:UE is only overridden in two cases I know of: WP:NC(CN) (as in concrete objects whose names have no widely accepted equivalents in English, where inventing a translation would be WP:OR), and the self-identification, e.g. of an ethnic or religious group. This is neither. However, deletion doesn't seem appropriate given that the term has 219 GBooks hits (unlike oborona or nastupleniye), including some which discuss it non-trivially. [10] I truly despise these "flavour words", like Chinese Guanxi, Japanese Wa, etc. that are used by authors to show off rather than inform; unfortunately, we're not the Academy of the English Language, and don't have the power to proscribe useless words. (Incidentally, see p32 of Chizum's Soviet Radioelectronic Combat for a justification by one author of why he uses the Russian word instead of an equivalent English word; IMO it's weak, but he published about the topic, and I haven't). cab 05:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military deception per cab. And I was going to quote Chizum's Soviet Radioelectronic Combat too, but cab got there first ;) Croxley 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military deception per cab. Old american century 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. Agree with Blaxthos and cab, there are more and more foreign words creeping in WP which have perfectly fine English equivalents. -- P199 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cab. Just because this term shows up in a few military adventure/spy novels doesn't make it anything more than a dicdef. RGTraynor 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military deception per cab. Despite having a source, this is still a (somewhat lengthy) dicdef. However, its use in English-language sources justifies a redirect. -- Black Falcon 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Donegan

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

One of many people to lose their job over offensive personal blog postings. Does it suck? Yes. Is this particular case notable? Not really. Richfife 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Did a search and he seems at least a bit notable--SUIT 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add more references --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recentism that isn't truely WP:Notable. /Blaxthos 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does being the subject of a news story mean notability? I don't believe so. Googling "Matt Donegan" + "Dover Post" + fired = 277 results, and most of them are blogs (not surprisingly). Croxley 06:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. More references are needed. StaticElectric 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable person fired for blogging, only real claim to fame was appearning on the local news (which is not notable). TJ Spyke 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is ths realy the srt of thing for bein on here? not notable enough--Zedco 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as breathless overdramatization of local minutiae. All eyes are watching to see what happens in the final analysis! -- Dhartung | Talk 11:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Blaxthos. -- P199 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Many employers in the United States can fire somebody for any reason - including no reason. If this person has, in a legal action, been the subject of a case that set a precedent for blog posts in conjunction with employment, we'd have something. But not this. --Dennisthe2 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO--Roswell native 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. Article is primarily the work of single-use accounts to push POV after the firing. Should have been caught and deleted a year ago. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The NBC 10 article is the only active, reliable, non-trivial link. I think a standard of "precedent-setting legislation" is unreasonably high, but this article does not even meet the common/general/primary requirement of at least 2 independent, reliable, non-trivial sources. -- Black Falcon 06:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight

The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm completing a nomination for an anon who's attempted two separate PRODs. According to the message left at my talk page, "It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google." The edit to the prior debate is here. Keep in mind, this was recently kept as a unanimous keep in February at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight.

• My personal opinion is keep as before. One of the most noteworthy series in young adult literature, highlight notable author, parts of the book were used for the second film in the series, it's a bestselling novel, plenty of reviews can be dug up, etc etc etc. badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Too soon for another AFD. Possible bad faith forum shopping by nominator. - Richfife 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion given. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep If it's kept, there's no need to go to Google. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Bad faith nom by an anon. If it's been through an AFD last month, there's zero reason to PROD it. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep in light of recent previous AfD. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• The following comment was placed on the previous AfD. I have no opinion, just copying moving it to where it belongs DMacks 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge I think deletion and/or a merge is necessary but you continue to delete any nomination for deletion I post. It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google. 137.238.121.34 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Professionally published novels are inherently notable per the Novels WikiProject. If we start picking-and-choosing what we consider to be notable works then there are hundreds of other articles that might as well go to AFD, and to decide which ones should go would be a violation of WP:NPOV. 23skidoo 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Any of the books in the series is notable up through the present, as author Meg Cabot... is notable, as is the fact... her series has spawned two major Hollywood releases so far. - Denny 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep notable author, series and therefore book. Proposed deletion and AfD are not cleanup. --Canley 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep very obviously notable book, and part of a very notable series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, obviously notable, no proper reason for AFD, do not use AFD for poor quality articles that desperately needs cleanup. Terence 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Taken from Wikipedia:NOT: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. As it stands now, this article is just a plot summary. While that in itself is not a criterion for deletion, the article is in need of some repair before it becomes respectable. How long can it exist in its present state before action should be taken? --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When I'm feeling rowdy, I usually remove the plot summaries until the articles can be expanded otherwise. I've been dealing with other things rather than the Princess Diaries as of late, but it's something that can be dealt with via editing - the article is still a functionally acceptable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Chrisman

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

Delete What makes this man notable? Avi 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable person--SUIT 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self promo and no refs--Zedco 08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• User's 4th edit. Tyrenius 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per SUIT's comment. —Old american century 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this person is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO. --Roswell native 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As a published author he does seem to fit WP:BIO, unless the books are self-published. However the article needs massive cleanup. It lacks sources. If no one steps forward to clean up the article before this AFD finishes, then I have no objection to a delete.TheRingess (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I agree with that reading of WP:BIO. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases, authors would have to:
    1. Received notable awards or honors.
    2. Be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
    3. Be known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    4. Create 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.
    5. Have their work (a) be displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
  • Does this person conform to any of the above? -- Avi 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete self promo, non-notable person Truthbewithu 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Wile E. Heresiarch at 23:42, 20 March 2007. ◄Zahakiel► 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex dizon

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

Non-notable biography, only source is IMDB, where he has very very minimal credits. Not written in an encyclopedic manner, very close to advert. Prodded by myself, de-prodded by author. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Fails WP:BIO. Longhair\^talk 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speed deleted Reason: vanity/personal promotion, no claim or evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lord of the Flies. Natalie 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Flies in popular culture

Lord of the Flies in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another cruft filled article that isn't very useful. Trim the section in the main article, instead of just branching off to these crufty "pop culture/cultural references" articles. RobJ1981 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: S: Society topics. ◄Zahakiel► 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete paging Dr. Cruft, please pick up the white courtesy phone. /Blaxthos 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Indiscriminate information, plus much original research - "People have found many similarities", "has been speculated that", "is similar to", "It is claimed that". Croxley 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per indiscriminate OR concerns. Otto4711 11:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into Lord of the Flies. Do not fear to convert the list into paragraphs analysing these several allusions on the bogus grounds that the analysis needed to turn the lists into running discourse is "unreferenced" or "original research". Only allusions in notable works should be included, and in a notable work, a Wikilink is all the reference you need; and the fear that the brief synopses needed to explain allusions are "original research" is just silly. The *Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, originally written to entertain: it already is popular culture, even if it is taught. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm starting to feel like a broken record saying how these things violate WP:NOT and are devoid of encyclopedic content, et. Arkyan 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Does not fail WP:NOT#IINFO, but does appear to be OR and unreferenced This does not appear to violate WP:NOT#IINFO. That section of WP:NOT is very specific about what it prohibits, and lists of popular culture references are not part of that section. (See previous discussions on the incorrect application of WP:NOT#IINFO on the archived talk page.) However, it does appear to be largely unreferenced original research. Therefore the article should probably be trimmed down to clear referenced entries and, space permitting, merged back into the Lord of the Flies main article. Dugwiki 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And, P.S., "cruft" is never a reason for deletion. Dugwiki 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It could be useful. StaticElectric 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ATT, completely unsourced: possibly WP:OR, and, yes per WP:NOT#IINFO. Just a glorified plot summary, which NOT prohibits. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's not summarizing a plot. In fact, it's specifically talking about real world references to the plot, which is explicitly what WP:NOT#IINFO says is supposed to happen. Dugwiki 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Lord of the Flies. The book is already popular culture. It is very appropiate to discuss the influence of the book on other elements of poplular culture. In this case, why would you want to split them? -- Michael Johnson 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep lack of deletion rationale. Too long for lord of the flies article. SakotGrimshine 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. This is not indiscriminate information per WP:NOT#IINFO as Dugwiki has noted above. Nor would I say that it is indiscriminate per the common definition of the term; there is a clear discriminating criterion, namely, reference to LOTF. Also, this is not unsourced: it is sourced by primary sources. For instance, the reference to LOTF in Hook (film) is sourced by the film itself. However, despite the fact that a nomination based merely in the vague accusation of "cruft" is just begging for a "Strong keep", this article violates WP:TRIV and should not remain as a stand-alone article. Most of the entries in the article are merely passing mentions, but some are more significant. Per Smerdis of Tlön, I will trim the article so that an admin may easily merge it if that is the consensus. -- Black Falcon 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewritten. I have rewritten the article: deleting most of the content, converting the remainder into prose form, and adding some references (see diff). I have made statements that tie the various elements together, but also deliberately limited their scope to keep them factual: I can't say that LOTF has greatly impacted future literary works, but I can say that it "has influenced or inspired multiple cultural works". Any additional cleanup would be appreciated, as I'm rather tired now and may have missed something (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, content organisation, etc.). I feel this is short and selective enough (and also sourced) to be merged back into Lord of the Flies. -- Black Falcon 06:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, the rewrite is good enough to merge back in to the parent article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bobo192. MER-C 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Droid (album)

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

Future album of a band whose page was already deleted. No apparent notability. --Wildnox(talk) 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (does this qualify for speedy?) /Blaxthos 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tagged for speedy - no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Gamboa Potter

Samuel Gamboa Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable; primary edits appear autobiographical; Google searches seem to return only Wikipedia references Travisl 04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self promo an refs not inependnt enough. dont say i sed so tho as i note hes got a gun!!!!!!!!!--Zedco 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• User's 6th edit. Tyrenius 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO --Roswell native 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, it does assert notability of a sort, but I think it falls slightly short of passing WP:BIO. The television show he co-hosts seems to be limited to Pacific Northwest (so far), and as for being "the first person to effectively capture the behavior of salmon and other fish in freshwater striking lures and baits with underwater cameras", that's moderately impressive, but not quite enough, IMO. But mainly I'm concerned by the weakness of the references. Two seem to be mostly press-releases, and the third appears to come from a blog. And much of the personal information appears completely unsourced. Seems like someone who could easily achieve sufficient notability, but unless and until there's better coverage from more independent sources, I think this has to go. Xtifr _tälk 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7. kingboyk 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Da yunginz

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

• Non-notable group. Has been speedied once. -- RHaworth 05:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: M: Media and music. ◄Zahakiel► 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Article makes no claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete this articleMarvinwillis 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Not notableGazMan7 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7, group bio with no notability presented. Beyond that, there's also a "Copyright 2007" at the bottom, suggesting the author does not understand the GDFL and doesn't understand the legal implications of posting it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another up and coming. Try again when you've up and come. JuJube 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Korean family names (2nd nomination)

List of Korean family names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names

I previously closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names as "delete", but it has been noted that that AFD was weak on consensus, having only two users other than the nominator commenting. Therefore I have undeleted the article and opened a new AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 05:23Z

• Merge and Delete - An interesting list, but 'interesting' does not validate its own space on Pedia. The data should be kept, especially the figure regarding Kim. It should merge into Korean name if at all possible. Extant inside article already. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely, positively, without doubt keep. Korean name is an article about Korean names (both given and surnames) in general, and is not meant to house all the surnames, thus this article is the logical one for this data. We do, in many other subjects, have articles covering the broad subject (such as Johann Sebastian Bach), as well as other articles listing Bach's compositions, which provides an excellent and valuable reference that could not be easily contained in a single article. It is a waste of time and energy to nominate this for deletion a second time, and does nothing to advance Wikipedia's aims to be the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia. I frequently refer to the List of common Chinese surnames and this article is equally useful. Badagnani 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- cab 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep interesting and useful list. --Melanochromis 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep List has South Korean population figures, and readers can look at the list and compare population sizes between different surnames. That makes it encyclopedic. Plus, article has room for expansion. I'd like to see the number of Bon-gwans listed for each surname. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Contingent keep. The list is somewhat more useful than List of names itself, as there are a limited number of Korean family names. However, for consistency sake, if List of names is deleted by consensus, I'd say delete this article as well. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: at Wikipedia, I believe *reasonableness* is more important in such cases than stringent, legalistic rulings like "delete all lists of names." The fact that there are so few Korean (and Chinese, and Vietnamese) surnames makes it possible to list, and explain them, and I, for one, use these articles as a reference. Cutting them out to fulfill the stipulations of some sort of severe ruling does not advance the cause of knowledge, nor our encyclopedia. Badagnani 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Badaghani. Also, bring back all the other lists of names. - Peregrine Fisher 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: don't you think a list of, for example, European surnames (with all their infinite spelling variations) would be unworkably huge? I think that's been largely agreed on by consensus, with the exception being for the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese surnames since there are so few of them. Just my comment. Badagnani 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese surnames may be relatively few, but they're not that few. The Hundred Family Surnames are not comprehensive, and there are many, many rarer surnames that nevertheless are used. I suspect that to be the case with Korean and Vietnamese names as well. I do believe that they're few enough that a list will still have some use, but I think that if the other lists are all deleted, this should go, too, for consistency. --Nlu (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Korean surnames, this list is fully comprehensive, as it includes all surnames registered in the South Korean census. The only thing it leaves out are a handful of names which are attested historically but are not carried by any living person (or at least not by anyone in South Korea). -- Visviva 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this interesting and useful list. --Mumun 無文 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic though still needing improvement. Thanks to Quarl for kindly re-listing. -- Visviva 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a valid argument for deletion.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Badagnani --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and also WP:SNOWRaveenS 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The page makes sense because there are so few Korean names. There have been two occasions in the past when I needed to refer to this page for my research, so I can attest to its usefulness. -- Dominus 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As a foreigner living in Korea, and trying to learn to read (both hangul and hanja), this is a great collection of information. -- Otebig 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - straightforward purpossful list which serves navigational purposes and can easily be its own article. WilyD 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and more of the surnames should probably be turned into links. (Redlinks, and then bluelinks at some point). This will make the article usable for purposes of developing Wikipedia (one of the criterion of WP:LIST under which the existence of list is justified) Given that sites like rootsweb.co.kr are able to write non-trivial text (e.g. history) about many of the surnames, we should be able to as well. cab 10:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove any material which is not properly sourced using reliable sources. Burntsauce 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jegal 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is there any good reason to delete this list? I don't understand why. Good friend100 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Je suis d'accord. This list is a very useful and important list for a person who is researching about the ancestral history of Korea. Orthodoxy 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Bosley

