Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman (unit)

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

1. The subject of this article is a neologism. The term has not been the subject of any notable publications, let alone a significant one such as a book.
2. The term has been mentioned, briefly, in a handful of reliable sources, but that specifically does NOT establish notability per WP:NEO.
3. All significant information about the term is already contained at Atrios, so turning this article into a redirect would not remove information from the encyclopedia.
4. Currently, the article just defines the word and documents its usage. That is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. We've gone over this in the article's talk page repeatedly. The term is not confined to just Atrios, there are notable sources in the references that actually claim it's notable (The Huffington Post cited it as the "Best New Phrase" of 2006), and there's more than just a dictdef here. Some valid points can be made for a merge and redirect (I don't personally agree with this but I can see it happening), but that's not a question of deletion. Bryan Derksen 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to a merge and redirect! It is my desired outcome of this AfD. Croctotheface 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't "Articles for merging", it's "Articles for deletion". If you didn't want it deleted why did you list it here? Bryan Derksen 03:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • AfDs are often closed as merge and redirect. I don't think there's actually any information left to merge, though, so maybe "redirect without merge" is a more accurate way to describe my goal here. Croctotheface 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, 'death by a thousand cuts' is probably most accurate. And the ethics of radically altering a page before an AfD discussion are problematic at best; it smacks of a personal quest to get rid of this particular article. Holgate 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's disingenuous to cut an article down then nominate it for deletion because after your deletions it doesn't have any significant information. I would encourage the voters to check out this version from before he started mutilating citing imaginary OR concerns. Chris Croy 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want this to become too much of a back and forth, but there was a pretty strong consensus to remove that table as OR. I don't see how compiling a bunch of "this sounds like an example of X" in an article about X is anything but original synthesis of published material. If I were a lawyer arguing for the deletion of an article, and my singular intention were to get the article deleted, I'd expect I'd have a much easier time getting that older version filled with unencyclopedic material deleted than the current version. Croctotheface 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article does not come close to failing WP:NEO. The submission says that "[t]he term has been mentioned, briefly, in a handful of reliable sources, but that specifically does NOT establish notability per WP:NEO." This is simply not true. In fact, WP:NEO says that "[t]o support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The article specifically cites several reliable secondary sources that satisfy that requirement exactly, including the Washington Post, Editor & Publisher, and the Huffington Post. If anything, the article as it stands now is a pretty good example of an article that does satisfy both pillars of WP:NEO. —phh (^t/_c) 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, none of those sources are about the term. They're about the debate over the Iraq war. I don't think there is a single reliable source that, if you contacted the author, he or she would say, "My article is about the Friedman unit." Croctotheface 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The term is intimately linked with the debate over the Iraq war, that's the entire point of it. I don't see how one would have an article about it without also discussing the war. Bryan Derksen 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a ridiculously legalistic treatment of the word "about." In context, the passage is clearly intended to distinguish between sources that explain the term and sources that merely use it, not to require that a source actually be primarily devoted to the term. I can't think of any other topic on Wikipedia where the bar is set even remotely that high. Anyway, that argument has been raised in several AfDs prior to this one, like here and here, and as far as I can see it's failed each time. —phh (^t/_c) 04:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with this reading. "About" should not be taken to mean "the subject of the source", but rather that the source demonstrates by citing the term, qua term, that the term is well-known. Keep and Restore to old version. (Hoipolloi 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
      • Those cases don't seem to be as much about rejecting my interpretation of the guideline as they are about having an overwhelming consensus of users be in favor of keeping. I think you'll find that just about every article is about a topic that has been the primary subject of several reliable sources. WP:N has made their guidelines clearer since the first nomination here. It says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." All the sources that people have cited as establishing the notability of this term spend a sentence or two on the term and the rest of the full-length article on another topic. These sources are more than adequate to source content within an article, but they do not come close to establishing the notability of the topic for its own article. Croctotheface 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. A merge and redirect to Atrios is entirely appropriate here. Although I haven't done a really hardline study of it, my quick google search impression is that the term's use peaked a while ago. Risker 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Restore to old version. The article was sourced before it was hacked at, and I have to wonder if it was shortened (and sourced information removed) to make the subject appear less notable. This appears to me to be a content dispute, and if so it shouldn't have gone to AfD. (Edited.) --Charlene 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article because the term has enough usage that a reader might want to know about the concept. (See this comment on the article's talk page for an example of such a reader.) Most of the table, however, should be (or remain) deleted. The table belongs in a broader article titled something like Iraq War projections. That John Boehner thinks the next three months will be critical isn't relevant to informing the reader about Tom Friedman's reiterated view that the next six months would be critical. JamesMLane t c 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm taking a break from most article editing so I haven't been part of the back-and-forth on this. To start with, it's an article I would like to have, but I've been troubled by the lack of reliable sources. Still, if we can accept highly notable webzines like Huffington Post as a source, then we can establish some marginal notability. I haven't seen new sources appearing that would help make that decision cleaner, so I still lean toward merge/redirect. The table, however, has got to go, unless it is going to be a table of predictions that have been explicitly called a "Friedman" by Atrios or anyone else. By itself it does nothing to establish notability of the term, since most of the sources are simply predictions about the Iraq war that don't mention the meta-label Atrios and some allies have given to such predictions. Repeat, they do not establish the notability of the term. Removing them from the article is not sabotage as they should never have been considered proof of notability in the first place. Keeping them in the article is sanctioning synthesis and original research. I have always urged editors who hoped to use the article to document/chart/track these predictions to move that activity to another website where it is acceptable. On Wikipedia, it is not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a pointless article. Should Wikipedia have an article for every politically-motivated term that gets spread around blogs? Should we have Silky Pony? Or Doughy Pantload? Or Fauxtography? (That one exists, but it's just a redirect) Or 101st Keyboard Brigade? (I'm including terms from both sides here.) They all have a meaning to anyone who reads political blogs, but they're not notable enough, or not interesting enough, to merit their own articles. The same applies for this one. It's not a real unit of time, it's a term of political commentary, and thus there's not much to say about it besides "here's the list of people who have used it". The term can be referenced in the articles for Thomas Friedman and Atrios, and that can be quite enough. Korny O'Near 13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't there be articles about those things? In fact, of those terms you mention the only one I'm personally aware of is the 101st Keyboard Brigade, and I'm only vaguely familiar with what that one means. It would be good for me to be able to click on those links and find out about each of them. But even the one that has a redirect, Fauxtography, is largely useless to me since the article it redirects to doesn't even mention the term. This is a flaw in our encyclopedia, IMO, not a thing to be proud of. Bryan Derksen 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Pointless stand-alone article.