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

Appears to be violation of WP:COI, does not assert notability, does not cite reliable published sources, contains many unverified statements about working for clandestine organization. Jokestress 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. For some reason, I can never follow the byzantine instructions to make these work. Please check the other parts of this, especially the log. Jokestress 05:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability: main claims seem to be thinking that a nine foot tall person could leave no mark on the genetic record and books about transgender Amazons. Whether or not COI, it's not a list of world's biggest idiots just yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callix (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete and bury under jungle tumulus: Alright, let's start. First off, according to Amazon, the most popular (self-published) book this fellow claims to have written (and I emphasize "claims," since there is no attribution to "E.A.Guest" being Walter Bosley) ranks a whopping 1.8 million on Amazon's sales rankings [11] . There are only 110 Google hits (excluding one of Bosley's own websites), most of which are genealogical posts [12]. A search of the Air Force archival section shows no evidence Bosley was ever in the service [13]. The Redlands Daily Facts article he cites doesn't exist [14]. Need I go on? Fails WP:ATT, WP:COI and probably WP:HOAX as well. Certainly fails WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, at best WP:OR; more likely a hoax, with completely unverifiable sources. --MCB 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, you all seem to have reached the consensus that I'm a liar. I suggest you call the Redlands Daily Facts ( and ask for STEVEN SABEL who wrote the article himself which ran on THURSDAY 12 JANUARY 2006 on PAGE C1. You might also want to ask DIANE SHOLLEY of the INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN who wrote the article about me that ran TUESDAY 3 OCTOBER 2006. The reason your lazy research efforts can't find the article is because it is cleared off the internet after so many weeks, and obviously you do nothing BUT the internet. Also, I recommend you research the AFOSI; do real research and make a phone call. I carried BADGE NUMBER 1911, from April 1994 to June of 1999. In fact, I recently received a call from an AFOSI agent in Los Angeles who knows me: NELSON FINK, assigned to LAAFB, El Segundo, AFOSI Detachment 110, as does SPECIAL AGENT DAVID HARPER. Call the FBI HQ and ask to contact SA LES SZASZ, he'll tell you who I am. Better yet, call my ex-wife LAURA EIMILLER, MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE for the FBI in Los Angeles (That's a good task for you, Jokestress). She hates me, but she'll tell you who I worked for. You can also contact General FRANCIS X. TAYLOR, retired AFOSI commander, former Ambassador at Large for Terrorism at the U.S. State Department and ask him to tell you who I am. You can contact my last commander LT COL JAMES MCDONOUGH. I can provide each of you with a copy of my DD214 discharge paper. What access do you have to USAF records? Oh, you don't have access to AFOSI records??? You may also contact author GREG BISHOP who has checked on my bonafides as a journalist. Oh and Miss Jokestress, you may contact a writer named CINDY ROBERTS who worked for ALIAS, because I was referred to her by the FBI in Los Angeles, and she has used me as a source for a couple of years now for that show and other scripts she has written. If she uses a different last name when writing, I'll gladly provide you with her phone number. And also talk to KEVIN SMITH at kevinsmithshow.com because he's checked me out. Do you people do ANYTHING but internet searches??? That's why you haven't even gathered the basic facts because if you can't find them on the web, you give up! Some encyclopedia! Why couldn't you just ask me? Because it's more fun and makes you feel more significant to be cocksure. You guys really need to get out more often; there's a lot more in the world besides your Google. Go ahead and make fun of the theories about nine-foot-tall men. I'm perfectly OK with that. Go ahead and make fun of my publishing company and the fact that, among OTHER authors, I publish my own works. I'm OK with that, too. Contact CHRISTOPHER SPELLMAN at SPELLMAN PAUL ENTERTAINMENT in LA or New York, he's my agent. Ask me to provide contact numbers for these sources, or ask me to provide better backup for the archeology stuff. But don't be morons when it comes to professional things I can prove or YOU can prove by doing more than a Google on so-called USAF 'archives'. Someone who works for me thought it would be a good idea to have this page up on me, because they believe what I do is interesting enough. I don't need to be on Wikipedia to serve my ego, believe me, but I do not like being called a liar where my professional credentials are concerned, especially by the likes of what I see in your profiles.{Lostcontinentlib 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)lostcontinentlibLostcontinentlib 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}
• To the above: please understand that notability and importance are not the same thing. Contacting primary sources requires resources that not all people have access to, so primary personal sources do not, sadly, meet the requirements of Verifibility. No one doubts that you exist, but in order to have a properly sourced wikipedia article, multiple, secondary, reliable sources need to be found; ones that talk *about* you, not merely confirm your existance. Without that, there just isn't enough verifiable information for a wikipedia article. Also note that in general subjects are discouraged from writing their own wikipedia articles, under the grounds of Conflict of Interest issues. Please remember importance, existance and notability are not the same. The standards of Notability apply to all articles of wikipedia, they're our last protection against spam in many cases, unfortunately people can and do get caught by that standard, but they're very important to the project. Wintermut3 08:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

oh, and also, please refrain from personal attacks, they're unconstructive, may hurt your case and are generally a bad idea. If reliable sources do exist however, feel free to add them to the article, drop me a line at my talk page or mention them here so they can be added. Wintermut3 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I can think of no reputable encyclopedia that exists that would take someone's naked, unsupported word for a damn thing (or, alternatively, "call up my friends and they'll vouch for me"); if Mr. Bosley doesn't believe that, he should feel free to contact the Brittanica or Encarta with the exact same information and the exact same lack of verifiable sources, and see if they'd be any more likely to give him his own article. RGTraynor 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't think you'd take the time to really verify anything beyond Google. My sources are officials who can verify the fact of what was entered about me, but because they don't splash it all over the internet, it's not valid. Because they don't 'talk about' me in internet articles, I'm not valid. I didn't write the article. An employee logged on with my email address to create it. Sorry that person violated the 'standards'. I see now. You essentially Google for your facts and go no further. It's sort of like television. Higher ratings mean 'better', rather 'it must be good'. It's all based on popularity, really. Yes, I get it now. By the way, very funny Mr Traynor, putting yourself and Wikipedia in the same class as Encyclopedia Britannica. Remove the article, if you want. It really doesn't matter to me at this point. I recommend you read 'Atlas Shrugged', if you can understand it. Oh, and RG, you state on your own page that grammar and punctuation are peeves of yours? For crying out loud, learn how to spell 'Britannica' correctly in a public forum, OK? That alone makes your contributions to an encyclopedia suspect already.{Lostcontinentlib 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

• Comment: Leaving the personal attack aside (I'd recommend a peek at WP:NPA myself), suppose you review the provisions of WP:BIO (governing notability) and WP:ATT (governing verifiability). In particular, the mandatory policy expressed in WP:ATT runs "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis mine) Further, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process ... Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable ... Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately." As someone who claims to have had a career in the military and law enforcement, you cannot be unaware that rules and standards exist. Meeting these thresholds are fundamental to Wikipedia's standards, and working to meet those standards is a far more productive use of your time here than chastising or insulting us for following them. RGTraynor 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Per all the comments above, I will ignore the personal attacks to note one thing. In one of the few published sources cited, the Redlands Daily Facts, you are merely quoted. It is not a biographical interview about you. The threshold for notability is multiple non-trivial works. See WP:N. Please add more published sources where you are the subject of the article. It's a more producitve tactic than attempting to insult people. Thank you. Jokestress 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment as to the accusations of using only google as a source I can assure you that most of our best articles, in fact many of our articles period, cite published books and scholarly journals. Google is used, along with things like Alexa pagerank (for websites) or Amazon rankings to determine the likelihood of the existance of sources. In an AfD debate, we don't often care what the sources are (beyond the requirements of reliability and verifibility) simply that they exist or could be found to improve an article. For a biography it's not always accurate, but in the abscence of compelling sources, a low number of gHits (especially when news articles are often indexed by Google) is oftentimes indicative of non-notability. This doesn't mean it's a foolproof test, but it does often allow us to either say "woah, this subject has a solid web presence, maybe it's more notable than the article leads on" or confirm that no sources exist. Wintermut3 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30,000 pounds of bananas

30,000 pounds of bananas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A song with little to no media coverage. They only importance this song seems to have is it's inclusion in a notable albumn. Mr. Berry 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, or else merge with Yes, We Have No Bananas — I remember this song and I think it's at least mildly notable. — RJH (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. It's a funny song, for sure, but notability is not claimed. YechielMan 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No real assertion of notability - no sign of media coverage or placing on any chart.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per below Redirect to Yes, We Have No Bananas. There's really nothing to merge that isn't already contained in the latter article (one sentence), but as it's a plausible search term, I think a redirect is fitting. -- Black Falcon 06:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure I agree about the usefulness as a search term. Wouldn't someone who searched this term be looking for information about the actual song rather than for a trivia item in another song? I don't think we would do much of a service to a seeker by redirecting them to a different song.--Kubigula (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. You make a good point. If it was the other way around, it would make more sense: a person searching for "Yes, We Have No Bananas" might be looking for this song, which uses the phrase in its chorus. The reverse, however, does not apply. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 38.100.34.2 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6-card poker

6-card poker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like the article is here to promote a new game rather then report on a well known game. I see no references or citation and I doubt very much there will ever be any found. Mr. Berry 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is evidence that this version of poker does indeed exist [15] [16] [17] to name a few. It's a little problematic however as there seems to be no "official" set of rules and this article does indeed appear to be one person's version of it. In need of more than a little cleanup though. Arkyan 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those look like sources that an encyclopedia could rely on to build an article. Can you find any notes in a book? What about any news stories? Does Britannica cover this? Mr. Berry 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Poker Is the Name of the Game by Walter Gibson has a chapter on six-card poker hands. Arkyan 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why not give it a mention in poker then? Mr. Berry 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the narrow scope of the article I would not be opposed to a merge/redirect to poker or a related page - but not outright deletion. Arkyan 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC the Bicycle book on poker also gives rules for a 6-card variant using all six cards to make the hand. I don't believe the rules match this, but I can't be sure because I can't find my copy (curse it all!). At any rate, the bit on increasing "fairness" is POV, and sort of irrelevant. — Gwalla | Talk 05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into poker, per the source Arkyan has located. Crypticfirefly 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or strong merge per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and source, no merge. Since poker almost always implies 5-card hands, it seems silly to give this uncommon variant its own section in that article. Not even seven-card stud and Texas hold 'em get their own sections like that, just links! If you must merge, List of poker variants is a far more suitable destination. — Gwalla | Talk 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect. utcursch | talk 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agate Prison

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

Unsourced article, lacking real world context as required per WP:NOT, on an insufficiently notable fictional location. Contested prod. MER-C 07:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not seem to meet WP:FICTand as the prison is currently not mentioned in Suikoden IV, I would not be sure about a redirect. --Tikiwont 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge / request speedy close. I've been working on the Suikoden articles lately, and this article somehow slipped my notice back when I was looking through the categories. This (and everything else in the recently created Category:Places in Suikoden) should clearly be merged and redirected to Geography in the Suikoden series with no need for debate on each one, although frankly it's still a little over-detailed considering that the "Falena" section (where Agate is) is currently about 2 lines long. SnowFire 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have been bold and redirected it. SnowFire 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. As noted, a merge/redirect option is the most appropriate and has already been carried out. -- Black Falcon 06:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non notable. Natalie 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logolite Entertainment

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

Non-notable production company, possible vanity/advertising page. Google search on name brings back only 17 unique on 24 returns total. Company is somehow listed on IMDB, but no films linked, another red flag. Delete. MikeWazowski 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per lack of independent sources. --Tikiwont
• Keep Just heard a pitch from this company. Thier company agenda is great. J jons

— J jons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Scienter 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Retain I have been to the company, it is credible and has several prospective projects with major studios entering into production this year. The company has 14 projects listed in development on IMDBpro--regular IMDB does not allow users to access projects in development. The article is one of the better written articles on this site, and an encyclopedia by and for the entire world should promote independent art whenever possible. Peety1 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

— Peety1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Peety1 claims that IMDBpro shows multiple films in development - unfortunately, this is either a lie or fabrication. Since a direct link is impossible, due to the pay nature of IMDBpro, this image, captured this afternoon from that site, shows that Logolite has no films listed in development on the IMDB. I repeat, absolutely zero films. My original assessment of non-notability stands. MikeWazowski 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, neither "their agenda is great" nor "has several prospective projects" are reasons for keeping an article on an obscure company that clearly fails to meet WP:CORP. As for the article being "one of the better written articles on this site", allow me to disagree. This is an uncited, unsourced stub with spammish overtones. And if my own quick searches are any indication, there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with. Xtifr _tälk 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Having written "there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with" where "there's" is a contraction for "there is," making the sentence "There is no reliable sources our there...," I'd hardly consider Xtifr the authority on good writing. An encyclopedia is meant to inform the world and community at large. If I was considering submitting a screenplay to Logolite Entertainment, the more I can read about the company the better. If you find any of their statements to be false, edit the page--who are you to judge who might benefit from the information given. Give the company a call, I checked their website, the phone number is listed. — Sepul101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - Twice now, comments detrimental to Logolite's claim of notability have been removed by anonymous editors. The first, 74.10.5.226, resolves to Marketshare Partners whose address is 11100 Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles, coincidentally the same address listed for Logolite Entertainment. The second anonymous IP, 76.166.26.252 resolves to RoadRunner HoldCo LLC. While the IP owner is based in Virgina, the page states Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Honolulu, HI, Kansas City, KS, Orange, CA and San Diego, CA. According to the WHOIS information for logolite-ent.com, the registrant (and Logolite founder) lives in Orange, CA. I'm not going to directly say that we're seeing a meat/sockpuppeting campaign by Logolite or people acting on their behalf, but it seems likely, based on the evidence. MikeWazowski 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Vandalized twice more by 63.249.90.31 and 216.59.169.98, both California based IP addresses. MikeWazowski 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• ""Comment"" It seems to me that the only thing [MikeWazowski] has demonstrated is that users up and down the california coast disagree with his unfounded comments. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of objection to the entry, otherwise. Peety1 20:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - vandalized again (here and here) by 216.59.169.98. For Peety1 (who last edited within four minutes of 216.59.169.98, I would remind the editor that if my comments are unfounded, please show evidence otherwise. Everything I've presented can be backed up, and I will also remind the other editors that comments are not allowed to be removed from AfD discussions. MikeWazowski 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Mike Wazowski. TheRealFennShysa 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Open Source Geospatial Foundation. WjBscribe 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GeoNetwork opensource