--Svetovid 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore. It appears that some editors are trying to give this article the death of a thousand cuts, mutilating it in advance of an AfD discussion so that it appears less worthy of keeping. If that's being done deliberately. it's shameful. Ironically, being targetted for deletion by the non-notability zealots has solidified the subject as notable. Holgate 18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: what does it say about the "keep and restore" advocates' knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that they advocate restoring a table that is completely 100% original research to the article? Honestly, if that older version were the one at question, I would feel even more confident that it would get deleted. The original AfD was almost closed as delete because those supporting the article did not cite policy. I still fail to see where anyone has cited policy to establish that this article is notable and appropriate for Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary. Croctotheface 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is a valued resource for those who come across the use of the term. It is an article "about the concept that the title denotes" in accord with WP:DICDEF. Also, according to that guideline, "note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length." Croctotheface has proposed the article for merge, and now twice has nominated for deletion - all in good faith, of course. I hope that when this latest attempt is rebuffed, he will finally be content that the article will stay, and will work instead to improve the article, as it is is in accord with both the spirit and practice of Wikipedia principles. Notability has been established through thousands of mentions on blogs and several mentions in the print Washington Post and Editor & Publisher. One wonders if, in this technological age, whether we truly want to establish the idea that something must be printed on tree material to appear on a wholly online source ("let alone significant one such as a book"). The absurdity of this position is rather startling, and I would submit against the founding principles of Wikipedia. Arjunasbow 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I like this quote from above: Actually, 'death by a thousand cuts' is probably most accurate. And the ethics of radically altering a page before an AfD discussion are problematic at best; it smacks of a personal quest to get rid of this particular article. The user who is driving this AfD campaign has tirelessly worked to strip the article of information whenever possible. Vidor 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In Croctotheface's defense, I too have both removed content from the article and argued for its deletion, and there hasn't been any nefarious scheming on my part that led to the removal of content. Rather, the same reasoning behind one was behind the other: given how little mention the term has gotten, relatively speaking, there's not much that can be said about it that wouldn't violate some or other rule of original research. Unlike the vast majority of articles about terms, in which both the term and the concept behind it can be discussed, here the concept is quite nebulous (as befits a joke), so only facts about the literal term are really worthy of inclusion. For basically that reason, I think it should be deleted. So please assume good faith. Korny O'Near 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody has cited policy in support of restoring the information that I "stripped" from the article. In reality, User:bbatsell, an administrator, removed the table, at this diff. The notion that this is somehow a one-man crusade on my part is troubling to me. I could flip what you are saying and argue that the users who advocate keeping the article added a bunch of filler material in the attempt to make it appear more substantial. All this article does is define and document the usage of a term. Length aside, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You have also been busy lately stripping references to usage of the term "Friedman Unit". Vidor 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I was shocked to see this article back on the block despite its excellent sourcing and the notability of this emerging concept and award-winning term. Then I saw that it had become, once again, the victim of a personal crusade. There should be a way to protect decent articles from being vengefully dragged through this process over and over. I didn't have a big argument with removing the table as OR - I was on the fence with that one - but to see it hacked out, and then have the article be attacked on these grounds...never expected that. Bill Oaf 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow... please assume good faith, and cut the drama. Korny O'Near 15:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It just gets ridiculous after a while. As soon as one AfD finishes, another starts. It gets counterproductive very quickly. Also, don't tell me what to do. Bill Oaf 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, sorry. Korny O'Near 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Restore Not much more to add than what has been discussed repeatedly over the past few months. This is an excellent article that has recently been reduced to the bare bones through repeated deletions. Luckily the references have survived and those speak for themselves to establish that this is a credible article. Please end the AfD so we can get back to improving the article. Davidhc 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bjelleklang as CSD G11. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Gran Cibao