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

Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 07:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was hoping that would be a cute software pun, but it's the word we use anyway. Not notable. YechielMan 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Open Source Geospatial Foundation. The OSGF article is currently far from long enough to justify content forking. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all content to Open Source Geospatial Foundation as a separate section. As noted by Lyrl, there's no need to keep separate related articles of this length. -- Black Falcon 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed the article somewhat (see diff), so it should now be easier to merge into the OSGeo article. -- Black Falcon 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Would be strong keep if you can document somebody notable that uses it (for example, a national or state government agency). 38.100.34.2 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Natalie 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kodiak tobacco

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

POV issues, lack of citations, & disorganized content Old american century 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A massive cleanup might save it, but it's not worth the bother. YechielMan 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite It's certainly a notable company, and I think it deserves an article. It should, however, be rewritten. It even appears there may be original research in there. If nobody else wants to, I would be willing to try rewriting it to give it another chance. --BennyD 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per YechielMan reasoningOo7565 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - being in bad shape is not valid grounds for deletion. Being in bad shape and unable to be fixed is valid grounds, but this one seems fairly easy, and considering the existence of similar article in better shape (Category:Tobacco companies of the United States) there is obviously editor interest in the topic. The copyvio of the CDC has to go, though. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've cleaned it up a little bit. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete per WP:RS--Sefringle 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Lyrl's cleanup and the 1,300 Google news results. Also, this should be under an alternate title. I will try to introduce some sources now. -- Black Falcon 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the text was still a copyvio from another source. I have rewritten much of the article and have also added two references. I will also attempt to incorporate the CDC report as a reference. -- Black Falcon 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added the CDC reference. The prevalence of information proves the subject's notability and we should keep this short, but sourced stub. The search "kodiak AND tobacco -wikipedia" yields 213 results in Google Scholar, 255 results in Google Books, 1280 results in Google News, and 115,000 results in a regular Google search. -- Black Falcon 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I just edited the article as well. Looks sooo much better, thanks for the help y'all. --old american century (oac) | Talk 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissident Sound System

Dissident Sound System (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group. Do not even claim to create any original music. -- RHaworth 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable group; googling reveals no useful sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:BAND. Only 21 hits on UK Google [18], several of which aren't relevant. So they're an (admittedly) faceless bunch combining with several others to play background music at parties and clubs in the Bristol area. That ain't notable. RGTraynor 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the mention of dissident's Jungletek Movement record label, on its 5th release of a 4 track EP featuring original music? A notable contributor to the UK party scene, one of only a handful of soundsystem's that represent the UK on an international level at the European teknivals. People calling for deletion would do well to research freetekno rave culture before shooting their mouths off calling for deletion. Claims of "background music" are ridiculous, have you ever heard background music on a 12 killowatt soundsystem? Activities are not limited to the Bristol area, or even to this country, as they have been as far as Czech republic, Italy, France etc. with the soundsystem. For someone whose sole interest appears to be ice hockey, RGTraynor's ego outsrips his knowledge on this matter and should keep his ill informed oopinions to himself.

Comment: Wikipedia's rules about personal attacks aside (which I don't expect a first-time edit anon IP to have known), that's gerat. So source it. Wikipedia's rules (which you can find, pertinent to this AfD, at WP:ATT and WP:BAND) require reliable, published, independent sources for any such claims. It is not our job to research anyone's so-called culture; it is up to the editors responsible for this article to do so, and to prove their claims. RGTraynor 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

very difficult to maintain, to source and generally not a good article, as the criteria is too broad. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics). ◄Zahakiel► 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is not an encyclopedic article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to something like List of ex-gay people. Sourcing is not a problem as only those people who have publicly stated that they were once gay and now no longer are, or people who self-identify as "ex-gay," should be added. Otto4711 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just begging to be a BLP minefield, practically impossible to maintain in an encyclopedia way. If we must create a List of ex-gay people, that would be preferable, but only if rigorously sourced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lists including living people with unqualified inclusion criteria are just a way to beg for trouble Alf^Photoman 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um, if the inclusion criterion is "person said they were gay and now they say they aren't" and there's a reliable source that says so, what's the problem? Otto4711 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

are you going to include my former barber? Alf^Photoman 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does your former barber have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, and are there reliable sources for his/her statements? Then, yeah, I'd include your barber. Otto4711 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

your list does not specify that it is about people included in WP, besides, who is going to control if everyone IS being on the list... as I said uncontrollable. Alf^Photoman 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my list. I had no idea it existed before finding this AFD. Nor do I particularly care if the list is restricted to people with articles or not but this sort of list in my experience tends to end up with mostly bluelinks anyway. As for the list being "controllable," it does not appear that there has been any great rush to add people to it at all, let alone add people inappropriately. And if people are being added inappropriately, well, that's what editing is supposed to be for. Otto4711 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Any list on Wikipedia is, by definition, only for people included in WP. This fact doesn't need special attention called to it; it's the very nature of the beast. Bearcat 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this article due to the problems stated above - I thought that sub-pages in the mainspace weren't allowed, anyway? Arkyan 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The list is split by alphabet due to its size (A-E, F-J, etc.). I assume whoever started the article was merely following precedent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ATT, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV: Yikes, this is a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen. Per the "aggressive deletion" clause in WP:BLP, I've just deleted out those entries in the article that were unsourced. Quite aside from all of that, what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for calling some of those people gay/bi, and what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for declaring any such "no longer identified?" I hear what Otto's saying, but frankly, barring an attribution in print from a reliable source of one of these people saying "I used to be gay but now I'm not," any such citation is garbage. RGTraynor 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - potentially a very large/unmaintainable list, not convinced as to encyclopedic value. Oh, and a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm actually quite neutral on whether this should exist or not, but I can clarify that the reason it does exist is because people such as David Bowie and Lou Reed kept being added to the main LGB people lists. Every person listed at present is reliably documented as having changed their identification. And Anne Heche is reliably documented as someone who hasn't changed her identification even though she's commonly cited as someone who has. The list is monitored for problematic inclusions, and sources are available for every single name on the list. So there simply isn't any "BLP disaster waiting to happen" here. Accordingly, while I'm not really all that convinced that it's actually necessary, I'm going to say keep if only because the main reason being cited for deletion here is completely out to lunch. Bearcat 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. It provides useful information on the public debate as to whether sexual identity is reversible or not. Where else could you find such an article but here, and any errors can be corrected. --MBHiii 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• And a general comment to those who fear a lawsuit because of this list: I am not an attorney but the last I heard calling someone a heterosexual was not actionable in any court on the planet. Calling someone formerly gay if there's reliable sourcing is not actionable. Otto4711 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay.--Sefringle 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't provide useful imformation -Apple 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, sourced, case studies are used in many public debates - this one is no exception. Note: If the article is kept, it should be renamed. "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors…" (from WP:NAMING) - Wolphii 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete and susceptible to BLP. I agree with RGTraynor above. A person has there right to decide how he wishes to be labeled. If this list were limited strictly to those who had publicly announced something to indicate that they wanted this notified, it would be appropriate. I think most people would be just as offended to be put in the wrong category either way. The legal assumption you mention is an assumption of prejudice against homosexuals. I might not even be true now, DGG 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that a person's right to choose their own label is modified by actions that they take. Regardless, this list is for people who have publicly announced what label they want. Otto4711 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP. Metamagician3000 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as List of people formerly identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual --FateClub 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The solution to BLP issues is sourcing, not deletion. The subject is surely notable and worthwhile and appropriate for a list. Herostratus 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. All people lists and categories are subject to BLP, so why aren't the BLP-ers hurriedly going after those other lists? Hmmm... Compliance with BLP requires sourcing (as per Herostratus) not deletion. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per reasons given by Otto4711 and others. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cape Hatteras Anglers Club

Cape Hatteras Anglers Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Definitely not encyclopedic in current form. 219.89.23.251 08:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The IP user obviously doesn't know the process of AfD nomination, and did so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. I merely imported it here. I don't have much opinion about it. It reads encyclopedicly. But it could fail Wikipedia:Notability. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The sources I could find were mostly announcements of local events sponsered by the group. But it might meet the notability standard and I just didn't dig deep enough; I'm open to having my mind changed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:ORG with flying colors. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." What this is is a fishing club. According to its website, the club has an annual fishing tournament, gaming night every Saturday, bimonthly Bingo to finance its donations, and a semiannual "Pig Pickin'" contest ... activities no different from any local social or civic club around. RGTraynor 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect per point one in this guideline (nominator agreed to redirect). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado state quarter

Colorado state quarter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article will never grow into a full article. Will be a stub for a long time. There is no other state quarter that has its own article. The best place for the information is 50 State Quarters. I also imported the missing information to 50 State Quarters. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect is the last step of a merger, not deletion. There may be enough source material to support a separate article on each of the coins, here's some, but since this is a two liner article, I cannot really object having the thing nicely summarized in the table on the main article on state quarters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to 50 State Quarters unless a time comes when there's more to say about the Colorado quarter. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect (nominator) I guess you guys are right. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• With the nominator agreeing that this should be redirected, I think that the situation is uncontroversial enough to speedy redirect this and let the readers see the proper article at once. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was userfied by request. Speedy delete due to having been {{prod}}ded for more than 5 days

[edit] List of Australians in politics

List of Australians in politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Category is too broad and could include thousands of people. Much better if it is repopulated into more specific categories based on Parliaments. I vote we Delete this on the condition that ten new lists are created, with two for each house of Federal Parliament, and another for each state or territory (split into one for each state or territory house if appropriate and needed). That way comprehensive lists can be created. Please userfy this list to myself so I can include everyone in it. JRG 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• • See links from List of Australian politicians --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--cj | talk 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculously broad. Maybe if you made six or so real articles of it... Callix 21:36 21 March 2007 EDST
• Delete, as per Callix. This will never even approach completion; the criteria are just too wide. Lankiveil 11:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete - article was tagged with {{prod}} for 6.25 days before being nominated for AFD! --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Torrance

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

It seems it fails notability, I was unable to find relevant information in the google as young singer should have. Try to search "She's In Love Torrance" which is his album and you will find wikipedia and last.fm ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self promo an not notable. be interestin to hear the muzic tho. --Zedco 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Googling didn't reveal any helpful sources to verify this article for me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, fails BIO/N. - Denny 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He'll probably be notable for Wikipedia one day, but not for now. Acalamari 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 03:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Sensation

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

Procedureal nomination. Speedied as a repost, but not a repost as it was deleted via PROD not AfD; recreating the article may be seen as contesting the PROD deletion, in a sense, and the speedy deletion of this article is contested, thus here we are. Previous deletion was summarized as "nn, fails WP:BIO, only on WWF tv twice, could be merged at worse". The rest is up to you. Herostratus 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral as nominator, this is a procedural nomination. Herostratus 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find anything I'd call an appropriate source to support notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as is fails WP:A Alf^Photoman 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Hey, I remember Jason Sensation (having seen the parody in question back in the day), but I have to go with the premise that two 45-second spots on WWF Raw, however much the pro wrestling forums cackled over it for a week, does not make one notable. RGTraynor 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ATT, no sourcing to back up the claims made. As such is not encyclopedic content. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Vista worth the upgrade?

Is Vista worth the upgrade? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clear violation of No Original Research; creator removed prod without comment FisherQueen (Talk) 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alejandro Silva

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

No assertion of notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:ATT. Going through the Google hits for him, I can't find anything either. The top ranked hits are Wiki mirrors, blog posts, Myspace pages and a heap of random tabulature entries. Allmusic has no entry. RGTraynor 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Traynor. YechielMan 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references, several of which are in Spanish (remember that this is a Chilean musician). There is no listing for him at allmusic.com , but he has released three albums. See es:Alejandro Silva for the article in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Eastmain 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He is a renowned musician, only not so much in the English-speaking world. --FateClub 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - new references assert notability. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cart00ney

Cart00ney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources on this, so it fails Wikipedia:Attribution. A previous AfD from a year ago ended in No Consensus; apparently at that time reliable sources weren't needed, but they are now Xyzzyplugh 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. It fails the "n-year test" for any n > 0. :) YechielMan 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nominator: no reliable sources, no article, no assertion of notability. Dicdef which has already been transwikiied. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merged into Geography of Aberdeen. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics of Aberdeen

Statistics of Aberdeen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's a few tables with the average temperature and precipitation per month. Such data is better obtained from the local meteorological institute through external linkage, and is pretty much self-outdating and unmaintainable here. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. >Radiant< 13:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge trimmed-down version of the tables into Aberdeen. Many major cities have a simpler "climate" table that includes temperature and percipitation averages, and there's no reason not to move that information over to the main article, but the bulk of this is fluff and WP:NOT encyclopedic. Arkyan 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Original Contributer this data was moved from the Geography in Aberdeen originally which is where any merging should go to. Looking at it I agree a lot is indeed 'Fluff'. If you can give me some time, tomorrow I will cut out the irrelevant stuff out. Bobbacon 16:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a fairly good precedent for putting the table under the "Climate" section - check any of the entries for major cities like London, Madrid, New York City etc. It seems to be standard practice for many US cities as well. For the sake of consistency it ought to be located there as well, rather than the Geography in Aberdeen article. Arkyan 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge full-content into Geography of Aberdeen, which covers geography, climate, and demographics for the city, under a new section titled "Statistics". The editors working on the Geography of Aberdeen article can best determine what information ought to be retained and what should be trimmed. -- Black Falcon 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge climate data to to Geography of Aberdeen. Perhaps the final two tables could be the foundation of a Demographics of Aberdeen fork. Caknuck 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with User:Arkyan that the NYC method of handling climate might be best. There is no reason to keep this one around as a free-standing article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. EdJohnston 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^{take the} 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death to the Extremist

Death to the Extremist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Asserted to be notable by people who know webcomics, which I don't dispute even if it is WP:IHEARDOFIT, but there are no external sources here, the comic is defunct and the entire article is sourced from the comic's own website. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: W (Web or internet). ◄Zahakiel► 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found by the end of the AfD (not holding my breath, frankly). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT, WP:WEB. A now-defunct webcomic that has an Alexa rank of (hold your breath here) 4,062,822, the lowest I've ever seen. [19] There seems to be a tiny bit of independent buzz, but even so. RGTraynor 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it's that low on Alexa, then I doubt anyone would want to look it up on Wikipedia. Acalamari 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. DTE may not be well known, but it's noteable. Notability and fame aren't the same thing, and things don't stop being notable when they finish. It's a early and long-lived example of minimalism in webcomics and Constrained_comics, precursor to and influence on better known stuff, like Dinosaur Comics [20] and Boy on a Stick and Slither [21]. Tocky 06:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Splendid; do you have any sources for those assertions we might see? RGTraynor 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It was also mentioned in an article cited on the BOASAS page: ref KamuiShirou 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hm? It really is all the things I said. It's a pioneer in constrained webcomics because it predates other constrained comics. I call it long lasting because it was updated, regularly, for seven years - and webcomics have only been a popular medium for fifteen years or less. It's also gotten favorable coverage on well known web culture sites. (Boing Boing in 2003 [22] and 2004 [23]) Tocky 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The strip has been included in the comics anthology Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists by Ted Rall. This meets the notability requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic[24]. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Eldridge

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

Written like an ad and seems like the guy's personal resume. I don't know diddly about golf so this guy may be notable, but the article seems like pure spam SmartGuy 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Cursory search for sources on Google doesn't turn up much, unfortunately. I'll drop by the creating user's talk page and post a request for verifiable sources, though if nothing happens I'm going to have to lean towards deletion. Regardless of whether or not this winds up a "keep", it needs to be massively rewritten. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as either a) a blatant advert or b) a word-for-word copyvio from [25] Iridescenti 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (A-11) this is nothing but spam, blatant advertising for this guy. The entire article reads like his resume. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Advert and spam. Acalamari 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Copyvio. Tagged as such. WjBscribe 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tsubasacon

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

Convention is not notable.

• Comment: It is one of the smallest conventions in the country, even in its own genre (anime). Does not meet [notability guidelines], as this event is not national or international in scale, which is the primary criteria to be listed on Wikipedia. -Animesouth 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Does not meet [notability guidelines], as this event is not national or international in scale, which is the primary criteria to be listed on Wikipedia. -Animesouth 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You nomination is you "vote". You don't get to "vote" twice. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do not edit other users' posts. If you have an issue, please contact an admin. Thank you. -Animesouth 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Multiple "votes" are always struck through. You can only "vote" once and your nomination is your "vote". --Farix (Talk)
        • I do realize you feel strongly about this event since you are associated with it, but please note that this is not a vote. I have incorporated my comments into the original reason for AfD. -Animesouth 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • <snark>According to the Cabal, "AfD is not a vote" </snark> -- Simon Cursitor 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep only if the article's expanded to indicate anything about the event distinctive enough to make it notable. Iridescenti 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I would argue this convention is national in scale and is notable. Several hundred people appear to attend this annual event, which has occurred for at least three years running. The author also lists several voice actors (presumably who are not all from W. Virginia) that have attended the convention in some manner. Agreed that the article needs expansion. Scienter 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bad faith nomination that stems from a persona vendetta against me in an argument from List of anime conventions, where the nominator's own convention had been removed from the list and later deleted through AfD do to lack of reliable sources to verify its notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the sources are either self-referencing or listings from an anime site, not enough to satisfy WP:ORG. I would argue that several hundred people attending an annual event doesn't make it notable. That number of people attend non-notable football games every week. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How are the Newtype USA article and the two Charleston Gazette's Flipside articles "self-referencing"? BTW, there is nothing against using directory's, such as AnimeCons.com, to verify basic information in accordance with WP:ATT. It is just that thy can't be used to justify notability, which isn't needed for this article since there are plenty of other independent reliable third-party sources which establishes notability. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I said "Most" of the sources, not all. However, a couple of mentions in local papers and anime-related media don't say enough notability for me, I'm afraid. Others may disagree. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Then your comment is ultimately an WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you are establishing a bar far higher then those of WP:ORG and WP:N's General Notability Criterion. --Farix (Talk) 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Er, WP:AGF please. Remember that sources must be independent of the subject and the depth of coverage is also taken into account for notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Tsubasacon is the primary subject of all three articles, so I don't see how anyone can declare them as trivial. "Depth" is only taken into consideration when the subject is not the primary topic of an article or to determine if only one source is sufficient to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Farix. This is a bad faith nom. The references seem fine to me, Newtype is well established in the USA. I do like the idea of finding more references for these types of articles though, but a local newspaper article is a good start. --Squilibob 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its a good article. Notable, and everything. Kopf1988
• Keep ...as this is yet another bad faith nomination from the nominator. This is the first and only anime convention in West Virginia and has been running since 2004. The article is well written and referenced properly. --PatrickD 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep considering it's the first and only anime convention in the state of West Virginia which has proven itself to be popular even outside of the state for more than three years (hardly the "flash in the pan" the originator suggests). Jlee bly 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homaid

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

The efforts of three editors so far have failed to identify this plant with a satisfactory degree of precision. Name may be improper or too ambiguous in English. Circeus 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect I would imagine that this particular plant is already listed under a Latin name or a English language common name. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Google translator thinks it is sorrel [26] Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The discussion on the article's talk page suggests that the ambiguity as to what this plant is cannot be resolved (maybe contact someone who speaks Arabic?). Redirect if a proper target is provided by the end of this AFD (I tried Google translator and received "homaid" as the translation ...). -- Black Falcon 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. No evidence that 'homaid' exists in English as a common noun, so WP:NEO applies as well. Article says very little in any case. EdJohnston 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter sendzik

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

The author of the article is the subject of the article; hence, WP:COI. I might have let it go, but he's not notable anyway, with about 700 Google hits to his name. YechielMan 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN & COI. Scienter 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO. --Roswell native 03:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep of course it asserts it: it says that he was the founder & editor of the leading magazine in the country in his field. Weak because he doesnt show any evidence of the fact. DGG 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^{take the} 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 French coach crash

2007 French coach crash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prime example of recentism. Article is three months old, but has yet to see significant expansion. No casualty makes it hardly notable too. I had never heard about it until today (and I can't find any reference to it in the CBC's archives in either languages) Circeus 21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable enough. Carcharoth 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote to see how article develops, per Blood Red Sandman's offer. Carcharoth 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete As per nom. But it could be made better. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, though just because someone has never heard of it is not a reason, and it is not surprising it is not in the Canadian CBC's archives. It was, though, covered on British and French TV and in newspapers in both countries. Not notable, basically for reasons given in the article itself - no one died, and lots of coaches crash in France and elsewhere!!! Emeraude 11:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a prime example of why WP:N is an often disputed guideline - for while it may technically satisfy N, only a few months later and people are scratching their heads trying to figure out what it is. Arkyan 19:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We the Wikipedians of Wikiproject Disaster Management will assign someone to improve it. There is no clear-cut reason to delete. --Pupster21 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- STTW (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI'd like to strike a deal, an behalf of the whole of WP:DM. How about if you were to withdraw this nom now, and give me - me personally, and I stick to my 'to-dos' - until, say, mid-May to improve this article into a nice piece of work, rather than the pathetic start-class it's currently in? Then, if still not convinced, you can renominate here and, if you're right, it will be deleted anyway, with no harm done. What do you say? I'm only asking for the chance to improve it to worthy standard. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting offer! Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to work on 2007 National Express coach crash? :-) Carcharoth 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would I be correct in assuming that's a request to do so? ;-) Alright then, I may do some work on the National Express crash as well, but I'd say this is more urgent as it needs saved from AfD first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it. It draws together information from various sources for someone wishing to look into the subject - what we're about. --MBHiii 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As the creator of this article, it is referenced and is written according to WP:MOS and does satisfy the notability guideline.. Tellyaddict 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carnival Recording Company

Carnival Recording Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable label, advert and it's "homepage" is on Myspace. Also created by someone who probably is connected to the label Lugnuts 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement. Scienter 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Deor 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright infringement. Ezeu 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre_for_good_governance

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

delete -- not notable. text plagiarized entirely from this website. ZBrannigan 06:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons stated above. May even qualify for speedy under G12 since it appears to be a cut-and-paste from the website noted? Arkyan 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. The article's brand new and, now, cleaned up and linked to its source which would likely be pleased to be listed here. If there's any doubt, the doubter should contact them. It contains information about the organization useful for anyone looking into it. --MBHiii 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Not only a copyvio but also pretty blatant advertising, without even going into sources and notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^{take the} 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Acer

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

There is not a single reference on this page to anything specifically naming David Acer. Someones friend is not a good enough reason to rate a wiki placement. Especially from an admin.Cncndd33 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: B (Biographical). ◄Zahakiel► 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability assertion in the article. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep. One, reading on what IrishGuy points out, the nom has made few edits beyond this, and seems to know what s/he's doing - I suspect SPA or sock, ergo bad faith. Second, while I'm still concerned about secondary and tertiary sources, reading up on FISM, seems like this could make him notable. Even without point the second factored in, I feel safe with this assertion. --Dennisthe2 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Article's subject has appeared on television in at least one film. Notable and famous are not the same thing. Scienter 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He was invited to perform at FISM which is the most prestigious competition in magic. He has valid IMDB credits. His entire resume can be seen here which lists various appearances on television, his ten appearances at Montreal's Just for Laughs festival, his writing credits, etc. This is also a bad faith nom by a brand new user who failed to notify the original author that this was even up for AfD. Please look at the contributions of these 22 sockpuppets and see if it looks familiar. IrishGuy ^talk 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment also, contrary to what this new user said in his edit summaryy about the previous AfD being closed in bad faith, the original can be seen here. It was, like this one, created by a sockpuppet in bad faith. That previous AfD was opened by Mongoleer who was proven by checkuser to be an abusive sock. IrishGuy ^talk 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad-faith nomination. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haxxxor

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

Results of the previous vote can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haxxxor movies.

Delete: Non-notable niche pornographic movie Tarcieri 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. --Easyas12c 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? -- Ben 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The movie is about many well known security tools. Nmap, probably being the most notable of the tools, has mentioned the movie on its web site [27]. Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) states that a pornographic actor is notable enough for Wikipedia, if 4. Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. The genre of porn that introduces real computer security in an educational way is a new one, which makes the actors inherently notable within it. How ever I think having all of the information in one article makes more sense than creating a separate article for each of the actresses. --Easyas12c 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is concerned in respect to being "notable or prolific within a specific genre niche", the list of pornographic sub-genres linked does not include "pornography demonstrating the use of network security tools". Pornographic niches are defined in terms of sexual acts, not mixtures between porn and non-porn related topics. HaXXXoR is perhaps the only film attempting to combine these topics, and therefore does not in and of itself constitute a pornographic niche. (perhaps I wasn't apt in describing this as a "niche pornographic movie." If there exists a hacker porn niche, this film is it) Tarcieri 05:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Article reads as a promo. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Purgatory Fubar. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Distribution of film very low, only Nmap article links to this page, all others are just page redirects and WP namespace items, article looks like a promo, article is riddled with NPOV, lack of cultural signifigence (either in porno industry or hacker industry), E.g. no noms from AVN awards, not stocked at Porno DVD "netflix" sites, lack of acceptability in hacker scene ( see Google Search, etc. Hackajar 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gears of War weapons

List of Gears of War weapons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Straightforward game guide; violates WP:NOT. Content is written purely to help players and contains no verifiable third-party sources that relate the material to real life development. A much lengthier version was deleted a while ago; the discussion is recorded here. Also related are the following articles which have been created purely from in-game information and gameplay tips (note: these have decided on Talk:Gears of War not to be notable enough to mentioned on the Gears of War page, let alone having their own articles):

• Lancer Assault Rifle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hammer of Dawn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Scottie_theNerd 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Definitely guide type material, plus via cvg, "list of X" type material is not appropriate for VG articles. --Masem 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Game guide type material, not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom and WP:NOT. Otto4711 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scienter 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Also Gears of War weapons should be AFDed as well.--PCPP 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per every arguement ever. How did this survive the first one...I'm seriously asking. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: My vote is for all of the nominated articles; I could be wrong, but I feel that all other voters should clarify, if haven't already done so, whether they wanted all nominated articles deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The result of the first discussion was Delete. The article has since been recreated. --Scottie_theNerd 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. DaveApter 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London N1