Hotel Gran Cibao (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. This is about a hotel in the Dominican Republic. Unsourced, doesn't seem notable. --Finngall ^talk 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN. No sources. Hotel is not constructed. Hotels are generally not notable unless they otherwise meet WP:CORP, which this one doesn't, unless I'm missing something from the google search. Darkspots 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NOTE.  The Hooded One  ♠  00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam - reads as a promotional brief for a half-built hotel. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Dennis, this definitely qualifies for CSD G11 (spam speedy). Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law Practice Today

Law Practice Today (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability; this is a monthly webzine supplement to the print magazine Law Practice. The citations don't support notability claims; they generally refer to its inclusion in not-very-discriminate lists and blogs. There are also signs of original research: it offers citations to itself as evidence for claims such as "It has addressed the issue of outsourcing ... and is widely sourced as such in the legal community" and "It is considered useful to those in the legal profession in starting a law practice as well as enabling one to thrive". But these statements amount to novel syntheses, because the article fails to provide sources up to WP:V standards that have previously published such statements about Law Practice Today. Tearlach 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vanispamcruftisement comes to mind. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is cited as a resource by various organizations legal blogs and articles who declare its usefulness. These resources are listed in the footnotes to the article. Additionaly this is not just some random webpage, rather it is a publication of the American Bar Association. As such it is a trade magazine and a a resource used by those in the legal community. Per wikipedia's guidelines it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Heliumballoon 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC) — Heliumballoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. There has not been significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject: there has been an occasional link in an indiscriminate blogroll. Editor is working in good faith, but doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and uses footnotes in a brief-writing, rather than encyclopedic, style: all the references are either dubious stretches claiming endorsements that don't exist or violations of WP:SYN. At best, the subject merits a single line in the Law Practice article, except that article would probably also flunk WP:N, so perhaps it merits a single line plus a single hyperlink in the ABA article. The only thing keeping this from a speedy delete is WP:BITE, but I'm concerned that the editor continues to fail to get the point. THF 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. See here for some more discussion on the issue. MER-C 08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move merge (and redirect) to Law Practice Management Magazine, Law Practice Management or Law Practice Magazine, whatever is the current name of the main journal (the name seems to have changed from Law Practice Management Magazine to Law Practice Magazine recently - see note "* Formerly Law Practice Management." on [1]). Apparently Law Practice Today is a supplement to the main law journal with ISSN 1045-9081. [2] Google Scholar returns 603 hits for this ISSN "1045-9081". [3] Before deleting the article, please read the introduction in Wikipedia:List of missing journals. For information, I have posted a message on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals for hopefully obtaining useful input from experienced editors in the "journal sphere". To reach a consensus, it seems useful to me to involve more contributors. Cheers. --Edcolins 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there a single sentence in this article that survives a move? Nothing's keeping someone from editing the Law Practice Magazine article to include verifiable references to Law Practice Today. -- THF 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, "Law Practice Today is a monthly webzine supplement to the American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section's Law Practice magazine." Is that not enough? redirects are cheap. --Edcolins 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment. That Google Scholar reference isn't all that persuasive--every listing appears to be a self-listing, rather than an independent reference to the magazine. THF 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, wrong, the first 630 Google Scholar hits are indeed self-listing, but afterwards it is mixed [4]. Three random examples provided on Talk:Law Practice Magazine. --Edcolins 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (My point is still completely valid, but I just feel obliged to mention that the second Google Scholar query was "Law practice management" - the old name of the publication - while the first was "1045-9081" - its ISSN. Sorry for the confusion.) --Edcolins 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an extensive discussion with the creator of this article, User:Heliumballoon, at the COI noticeboard. That conversation seems to have continued on the Talk page of the article. I am particularly influenced by the comments of User:Tearlach on the article Talk page, that actual favorable comments in reliable sources need to be found, rather than mere passing mentions, for example in blogrolls and in web directories. The current version of the article lacks reliable sources, so it doesn't pass our test for notability. EdJohnston 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speeied. >Radiant< 10:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad_Eatherly

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

There is nothing notable about this person. A tragic death does not equate to notability. Tecmobowl 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. qualifies for speedy under non-notable bios, so tagged. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Cquan, above. While his family has my condolences, we are not an obituary site, and having a building named after you in memoriam doesn't make you notable - general rule, in fact, is that it's the other way around. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• His family would disagree. Meanwhile, I'm trying to decode that last comment. Does it mean that being notable means you'll get a building named after you in memoriam? :) Baseball Bugs 23:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it's not a building...I'm guessing it's a race/fundraiser run named after him? Anyway, you need to satisfy the provisions in WP:NOTE to have an article about him. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of him, so he's not notable. >:) Baseball Bugs 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake, it was a fundraiser. Still, having a fundraiser named after you etc. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete.' Per above, seriously.  The Hooded One  ♠  00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Per speedy deletion instructions, I added a few comments to the talk page. Memphisbrian 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centennial High School (Minnesota)

Centennial High School (Minnesota) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability whatsoever for this school. Just information that should belong to the school's website, not to an encyclopedic article. Húsönd 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell which of the possible high schools you are nominating for deletion.02:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).