London N1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

London N10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N15 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N20 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N22 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N19 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N12 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N11 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London N9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London SE20 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London SE16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London SE25 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are approximately 2,480 postcode districts (e.g. London N1) in the UK. They are arranged into 124 postcode areas (e.g. N postcode area) which cover regions usually centred on a major town or city. There are articles for most of the postcode areas. There should not be articles for each of the 2,480 postcode districts. The information contained within them is replicated in the postcode area articles and in the articles of the places they relate to. MRSC • Talk 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to N postcode area or SE postcode area as is appropriate - Articles are not needed for these postcodes, as they cannot provide much additional information that is not already given in other articles. For example, much of what could be said about the area lying within London N10 is already said within Muswell Hill. However, the articles should be converted into redirects to appropriate articles on the postcode system (N postcode area or SE postcode area). This is already what has been done for other London postcodes (e.g. SW5 is a redirect to SW postcode area). Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect as per Dr. Submillimeter above. No need for individual articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are well over 1,500,000 articles on Wikipedia so it is absurd to complain about another 2,000 or so. Some of the articles on postcode districts were more than bare stubs before MRSC turned them all into redirects, wiping quite a lot of info in the process.--Runcorn 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - There was not a single piece of information on those stubs that was not contained elsewhere in WP. MRSC • Talk 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep MRSC sets up a straw man. Nobody is saying that every postcode district should have its own article, only those in the London postal area, which are far older and better-known than those elsewhere. Does MRSC know how many there are in London? it is absurd to suggest that something as notable as a London postal district should not have its own article. true, some of these articles are less good than others, but these should be improved, not deleted. Some of the articles do contain useful information, and this should not be thrown away. If it is elsewhere on WP, where is it?--Osidge 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - London N16 is explained far more succesfully in Stoke Newington for a start. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Sometimes it is right to delete things, especially where it is not presented in the most encyclopedic way. MRSC • Talk 07:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete all Wikipedia shouldn't have articles like this.--Sefringle 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Jhamez84 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as Dr. Submillimeter said. Corington 10:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to N postcode area, SE postcode area, and so on as per above comments. This will allow the reader to then look up the individual articles for the relevant localities in London. Having articles for postcodes is actively harmful to the development of London articles, as it diffuses the effort that could better be used on improving articles on the localities involved. -- The Anome 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to N postcode area, pointless duplication. Similar treatment to other postal districts. Kbthompson 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can see the sense of not having articles on Bournemouth BH1, etc., because nobody thinks of them as areas. However, most people in London do think in terms of London postal districts - far more than of the larger areas - making them highly notable. And with MRSC's logic, we should have no articles on villages or localities. if he is not inconsistent, he will next want to subsume Earl's Court into its borough or even London.--Holdenhurst 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are the only person broaching these ideas. A little pragmatism is required, as there are a variety of ways to present information. Postcode areas make far better Wikipedia articles than individual postcode districts which remain stubby and repeat information from the postcode area article, and detract from the settlement articles (which will benefit, not lose out from their deletion). MRSC • Talk 06:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are also two individual districts with articles in the EH & G postcode areas: EH4 and G12 (postcode) - WOSlinker 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I suppose MRSC will get rid of them, too.--Brownlee 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe the information in these articles is somewhere else. If so, it is not easy to find. If I look up London N20, I expect to find information on London N20, not be sent on a long search that may or may not yield the information. Is there any suggestion that London N20 is not notable? Of course, if the article is deleted than I will not find any information at all.--Brownlee 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can see the logic of redirecting (but not deleting) articles where the postal district is identical to a recognised place name. However, this is often not the case. London N14 is in two London boroughs and includes three areas that have articles on Wikipedia. Where do we put general information on N14? The situation for N20 is even more confused; it covers two areas and most of a third.--Londoneye 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment Post code articles should only contain information on the post office within that district, not localities themselves, as the system was only ever supposed to help postal delivery - not be conterminous with real localities. An area like Shoreditch is covered by five postcodes, none of which are relevant to the place. Hoxton is in N1, should that be conflated with Islington? I don't think we're going to achieve consensus on this, I don't think a bare majority is sufficient justification to can them. I did think MRSC had achieved a schemata that was clear and didn't involve over-searching, I for one never thought that it would raise such passion. Kbthompson 12:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should contain an article on everything that is sufficiently notable. Clearly, this includes each London postal district. Where they are identical with an area with its own article, a re-direct (with an appropriate note in the other article) will do, but very often they are not identical.--R613vlu 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If they are so notable on their own (and not by postcode area groups) why have even the most significant and central districts remained stubs for over 2 years? The postcode district articles on their own have no purpose whatsoever. It isn't as if anything is being lost by their deletion or redirection. I can't invisage any expansion of them that isn't already contained in the postcode area articles or the geographic district articles. If postcode districts are notable, this can be alaborated on in these articles. What possible elements would make up a full article on say London SE20? MRSC • Talk 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep where they do not match areas. Londoners often define where they live by their postcode as well as/instead of their location. They should be stub marked and allowed to expand. Regan123 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep London postcodes have a unique and increasingly powerful identity, which needs to be detailed in its own right. Mass redirects and mass noms are not the way to address this issue. It needs to be worked out with other editors and by assessing each case individually. Some codes might just as well become redirects, but others not. Tyrenius 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tyrenius, Londoneye, Regan123 and others. London postcodes are an alternative take on the complicated geography of the city, and sometimes more coherent than the "village" or London borough approach. As such they are used all the time by Londoners. Some articles might only need to be short & link to areas by name, others not. Unlike the full 2,000+ codes, they date back to 1917. I would say the same for the "old" codes for the other major cities - "Liverpool 8" has achieved particular erm, fame & is very often referred to that way in the media (65,400 ghits, some about rowing) Johnbod 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentimentality in these comments is all well and good, but redirecting a load of stubs to articles which cover no more than 20-30 postcode districts and contain all the same information is not "mass redirection". There is nothing to stop these articles being recreated at such a time that there is sufficient information to warrant it (just as any sub-article would normally be spun out of an article). The fact is these are tiny stubs that have remained that way for years and look unlikely to expand in the near future. MRSC • Talk 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That something has remained a stub for a long time is no proof of notability. Would people delete all the bio stubs that are more than a few months old?--Runcorn 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Runcorn probably means "no proof of lack of notability" seglea 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see observation and analysis rather than sentimentality. "A load" = "mass". I have certainly noted in some of your redirects that information has been lost which is not in the 30 postcode districts. Please discuss such things with fellow editors before embarking on possibly contentious actions. Tyrenius 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper; we can afford a little duplication if it makes it easier for users to find the information they want. Because of the way people write about (and have long written about) places in London, people trying to find out more about a reference to a place in London might well have nothing but the postal area to go on, and a short article directly about the postal area is the most polite way of helping them - which is what an encyclopedia is for. And, as others have commented, the London postal zones are long-standing (older than any of the current local government entities within London) and have distinct social meanings. seglea 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with a comment. Given the number of articles involved, this issue probably ought to have been raised on a talk page instead of being brought to AFD. I think redirecting per Dr. Submillimeter may be a good idea, but that should be done with consideration for whether information truly is duplicated in every case. That is better done outside of an AFD by editors closely involved with the subject of London postal codes. -- Black Falcon 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete 38.100.34.2 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maxie Allen

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

Radio producer. Despite the claim that he is "one of the eminent radio producers of our time", I cannot find reliable third party coverage. Google comes up essentially empty.[28] Pascal.Tesson 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Scienter 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS. Caknuck 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, possible autobio since it is entirely the work of a single-purpose account, see Special:Contributions/Alexandermahdavi. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN DaveApter 17:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'd like to point out that the article was improved greatly between the bulk of the delete afd votes and this closure. Plus the article had just been created when it was sent here, WP:AGF may apply in this case.--Wizardman 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming conspiracy theory

Global warming conspiracy theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and lacks sources. POV forking, trying to classify those who deny anthropogenic global warming or the IPCC's opinion as a conspiracy theory. UBeR 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced OR and clearly a POV fork. Arkyan 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a retarded concept, but one significant numbers of people subscribe to and at least a few major works of fiction have been entirely based on. As long as the page is about it's existence, instead of promoting it, it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlofcreamcheese (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment Who are you to call other people's beliefs retarded? --Evergreens78 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • sorry, your right. That was rude. Owlofcreamcheese 21:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Some beliefs should be ridiculed, although I think Owlofcreamcheese shouldn't be using the word "retarded" since a lot of mentally retarded people have a lot more sense than conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorizing, except in limited cases involving limited situations where conspiracies have actually existed, is completely irresponsible and something done by trolls and the mentally unbalanced. Evergreens78 asks "Who are you to call other people's beliefs retarded?" The answer is: Someone with common sense. Wikipedia is not an asylum (where they at least administer medication and therapy to these people).Noroton 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • A bit of sidetracking, but retarded doesn't necessarily imply a mental illness. To retard is to slow down. It could very well be argued this article retards the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 05:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's very notable. [29] --Evergreens78 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Funny, it doesn't mention the phrase "conspiracy theory" once. ~ UBeR 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, everytime I have seen World Net Daily used in reference to Global Warming it was deleted because WND is not a credible source...so it should not suddenly become valid enough to justify a POV-pushing article's notability.
• Keep The article is not unsourced, as UBeR claims. It already contains 10 links, and more can be added.JQ 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What's being sourced is the fact books are being written and movies made. What isn't sourced is the notion of conspiracy theory. ~ UBeR 05:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it doesn't appear to be a POV fork at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Attempt to characterise the views of many leading scientists as a "conspiracy theory" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Iceage77 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Iceage77. Pablothegreat85 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Iceage77. The article states "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" can be described as a conspiracy theory. It cannot. I've never heard it labeled as such, except in few journalistic instances in British newspapers. As we know, journalists say a lot of things, all of which do not necessarily merit encyclopedia entries. ~ UBeR 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be, and has been, as the article shows. The first significant documentary criticising AGW was called The Greenhouse Conspiracy JQ 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And to quote, "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy . . ." ~ UBeR 05:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. Can be. Has been. ...In fact many times, to my face by the idealogically committed on the subject, right here in my engineering consulting firm office. The article is informative and that alone suffices. There are enumerable Wikilinks and some external links to other sources for those who want to follow up. Anyone who sees any potential stretch can add a "citation needed" tag. Use those, not deletion, for informative, well written articles. --MBHiii 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please direct me to the policy or guideline that tells us "Informative alone suffices for inclusion". Or any variation on that phrase? The controversy surrounding whether or not Global Warming exists is very real. That there is some kind of conspiracy is questionable, and there are no sources to support this statement. Arkyan 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait, this article doesn't assert the conspiracy theory has any validity, only that the propagation of the conspiracy theory, itself, is an ongoing phenomenon; that's what's documented. Oi, yikes, read it. (Embarrasing.) --MBHiii 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do you keep saying "there are no sources"? The article quotes sources including Channel 4,the BBC, and Washington Post, all of which refer directly to a conspiracy or conspiracy theory. By all means criticise the sources, but denying that they are there does not seem to provide any basis for discussion.JQ 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Because only one of the working links actually refer to a "conspiracy theory" (and only once, at that). The rest are sources talking about certain films or papers, and only you are arbitrarily labeling them as conspiracy theories, not the sources. ~ UBeR 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Could you be clearer here? Which links do you say are broken? And which of these are you disputing: The film "The Greenhouse Conspiracy", the BBC article headed "Michael Crichton's conspiracy theory" or the quote from the Washington Post using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe Gray's claims regarding a plan to impose world government? JQ 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, two. ~ UBeR 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the global warming controversy article makes this one passé and superfluous. ~ UBeR 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete POV fork. Classifies as denial.--Sefringle 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To facilitate NPOV treatment of the topic, I've added a section on Counterarguments, which currently read "Because the term is often regarded as pejorative (see conspiracy theory), advocates of the view that global warming theory is a conscious fraud often reject the characterization of their views as a "conspiracy theory". ^{[citation needed]}". I'd be grateful if someone could expand this section.JQ 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's dumb. I'm sorry, but it just is. What do you want? A scientific paper saying, "we reject AGW, but this isn't a conspiracy theory!!!" Of course not. Why? Because no one labels them as conspiracy theorists besides overzealous journalists. Scinetists are not obliged to reply to such nonsense. These are bona fide scientists making valid claims that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Don't confuse the two. ~ UBeR 17:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Read the article. It does not say that criticism of global warming theory (whether published in a scientific journal or not) constitutes a conspiracy theory. It quotes various people (mostly not scientists) presenting, in mass media, the theory that global warming theory is a fraud/scam/swindle perpetrated by sinister interests, and others criticising them as putting forward a conspiracy theory. If this criticism is incorrect, they might reasonably respond.JQ 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs clean upRaveenS 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep (see Comment on changing my vote belowNoroton) By the way, I'm sympathetic to the idea that global warming has been oversold by a bunch of environmentalist hacks in concert with left-wing environmentalist loonies, irresponsible cultural elitists, government bureaucrats and scientists who want to mine this as a source of future paychecks and European diplomats looking for a way to mug the United States without leaving fingerprints. I'm not yet sure where I stand on global warming itself. That said, here's why this article is wrongheaded:

1. Title It doesn't describe a "conspiracy". At points it describes various "conspiracies." It also describes conflicts of interest as well as narrow-minded ideologues doing what narrow-minded ideologues do. That does not add up to a conspiracy. It doesn't even add up to a collection of conspiracies. It is unfair to call it a conspiracy or only conspiracies. That's WP:OR if you're drawing the conclusion that any of the items in this sorry article are conspiracies when that hasn't even been alleged. And when you pile them all up in a giant heap, you add fuel to the overheated brains of conspiracy theorists who are off their paranoia medication. Wikipedia Is Not An Asylum.
2. Indiscriminate This isn't an article. It's an indiscriminate list of different types of things tied together because they disparage, rightly or wrongly, the pro-global warming crowd: fictional representation; the use of the word in a TV documentary that apparently just uses it in tabloid fashion to get viewers (and admits it really isn't about a conspiracy after it hooks in the viewers); and charges or critiques of various sorts (sometimes using "conspiracy" for shock value). Wikipedia Is Not Tabloid Journalism.
3. POV fork The real subject of this article could be titled something like "Charges of improper actions against global warming activists". I have no doubt some of those improper actions exist and I'm all for covering them. But there's a place for that: in fact there are a number of places for that in proper Wikipedia articles. And when you can't find a place for a specific charge of conspiracy or other improper activity, you create either a specific article that meets notability standards because the subject of the article has been the subject of at least two independent, responsible sources that you can cite (surely not impossible to do if the charge has even an airy whiff of plausibility to it, and if not, wait until it does before sticking it in an encyclopedia.), or come up with an article that can link them all together in a responsible way. Wikipedia Is Not Advocacy Journalism.
4. Irresponsible Treat the other side as you would wish to be treated yourself. Even if you just want to be an effective partisan, irresponsible charges always hurt your cause in the long run, usually in the medium run and sometimes even in the short run. There's nothing wrong with making sure political views and even noteworthy, responsible accusations of wrongdoing are represented in the encyclopedia. But your customers have a finely tuned ear for what seems irresponsible. When you toss around pejorative words like "conspiracy", "racism", "sexism", "unpatriotic" and the like you denigrate the responsible allegations against those for whom those words actually apply. You use those words only when you can offer specific proof and when you report on others who use them, you do it with specific citations. And you carefully describe the charges, showing how they've been presented and by whom and what reasons or evidence have been offered for them, if any. Yes, Wikipedia only reports what others have said, but it reports responsibily or it's not worthy of the name of an encyclopedia. Is it? Wikipedia Is Not A Pedestal For Calumny.

1. At the very least, the name of this article needs to be changed. If "conspiracies" is kept in the title, then all nonconspiracies need to be eliminated from the article. Personally, I don't have any hope at all that it will become an encyclopedic article in any form. And if any editor has added to this article with the purest of intentions, I apologize for not assuming good faith, but there appear to be very obvious patterns to the way this page has been built. That's not a conspiracy, it's human frailty. Noroton 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I misread it. I take it back. I looked at the article again and my revised view is below. I didn't realize what the point of this irresponsible article was. But even if I'm still wrong in understanding the point of it, after looking through the sources, it seems to me that the article is using them irresponsibly.Noroton 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All the references in the paper refer to the claim you describe in your opening para, namely that environmentalists, scientists and others have acted in concert to promote a theory they know to be false, on the basis of ideological or financial motives. This alleged concerted action has been referred to as a conspiracy on several occasions, as cited (three references were given - I apologise for the referencing problem that may have obscured this, and thank you for fixing it). More frequently, such claims have been described by critics as "conspiracy theories". The predominantly pejorative nature of the usage is noted right in the first sentence. JQ 20:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, not all comments made by overzealous journalists merit encyclopedia entries. ~ UBeR 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Oh, I get it. This is a way to attack the global warming skeptics. The more I follow the links, the more horrible this article looks; sometimes the sloppiness is evident right on the page:

1. "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" documentary on Channel 4 in Britain: "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but [...]"
2. The quote from the Cooler Heads Coalition says of someone who criticized another skeptic of promoting a conspiracy theory: "Sounds plausible to us." That was the last line in their press release (or whatever announcement it was on their Web site). Absolutely nothing in the words that precede that statement shows that they seriously believe it's a conspiracy. The quoted statement was a rhetorical flourish (irresponsible, in my opinion, but not a claim that there's a conspiracy).
3. The Washington Post "article" is a Sunday magazine piece that engages, more than most, in rhetorical flourishes of its own and doesn't pretend to be objective. It characterizes the statement of a skeptic as a "conspiracy theory" but the quote used to back it up (shown in the WP article) could be interpreted as either describing a conspiracy theory or describing ideologues run amok. A couple of paragraphs before, the author writes that both sides have their own charges of a "conspiracy theory, of a sort." Of a sort???. Let's change the title of this article to Global warming conspiracy theories of a sort.
4. "The general claim that the theory of global warming is a lie promoted by members of one or more interest groups secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes has been made on a number of occasions [...]" (emphasis added). The problem is that none of the citations back this up:
   1. On its Web page, the Oregon Petition does say global warming is "a lie" but doesn't say it's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes"
   2. Melanie Philips calls global warming theory (in 2004) a "fraud". An irresponsible rhetorical flourish, not a charge of a conspiracy.
   3. Same with Martin Dirkin calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." Nothing else in the article where this quote comes from supports the idea that Dirkin actually thinks there's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes." What we have is another rhetorical flourish from a filmmaker hawking his movie.

And what we have overall is an article that is full of holes and not worth keeping. Overheated rhetoric is not conspiracy theorizing. Writing Wikipedia articles is not propagandizing. Or at least it's not supposed to be.Noroton 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on changing my vote The article has been improved quite a bit since I saw it last. It proves to me that the charge that there's a Global warming conspiracy has been made numerous times both as an explicit statement and at other times as a clear implication. I think the article should make it clearer up top that this is often more a rhetorical tic than a serious charge (that many of the people who make the charge don't take it seriously is clear from the quotes in the article). But my problems with the article no longer warrant deletion: There's clearly some value here. Kudos to JQ! Noroton 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Aditionally, it appears the author have grossly misunderstood the terms "conspiracy" and "theory" when they are not used together. A conspiracy is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory. Likewise, a theory is not the same thing a conspiracy theory. ~ UBeR 05:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is a differences between critics of he conventional scientific view, and those who think it a deliberate internationalist ( or whatever ) plot. This is a fair documentation of the latter. The critics have every right to have their views fairly represented objectively and treated seriously. The reader can safely be left to judge the merits. The conspiracy theorists have also the right for their views to be presented fairly, and if a fair presentation leaves them somewhat silly, that's not the fault of the recorder who describes what they say. Any detailed problem of NPOV on a particular point is for the talk page. That there are such theories is real, and unfortunately the theories are notable. The possibility that they might be right is for them to prove, and we show what the say they have proved. Again, the reader can be safely left to judge. We deal with all such pseudo scientific views the same way as we do scientific ones, so we don't have to decide which is which. If they are publicly notable, we present them. DGG 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Right, leave it to the reader to judge when the article name is conspiracy theory. There's a distinct difference between theory and conspiracy theory. Saying the CIA killed JFK is conspiracy theory. Saying the Sun's variations have a real impact on Earth's climate while presenting discernible evidence is a theory. In fact, there's also a legitimate article on the global warming controversy, no where in which so-called conspiracy theories are mentioned. This article is pure bunkum. ~ UBeR 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As you say, the solar variation theory is not a conspiracy theory, which is why it isn't mentioned in the article. The claim that the whole theory of global warming is a swindle/scam/fraud with many participants is (at least in the view of those accused of being participants) a conspiracy theory, and hence it is mentioned.JQ 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh no you don't, JQ. Where's the proof in the article that we've got multiple conspiracy theories instead of over-the-top rhetoric? It's easy to see the difference: Someone with a conspiracy theory would explain the details, try to show proof of what was going on behind the scenes, name names. Someone with a theory would get into it more. No one's doing that, at least not so far as a reader could tell from either the article or its sources. Conspiracy theorists act altogether differently from people going too far in their rhetoric. The theorists generally can't get elaborate enough; the others make a passing reference and jump on to the next point (just like they do in the source material for this article). I'm not asking for the equivalent of UFO conferences, the books on how the theory works, the intricate diagrams of the grassy knoll: Just give me someone with something more than a rhetorical tic.Noroton 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentI see UBeR's got you literally surrounded, DGG, and he brings up an excellent point: there's no proof whatever that there's any conspiracy theory here. And my comments above are better addressed in a deletion discussion rather than a talk page because the problems are so pervasive in the article that they can't be fixed. Take out all the irrepairable passages and there's only a whisp of an article left. What remains is too weak to sustain what the article says exists. I'm sure that somewhere some nutcases have actual theories to go with this article. But it would have to be shown that the theories — the actual crackpot beliefs, not some over-the-top rhetoric — have attained enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Show us evidence that that's likely to happen and I'll change my mind to "Keep", or join us in deleting this article. Noroton 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep - sadly, all too true. Don't understand claims of OR or unref'd, since it clearly is ref'd. Proposer has misread the article, which cleary says its about those who assert conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons - nothing about simple disbelief William M. Connolley 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - As it has been pointed out above, few or even no source at all speak of a conspiracy theory per se. But I would agree that there exists enough material to introduce the idea of a "Global warming hoax". I have added some material in this regard. This title would help solve the POV issue (conspiracy theory is pejorative, as the author himself pointed out). Also, if this article is to be kept, it must focus on the fact that some skeptics or other people have found grounds to believe that climate science is not used for its stated aims or is being "hijacked" by special interests, rather than to focus on accusing skeptics of being "conspiracy theorists", since then the POV fork accusation would hold. --Childhood's End 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added a reference to the "hoax" or "fraud" wording in the intro.JQ 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Global warming so that it may be re-written and developed further (if necessary). As it is, as a separate article, is just a soapbox for one of the two sides of this controversy. --FateClub 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unfortunatly it is not uncommon for the really far-out sceptics to allude to a conspiracy - Inhofe (for instance) has said many times that its a hoax - and also alluded that Chirac (and others) are using Kyoto to create a world-government. To state that something is a hoax - ipso facto means that the scientists who claim this, are involved in a conspiracy to fool people for some sinister purpose. (in Inhofe's case its to bankrupt the US apparently). --Kim D. Petersen 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Except when it isn't ipso facto a charge of conspiracy in all the ways and instances that I've described and which you've just ignored. The ironclad way to prove your point is do what I asked: Just find the evidence and cite it.Noroton 05:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As the relevant article shows, the criteria for a conspiracy theory are themselves debatable. It's clear from the discussion here, and from the links in the article that those who are accused of being part of a hoax/fraud/swindle involving thousands of scientists, all the leading scientific organizations and journals and so on regard this as a conspiracy theory. Others disagree, and I've tried to note this in the article. You appear to think that unless you personally are satisfied that there is a conspiracy theory, the article should be deleted.JQ 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh really? There's a consensus among scientists, scientific organizations, and scientific journals that there's a conspiracy theory? Please do not tell me you, too, have fallen trap to WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If every time some controversialist uses the word "scam" and "hoax" we have a full-fledged conspiracy being described, then: "go to hell" would always be a serious wish to see someone condemned to everlasting damnation; "I could kill you" would always be a threat; "get outta here" would always be an invitation to leave; "son of a bitch" would always be a comment on that person's mother, etc. etc. etc. JQ, you're displaying the same problem in this discussion as in the article itself: you're being slippery with terms. If conspiracies are really being alleged, it shouldn't be too hard to back that up. As I say, conspiracy nuts shout from the rooftops and post on the Web. Where are the sources seriously alleging conspiracies?Noroton 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe we should clarify terms here. I have no doubt that most of the sources I'm quoting (for example, Inhofe, Melanie Phillips, WorldNetDaily) are alleging conscious fraud as opposed to applying a rhetorical flourish to a claim that people's views on this issue are influenced by their general political position. The statement has been made too many times, in too strong terms, to be a mere flourish. Are you disagreeing with this, or are you endorsing UBeR's position that 'The article states "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" can be described as a conspiracy theory. It cannot.' JQ 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Noroton, I think I've found what you're after when you observe "Someone with a conspiracy theory would explain the details, try to show proof of what was going on behind the scenes, name names". Check this piece by Claudia Rosett for Fox News. [30]. The behind-the-scene mastermind is named as Maurice Strong, who's described as being " best known as the godfather of the environmental movement, who served from 1973-1975 as the founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi. UNEP is now a globe-girdling organization with a yearly budget of $136 million, which claims to act as the world’s environmental conscience. Strong consolidated his eco-credentials as the organizer of the U.N.’s 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which in turn paved the way for the controversial 1997 Kyoto Treaty on controlling greenhouse gas emissions." As you'd expect, the details are far too complicated to summarise (Iraq, China, NK, SK and Ted Turner all get a run) but part of the claim is that Strong is pushing Kyoto so China can profit from trade in emissions credits. It looks like this one's been around for a few years [31]JQ 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is a serious article about a serious and important group of people. It's not a POV fork, as the page is not created to advance a POV, but to report on the theory/movement. Matchups 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's used to support the POV that people who deny AGW with bona fide scientific data are conspiracy theorists, rather than respected scientists within their field. This entire article is off the basis of J. Houghton, G. Monboit, H. Evans, all journalists, save Houghton who is the founder of the ISSR. Three quotes by leftist pundits makes every AGW denier a conspiracy theorist? Think again. ~ UBeR 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Blatantly fails to meet WP:ATT and obviously a POV fork at best (intent seems to be to create yet another "article" to use WP:WEASEL Words in the POV-pushing quest to disparage those not worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming). Sorry, just wanted to try the style that is used in the article. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Attempt to characterise the views of many respected scientists as a "conspiracy theory" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ~ Rameses 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite The article has been badly written as it contains POV and OR but the topic is notable as many people believe there is this conspiracy theory.
  • You mean 3 people? Two journalists and one scientist is a lot? ~ UBeR 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The concept formed the premise of a best-selling book (State of Fear) which led to its author becoming widely sought-after to comment on the global warming issue. Listy and needs work, but clearly notable and needed. Raymond Arritt 15:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Although State of Fear was a work of fiction, it contained a lengthy appendix, and the aim was clearly to plant the idea of a global warming conspiracy theory in the public mind. The Fox News piece JQ mentions above is an actual conspiracy theory claimed as factual. That's two concrete examples of conspiracy theories about global warming.-greenrd 16:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Non-OR parts into Global Warming. Just H^{editor review} 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If this article is to be merged with another, I suggest it is with politics of global warming. --Childhood's End 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • That's fine with me. Just H^{editor review} 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the reasons to keep given so far, plus the reasons given by others to delete seem to me more like talk page issues than deletion-level problems. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is notability. Talk page discussions can't really make any more news appear. ~ UBeR 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Most recent delete posts are the result of a campaign by [User:UBeR|UBeR]] as mentioned on the talk page - this can be checked by looking at "What links here" on the article page. Problems identified in earlier delete posts (lack of/broken links, absence of a clearly detailed conspiracy theory) have been addressed. JQ 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment JQ, this is a strange comment since it is known throughout the entire Wikipedia world (and perhaps beyond) that William M. Connolley, Raymond Arritt and others work as a permanent cartel in climate articles to support their identical views and contributions... --Childhood's End 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"...act as a permanent cartel in climate articles." Sounds like a Global warming conspiracy theory, eh? Raymond Arritt 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is a theory when it is validated 999 times out of 1000 that you hold the same opinions and help each other in supporting your respective edits/deletions. --Childhood's End 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- article is well-documented and sourced. It may have POV-problems (who calls it a conspiracy theory exactly?) but these are definitely fixable. --ScienceApologist 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two journalist and one founder of the International Society for Science and Religion, to answer your question. ~ UBeR 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Leave off the "theory" and the concept of a "global warming conspiracy" is far more prominent.[32]. Maybe a solution is to leave "theory" out of the title. The content of the article would be nearly identical, and notability would be beyond question. Raymond Arritt 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think it works in the title, but I've changed the opening sentence to refer to '"global warming conspiracy" or "global warming conspiracy theory".JQ 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can see it now... All this hot all air conspiring against the humans! ~ UBeR 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "Global warming religion" gets far more hits than "global warming conspiracy" [33]. Time for a new article? Iceage77 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • A good suggestion, Iceage77. The claim that science is really a form of religion has also come up (largely from the same people) in the creation/evolution debate, so it is certainly notable. Maybe you'd like to make a start.JQ 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • But like this article it would be inherently POV. The argument of course is not that science is a form of religion but that belief in AGW is based on faith and irrationalism. Iceage77 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • The solution to POV problems is not to suppress points-of-view. The NPOV solution is to include the POV you describe and the alternative POV, citing the overwhelming majority of scientists who point to the mountains of factual evidence in favour of AGW and say that any rational person would be convinced by it. The article could then link back to the counterclaim that the mountains of evidence have been fabricated by a global conspiracy/swindle/fraud, in which the scientists themselves are participants, as stated in The Great Global Warming Swindle and other sources discussed above. JQ 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: if it is not a POV fork then it can be merged into global warming, can't it? 38.100.34.2 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's a POV-fork of anything, it's global warming controversy, perhaps a POV-fork itself. ~ UBeR 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The phenomenon of public figures calling GW a hoax or a conspiracy certainly exists and is notable: Sen. Inhofe and Michael Crichton should probably have the top spots. The article certainly does need a major clean-up. I'd like to see a lot less qualifying and apologizing - something simple like: "several people have claimed that global warming is not just false but is known to be false by its proponents" then go on to describe how Inhofe has made this a key position in his role as chair of the Senate Energy committee; and recount how Crichton's State of Fear has be selling widely and sum up how it pictures the situation (conceding that it is fiction, but that does not take away the sting of its implied message that this is also what is going on in the real world.Birdbrainscan 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, I think you're misunderstanding. The article isn't stating the people are calling GW a hoax or conspiracy. That's given. What the article is saying is that anyone who calls GW a hoax is a conspiracy theorist, based on three people's opinion! There's quite a difference, and I'm assuming that's why most people have unknowingly voted keep erroneously insofar. ~ UBeR 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, you're misunderstanding. In nearly every comment you've made, you've confused the claim "AGW theory is incorrect" with "AGW theory is a hoax". The former is a scientific claim, though one that has notably failed to convince any significant section of the scientific community. The latter (given the large number of people who have to be involved) is plausibly described as a conspiracy theory, especially when the article documents numerous unequivocally conspiracy-theoretic statements of the same view. However, some people (you and Noroton, for example) may want to draw a distinction between "hoax/fraud/swindle involving thousands of participants" and "conspiracy". The article mentions this and there is a stubby section where citations to this POV can be included.JQ 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Precisely. You explain it well: "'AGW theory is a hoax' . . . is plausibly described as a conspiracy theory." Note the word "plausibly." I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not here for you to draw conclusions on people's thoughts. Just because you think people calling AGW a hoax is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean you get your own article to say because this person denies AGW he's a conspiracy theorist. That isn't how Wikipedia works. See WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Which is why the article makes no OR claims and cites notable and verifiable sources who have described it quite directly as a conspiracy theory - notwithstanding your attempt to claim that a leading figure in the IPCC and journalists writing for major news sources are not notable . Of course, if you are serious about the claim that three sources aren't enough, give a number and I'll be happy to meet it, at the expense of added listiness. JQ 10:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You have 3 people calling two documents conspiracy theories. What you're doing is turning that into anything that is critical of AGW is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia doesn't allow that. P.S. I said or implied the founder of International Society for Science and Religion is non-notable> he's a scientist, but that brings up another point: Is it a scientist's job to determining what is a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure that's beyond the scope of science, but that's neither here nor there. ~ UBeR 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
            • OK, so I've added a very prominent Minister in the UK government whose portfolio covers the area in question, referring specifically to conspiracy theories. Does that change your view on this point, or (as I'm coming to believe) would no evidence of any kind change your view ?JQ 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
              • You can have all the evidence you want, but you still can't use that evidence for the synthesis. This is laid out in WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                • As you say, I can produce all the evidence I want, you'll still vote to suppress it. So, I guess we'll let this process limp to a close.JQ 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • No, you're obviously no comprehending very well. You can have all the evidence you want, but you can't use that to assume something totally different applies to it. That's synthesis, whether erroneously or not. ~ UBeR 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The conspiracy theory is notable and thus should have an article here on Wikipedia. This article is different from the aticle on global warming controversy, because that article does not focus on conspiracy theories, but rather on (a priori) bona fide objections to global warming theory. Count Iblis 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on notability : Many editors here have supported the "Keep" camp on the ground that the subject is notable. I am not decided yet on whether this article should be kept or deleted (see my comment above) but only to clarify things about notability (which is so easily misunderstood because of partisan views), here are a few rules taken from WP:Notability :

- A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.

- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline

- In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.

- In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors. (core problem here, imho)

- General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works.

These rules exist for a good reason, and it is in order that WP remains an encyclopedia and does not become some blog. So, I think that if this article can be saved, it is by removing the focus on the "theory" willing that skeptics think that GW is a conspiracy theory, and by focusing instead on serious motives that made some skeptics say that GW was a hoax. Right now we're far from that, and I dont know whether this would leave enough material to warrant an article. --Childhood's End 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article obviously fails in notability on points three and four. ~ UBeR 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with notability here - the sources are prominent figures (a UK Cabinet Minister on one side, a senior US Senator on the other, scientists, prominent journalists), quoted in prominent publications. In fact, the listy and badly structured nature of the article reflects an overload of this kind of thing, added in response to claims that three sources weren't enough, and so on, claims that were promptly abandoned as soon as more sources were put in. Obviously, it would be good to have someone uninvolved edit the article, and given the many notable sources, this would be easy, though I doubt anyone will want to get involved until this afd is over.JQ 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep it seems in response to UBeR's original AfD reasons, that this has now been proven notable and has been pumped full of sources. The "counter-arguments" section still looks messy, but the rest of the article doesn't otherwise smell of POV to me, it looks rather neutral. It seems to establish its point. "Global warming conspiracy theory" is, the article establishes, really used to "refer the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons". I'd be perfectly happy to see all this material merged into global warming controversy, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vithoulkas

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

This was previously the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas which was speedily closed as a copyright violation. That AfD was a veritable puppet parade, so this one is running semi-protected.

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

The subject's work has been the subject of uncritical reviews in a hoemopathy journal (of unknown significance), but there is a dearth of independent review of this man and his work, and the book reviews indicate that this work is at the hard core pseudoscience end of homeopathy. The text is still pretty much the original lifted from his website, since he (or his webmasters) changed the copyright notice specifically so the article would not be deleted as a copyright violation. I can't find any evidence of mainstream coverage, certainly nothing outside of sources which are promoting homeopathy. I do not myself consider a review of a book by a journal committed to promoting the subject of the book to be independent under the meaning of the act, but even if we did this is a source for the book not the author, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: B (Biographical). ◄Zahakiel► 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Rogue Admin, Dave Souza, talking about the same journal and source you are refering to: "The critique article was added as a reference by the original author of the piece, and is hosted by a specialist homeopathic bookshop. It clearly gives an alternative viewpoint of the work of Vithoulkas, and as WP:NPOV requires, viewpoints should be shown: the credentials and position of the author indicate that he is well informed on the subject and his views are noteworthy. " So, 3 positive reviews, from the same source (bookshop and journal), and authors including MDs that work in the same hospital, are now "of unknown significance" ? Nice...Homeopathic 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute keep Is this some kind of sick joke? It is completely absurd that this article is again being proposed for deletion given the amount of sourced information in the article and the amount of information that was posted in the last AFD. The guy has 100,000 hits on Google (and before anyone jumps in again and says "how do we know those hits are for "this" Vithoulkas", please do a random browse through those hits. You'll find that at least 98% (if not more) are for George Vithoulkas, the subject of this article). His books have been translated into twenty languages. His writings are considered fundamental to modern homeopathy and have been integrated into the main software applications used by thousands of homeopaths all over the world. You can find him cited many times in PubMed, the Who's Who directory(!), Google Scholar and virtually anywhere that homeopathy is discussed. People travel from all over the world to study with him or to receive treatment. He's the winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize and has been honored by various governments. Whether homeopathy is "pseudoscience" as User JzG claims above, is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability and to suggest that someone of his statue and fame (or notoriety if you please) is somehow not notable enough for Wikipedia is just preposterous. The guy has been famous for over 30 years. --Lee Hunter 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No it is not a "sick joke" it is the result of a lengthy debate at the admin noticeboard and largely procedural as the previous debate was curtailed as a result of the previous deletion (which was, as Adam points out, perfectly proper, since the copyright terms at that time meant that it was indeed a copyright violation). Comments like "is this a sick joke" might apply if this had been subject to multiple debates with a keep consensus, but actually it had one partial debate ending in deletion. The short version of which is: watch your tongue. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• A small sampling of the citations found through Amazon

Please note that the following are just a few of the books citing Vithoulkas that I found on Amazon. There are many more that discuss his ideas and most of these books refer to him in multiple spots.

• • Bioenergetic Medicines East and West: Acupuncture and Homeopathy by Manning & Vanrenen "... irritability, fear of new situations and fear of failure. George Vithoulkas, the reknowned Greek homeopath, ..."
  • Dr. Pitcairn's New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats by Richard H. Pitcairn and Susan Hubble Pitcairn "... most suitable remedy. The Science of Homeopa- thy, by George Vithoulkas, is an important modern discussion of the principles involved and ..."
  • Relearning to See: Improve Your Eyesight -- Naturally! by Thomas R. Quackenbush " The reader is referred to George Vithoulkas' The Science of Homeopathy, ..."
  • Everybody's guide to homeopathic medicines by Stephen Cummings and Dana Ullman "... George Vithoulkas, a respected contemporary homeopath, has outlined the varying depths of ..."
  • Homeopathic Medicine At Home by Maesimund B. Panos (back matter) "... The Science of Homeopathy, a Modem Textbook. By G. Vithoulkas. New York: Grove Press, 1979. The most comprehensive and up-to-date book concerning homeopathic philosophy and methodology. A "must" for the ..."
  • Radical Healing: Integrating the World's Great Therapeutic Traditions to Create a New Transformative Medicine "... Recommended. The Science of Homeopathy, George Vithoulkas, Grove Press, New York, 1980. A major and influential attempt ..."
  • Homeopathy and Your Child: A Parent's Guide to Homeopathic Treatment from Infancy Through Adolescence by Lyle W. Morgan II "... of Similars-"let like be cured by like." According to George Vithoulkas, widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist, ..."
  • Inside Tai Chi: Hints, Tips, Training & Process for Students and Teachers by John Loupos "... George Vithoulkas, founder of the Homeopathic College in Athens, Greece and one of the world's leading ..."

I can continue this list if anyone's still in doubt but I think you get the idea. --Lee Hunter 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those quotes hints at very much detail about him being in those books. That's the problem - if we're required to use only sources from the subject himself, because the other references to him are trivial or promotional, we don't have any reliable sources, one of the key requirements of writing an encyclopedic article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? Adam, these are published books. They are as reliable as it is possible to get. "none of those quotes hints at very much detail about him being in those books." Huh? What do you mean? We have him described as "a respected contemporary homeopath", "the greatest living homeopath", "one of the world's leading" etc This is such a strange interaction I can't quite get my head around it. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO SEE? I have shown you that there are dozens of books published all over the world by a variety of publishers that describe him as THE central figure in modern homeopathy. There's even a bio of Vithoulkas in German that I didn't mention. I can no longer accept that you are discussing this matter in good faith. Every time I come up with a new overwhelming batch of information you turn around say "Is that it?". This is reaching some sort of new level of absurdity even for Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to see independent information about him we can use to write the article. What he says about himself isn't enough. Throw-away sentences about him in other books don't show we could write a balanced article on him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whooooooooaaaaaa doggggie!!!!!! Now you're way off the mark. This whole page has one purpose: to establish whether he's notable enough to be included in WP. The challenges of writing a balanced article can be addressed within the talk pages over time. If we can attempt balanced articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I think we can manage a decent article on Vithoulkas. By the way, here's another cite: Complete Idiot's Guide to Homeopathy by David W. Sollars "... instincts in our personal and business lives. Caution George Vithoulkas, a contemporary homeopathy practitioner in Greece, warns us that health depends on the ..." --Lee Hunter 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a couple of these cites. One sentence about him in a 500 page book isn't all that compelling evidence. Do any of them have more than that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not going to dignify that question with an answer. You're now obviously just trolling. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please, or else you get blocked. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...I'll take that as a no, then? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete About the only source outside of pseudoscientific circles on this individual is the Right Livelihood Award, which is itself questionably notable. Skinwalker 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, whether or not someone is viewed by some people as "pseudoscientific" is completely irrelevant to notability. The question is "is he notable" not "is he a mainstream scientist". And since when did Google Scholar, PubMed, Google, Who's Who, MedLine etc become part of some pseudoscientific circle?--Lee Hunter 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources, those are indexes of sources. Just because they index a journal doesn't mean that journal is now above reproach. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Above reproach"? May we ask, reproach by who? I think we can assume that the subscribers to the publication are satisfied that the publication is "above reproach". This is the first AFD I've encountered that gets into strange existential arguments about whether a publication that's indexed by PubMed is above or below reproach. Again you seem to be under the delusion that the purpose of an AFD is to determine whether someone is legitimate in the eyes of mainstream science. The question is notability (period) not mainstream respectability or something to that effect. --Lee Hunter 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's granted that he's considered bogus at large in mainstream science, but Lee is right: we're not here to talk about that, because mainstream science considers homeopathy to be bollocks. We're here to talk about whether he is notable. I see the assertion and acknowledge it, but I don't see much - only notability given is within the realms of homeopathy, and homeopathology is a pretty insular realm - so there could be perceptions of conflict of interest, no matter how remote. Can we get some more sources here that are verifiable? That'll certainly help. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. My point was more along the lines of your suggestion about WP:COI, WP:RS and so on. I don't think we should reject pseudoscientific sources out of hand, but they need extra scrutiny in terms of objectivity, editorial oversight, and other necessary facets of verifiability. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changing vote to weak keep per the added reference. Those satisfy me, for one. Thanks for changing my mind, guys. --Dennisthe2 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak delete per MastCell - Changed my mind due to his argument. My original thoughts are below. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, we have been able to get something like an NPOV article out of it. Weak keep.

He's far more notable than most modern homeopaths, so if we're going to include modern homeopaths, it's pretty much down to him and Rajesh Shah, as far as I can see. Both seem to be the ones judged by homeopaths themselves as the best, and the ones put forth for awards recognising Homeopathy when they come available. However, they're at the top of a relatively marginal group, and so have less notability than leaders of other professions, such as scientists, and so on.

However, I've only been able to find two references to him outside of homeopathy itself: here and various pages here, showing him, as I said, being chosen to receive homeopathy-related awards. There's also a negative article about one of his books, which, while published in the British Homeopathic Journal, is apparently written by an anti-Homeopath. Indeed, one of his defenders was claiming that was a reason it shouldn't be used as a source!? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well his field is homeopathy, so why are you looking for mentions of him in places where homeopathy is not discussed? The idea is ridiculous. Again, this is the strangest AFD I've ever seen. --Lee Hunter 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is occassionally discussed in newspapers and such, after all. But George Vithoulkas himself doesn't seem to be. Maybe there's more in Greek newspapers? ...How do you spell Vithoulkas in Greek, anyway? Greek has no V. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? Since when did the Wikipedia notability bar get raised so high that multiple books translated into 20 languages, citations in multiple journals, awards by governments, a listing in Who's Who, 100,000 Google hits, cites in Google Scholar and PubMed, reviews of books in his field and lord alone knows what else is not enough. What if I come up with a few newspaper articles? Are you going to ask "Well did he ever appear on Oprah? Oh he did? Then how about Jerry Springer?" I mean WP has articles on subway stops, high schools and university professors unknown except within a tiny esoteric circle. Here's a guy who has clearly influenced, for better or worse, the medical treatment of millions of people around the world and we're playing some game as if he's being confirmed for the Supreme Court or canonization by the Holy Roman Church. Sheesh. --Lee Hunter 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, only 729 unique Google hits. (Try scrolling through to page 73). EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pubmed, Google, and Google Scholar bits are just indexes - they reference anything they can. Surely every scientist who ever published research isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. Any of the following would probably make him notable:

• Newspaper reports, in any major newspaper, detailing the awards and putting them in context. Why was he chosen? What does the award mean? (This is, of course, slightly dependant on the award's significance. An OBE isn't particularly notable, for instance - Any person in the higher ranks of a charity is likely to get one, and, while they deserve recognition for their work, this doesn't necessarily make them notable.
• A few articles about him in major newspapers, of reasonable length, and reasonably independant of him himself.
• A few criticisms of him by a reasonably notable anti-homeopathic people or organisations. If he's notable to attract their eye, he's probably notable, and POV problems cease.

Any of these would, I think, show notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee, the use of subway station articles as notability comparisons are non-sequiturs. What does a subway have to do with medicine? There's just no comparison. --Dennisthe2 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia includes articles on very obscure subjects. The standard for notability is generally the publication of a couple books that have been noted at least within the author's field. For musicians, you only have to be pretty well-known in your local area (representative of the local scene). Here's a person who has written many books some of which have been translated into twenty languages and they are acknowledged as standard references for his field (ie. they are incorporated into the two or three main software databases for homeopathy). Aside from all the other stuff (listing in Who's Who, the awards, etc) that ALONE would make him more notable than probably 50% of the bios in Wikipedia. What we have here is a strange new bar that's been set only for this article. --Lee Hunter 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I've said my piece on this. Follow my advice, and if you can scare up the information, you'll certainly change our minds. For the refs below, see if they apply via WP:V - I'm not sure on those, so I will defer the call there to somebody else. --Dennisthe2 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral weak Keep - It's hard to judge to what extent he's notable, due to the lack of reliable third party sources. This problem means that the article clearly fails an essential requirement of WP:BLP, and instead draws almost entirely on self published sources which appear to be unduly self-serving. The critical book review from the British Homoeopathic Journal (now published as Homeopathy) suggested a possible third party source, but the additional links subsequently provided (also hosted by a homeopathic bookstore) to completely uncritical reviews suggest that the publication is largely promotional in nature as well as expressing views that are widely acknowledged as fringe. As has been shown above, the biography published on the Right Livelihood Award is not a third party source, but is simply a cut and paste of his official CV, and it is my understanding that Wikipedia is not in the business of hosting CVs. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to weak keep: Campbell is an independent source appearing to have sound credentials (see links added to article), and there is a published biography in German written by a journalist and one of Vithoulkas's former pupils. .. dave souza, talk 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep - his book is recommended by the BHS which is a regulated body in the UK. dave souza, talk 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ATT, WP:RS - neither of which I believe are met - and WP:N, which I don't think he meets either. No independant, mainstream coverage of him is given that is outside his branch of crankery: hence the "independent" bit of WP:N, which I don't think he meets. As to non-trivial independent coverage - not seeing any of that. As to the arguments to keep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is patently invalid. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Books published by mainstream publishers are inherently reliable sources. I've shown that he has been cited (often explicitly calling him one of the leading experts in his field) in dozens, maybe hundreds of books. He has written books that have been published by mainstream publishers. Homeopathy is practised by millions of people around the world including thousands of medical doctors (many of whom traveled to Greece to be trained by Vithoulkas). There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that he is not notable. --Lee Hunter 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thinkt he problem is that you're using the dictionary definition of notable, but the relevant one is Wikipedia:Notability (people) The references you're giving are single, throw-away sentences in large books, whereas the notability guidelines need non-trivial, independent references. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But every single one of the books I cited (and most of the hundred+ that are available) is independent by any reasonable definition of the term. Your personal definition of independent means "not favourable to homeopathy" and this has no basis in Wikipedia:Notability (people). I defy you to show me anything in that guideline that would preclude even one of the books I cited. The notability guidelines, while they don't specifically talk about medicine, do give examples of notability being people who are leaders in their field (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), a credible independent biography (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), a large fan base (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), endorsements of notable products (Vithoulkas meets this criteria, maybe arguably if you don't think homeopathy is notable), wide name recognition (i.e. hits on Google), known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique (Vithoulkas certainly fits this criteria), has won significant critical attention (Vithoulkas meets this criteria). Now even ONE of those criteria would establish his notability, but Vithoulkas meets every possible angle you can come up with. No, he hasn't yet competed on American Idol, but otherwise, I can't see any area in which he fails to meet the requirements. Unless, of course, you believe that homeopathy is just rubbish and the tens of millions of people who practise it don't count. Which is, apparently, what you believe, so beyond this point words fail me. --Lee Hunter 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it means independent of him. We have some noin-trivial references that aren't indipendent, and some independent books, as you mention, that are trivial (with regards to him). Where is this supposed independant biography? Because you haven't yet mentioned one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Straightforward delete. All sound and fury aside, it boils down to WP:BIO. Has the man "been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (emphasis mine)? No. Without independent sources, we can't write a neutral, encyclopedic article about someone; witness the current state of the article as proof. Delete it. MastCell ^Talk 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a couple independent sources below, here's another one from one of the biggest Homeopathic sites. Or are all homeopathic bookstores and websites conspiring with the Forces of Darkness ?Homeopathic 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources you've provided are not "intellectually independent" of Vithoulkas; see WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep winner of Right Livelihood Award aka the "Alternative Nobel Prize" is notable. I support removal of any material without reliable sources. If that takes it down to a stub, then that's fine by me, but am convinced the case for notability is made. Pete.Hurd 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Who calls it the alternative Nobel prize? The Right Livelihood crowd? The alternative Nobel prize is the Ignobel prize anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The tragic difference is that the Ig Nobel Prize is given by scientific skeptics who are humorously "honoring" (ridiculing) what they clearly label as pseudoscience, while the Right Livelihood prize is given to literally honor (in this case) pseudoscience, without recognizing it as such. So it is actually an anti-science prize, and thus the exact opposite of the Nobel prize. How tragic. The Nobel Prize rewards that which contributes to strengthening society, while the other rewards that which contributes to ignorance and superstition. It's not an honor to receive such a prize. At least one can laugh at getting the Ig Nobel prize. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't think the awardees of the Ig Nobels are scientific skeptics, they're scientists period, and not all that they award prizes to is pseudoscience (for example my PhD supervisor won in 2003 for "Chickens Prefer Beautiful Humans." perfectly solid science, but with obvious slapstick appeal). That the Right Livelihood has been called the "alternative nobel" by reliable sources back to at least the mid 1990s by quick google search. Pete.Hurd 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, be fair: I checked the list of winners of the Right Livelihood Award and most of them seem to be social and enironmental activists, which is fair enough, with a sprinkling of new age, mainly in the early awards. Vithoulkas seems to be the only alternative medicine proponent.

One wonders whether there was negative publicity about the Vithoulkas award, seeing they seem to have stuck to social activists ever since. If there was, that might make him notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.. but I'm with Pete Hurd, remove any and all material without reliable sources. I recommend the same be done with Rajesh Shah. There's a fair bit of this article that's self referential. The same, incidentally applies to Rajesh Shah. As an aside I dont think Wikipedia should be used to promote homeopathy, which is -- in my opinion -- nonsense, but this has little to do with this article. This person does meet the criteria for inclusion by winning the Right Livelihood Award. Pruning this article of the unreferenced and questionable material is going to leave a very short stub - but such is life. MidgleyDJ 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add I'm happy to support delete if winning this prize is not considered a criteron for notability. MidgleyDJ 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute Keep This is the biography of George Vithoulkas at a independent health shop Biography. And another comment about his contribution from another independent source, much shorter though. Adam and his lot are clearly biased.14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Homeopathic 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And another independent source here, with a list of Eminent Homeopaths. Homeopathic 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let alone the fact you've been ignoring the positive reviews from the British Homoeopathic Journal 123 while you have embraced the one negative critique you found. The list of positive reviews and comments is endless...Homeopathic 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it prudent to advise you that your accusation of bias can be construed as a personal attack. --Dennisthe2 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This author, practitioner, and professor is one of the most prominent homeopaths in the world today. Saying he doesn't deserve a bio on Wikipedia is essentially saying that Wikipedia should not cover the topic of homeopathy. Also please see the criteria for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases. This case meets the criteria adequately for a keep, see "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" in that section. The criteria are here:

• The person has received notable awards or honors--YES, see Right Livelihood Award
• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES, see his bio here
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--NO
• The person has created 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--his major works are [34] and [35]. They are widely used in the homeopathic community.

Given, all this, I don't really see what the problem is here. Abridged 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell. I have yet to see any reliable sources. -- Ben 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1986 BBC made a film about Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas. 1 2.Homeopathic 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greek Homeopath to receive Gold Medal in Hungary" Macedonian Press Agency. And ofourse in the video mentioned above, you can watch parts of the award ceremony.Homeopathic 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: That video of the acceptance speech has a very questionable opening, in which either a clip form four or more years earlier when Birgitta Dahl was Speaker is cut in (presumably because they like what she says), or someone who is not the Speaker is labelled as the speaker. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Birgitta Dahl was the speaker of the Riksdag from 1994 to 2002. Vithoulkas received the award in 1996. The opening video CLEARLY STATES THAT! Where is the problem ??? What is wrong with you ADAM, STOP MISINFORMING THE USERS AT LAST. Homeopathic 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic, do not make personal attacks. --Dennisthe2 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So the fact he is lying and misinforming users worldwide doesnt matter, and what does is me saying he is lying (and i'm prooving it) ? Please, check the video and the Birgitta Dahl page to see the truth.Homeopathic 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let an admin deal with this. --Dennisthe2 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ach, hell. keep flipping 2006 and 1996. Sorry. You might have said that the first time I made that mistake, you know, instead of just complaining about me denying the video, not mentioning my dates were off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'sorry'. That's all that you have to say ? You didnt even bother to remove the warning in bold, after admiting your mistake. And now it's my fault for you blaming the video and everything else ? This has to be a joke... You've disregarded all evidence and links we've provided as proof, and placed under AfD Vithoulkas' page, and all you have to say is 'sorry'. The AfD should end here now.Homeopathic 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that I did not start this AfD, right? Still, I'll strike my comment. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i've noticed that, but it's you that started this whole issue in the first place, and have caused so much trouble. And you are insisting on the subject. But you have misjudged the man, and it is unfair.Homeopathic 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's step back - we're not judging the man; that's not what this forum is about. We're judging whether there are enough independent sources about him that we can build a reasonable, neutral Wikipedia article. It's not personal; please don't personalize it unecessarily. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell. Same reasoning. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Give it a chance. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find loads of references to George Vithoulkas at NCBI, Science Direct, British Library Direct. All you have to do is type the name.Homeopathic 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another independent source, The Hellenic (ie GREEK) Homeopathic Medical Association (HHMS), consisting only of MDs, has a page dedicated to George Vithoulkas.Homeopathic 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone can be looked up on PubMed doesn't de facto make them notable; else I (and thousands of others) would have our own articles as well. Please look at WP:BIO; the sources you've mentioned are not "intellectually independent" of Vithoulkas. Also, please note that we're not judging his worth as a person, or the value of his life's work; we're making a very narrow determination about whether enough independent sources exist to create a decent Wikipedia article. Please don't take things so personally. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not easy to find online verification for all of the awards Vithoulkas has received, but that is different from twisting his views or AfD the page. Even one page, the Right Livelihood Award link, should be enough as a reference. The video is there too. He is a competent Homeopath, who has dedicated his life to Homeopathy, and received many awards for that.

I also understand that the main problem is not Vithoulkas, but Homeopathy. It is very difficult for people to accept the fact that ultradiluted and succussed substances have biological effects. And when somebody believes homeopathy is a quack, he just cant accept the fact a Homeopath has received such recognition worldwide.Homeopathic 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's worth anything to you, I'm not one to believe homeopathy is quackery. I've seen it work, and in fact have used it from time to time. Like anything medical, you get yer quacks, but...well, yeah. --Dennisthe2 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell (changing to keep - see below) - this is a WP:BIO issue. The single reference which appears to fulfill the primary criterion ("...been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") is the Right Livelihood site. Unless more non-trivial sources can be found, I don't think there is enough background material for a bio. -- MarcoTolo 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)