Removed the others now. I don't know why they even appeared, that box was automatically generated. Odd. Húsönd 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep — Valid disambiguation page. Improper AfD nomination process for Centennial High School (Minnesota). — RJH (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some bug targeted the dab page instead of Centennial High School (Minnesota) (the one being nominated). Fixed now.--Húsönd 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Possible very weak keep but only if we judge a single hockey championship in a small league to be sufficient for notability. I personally think more is needed for notability in sports, but this may just my opinion. There's nothing else the least notable. DGG 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability isn't contagious. If the hockey team is notable then it should have an article of its own. Not the school where it is from, nor the players' parents, nor anything else that is non-notable but happened to have some kind of association with the team.--Húsönd 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The hockey team is run by the school, staffed by the school, supervised by the school, and its team members are part of teh school; The team is a part of the school. A school is not a building; it is the sum total of all its components. Unless the team is unaffiliated with the school, the team's accomplishments are the school's accomplishments. Alansohn 15:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting theory, I'm not buying it though. A school is a school, a team is a team. The team players are also fed by their parents, their education is sponsored by their parents, and they even came to this world thanks to their parents. And still that doesn't make the parents notable. Húsönd 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Contrary to your nomination, notability is claimed and established. The fact that you have taken it upon yourself to ignore it does not make it go away. By this "logic" any accomplishment by a school can be trivialized and disregarded as merely the accomplishments of the individuals or their parents. The team is not sponsored by the parents, and the fact that they are fed and came into the world thanks to their parents would have to rank as one of the more irrelevant arguments I've ever seen on an AfD. The team is part of the school, not the team members parents; the accomplishments of the team are the accomplishments of the school. Alansohn 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, by my logic any accomplishment by a school can be trivialized and disregarded. In fact, after all this time on Wikipedia, I'm still anxiously waiting to see my first high school article with actual encyclopedic information about the actual school. And yes, my argument was utterly irrelevant as it was a mere Chewbacca defense against an equally unreasonable argument.--Húsönd 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The team is paid for by the school, is staffed by the school, is operated by the school, is named for the school, represents the school, and its members wear uniforms demonstrating their connection to the school and are exclusively students of the school. Articles about the team and its accomplishments refer to the team as representing the school, not their parents or a random amalgamation of players who just so happen to be on the same team. This is no Chewbacca defense; this is reality and an arbitrary attempt to deny it. The team and the school are one and the same -- the team's accomplishments are the school's accomplishments, and ample non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to establish their joint notability. Alansohn 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with above. Don't bother arguing with Alan. Eusebeus 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Wise advice. I've got Wikipedia policy on my side. Will you be referencing Wikipedia policy as it refers to this article this time, or is this just the usual "no school is notable, regardless of the number and quality of sources" vote? Alansohn 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • lol. I believe the next step is that you inform me that my vote is invalid and doesn't count![5]Eusebeus 09:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Questions 1: Answers 0. Will you be referencing Wikipedia policy as it refers to this specific article, or is this just a "no school is notable, regardless of the number and quality of sources" vote? Alansohn 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate teh specific claims of notability made for the school. Alansohn 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. As much as I enjoy disagreeing with Mr. A, I think a state championship confers notability on a school. Minnesota's a big hockey state anyway, so it's like football in Texas. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A state title suffices for notability.--Wizardman 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Thomas Arbuthnot

Henry Thomas Arbuthnot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is the 2nd nomination for this article, the first was back in November 2005 and the result was no concensus, the AfD can be seen [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Thomas Arbuthnot here]. Anyway this biography says he was a Major General. I see nothing further that tells me why he was a Major General or for what it was he was notable. I hope someone can come up with some further information and save this particular Arbuthnot - if not delete it. Vintagekits 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I do not see Google results for him other than the family genealogy website and mirrors of the Wikipdeia article. Granted that his era is so pre-internet, the creater of the article might check military histories of the unit he served with or period newspapers to see if he received substantial coverage. Also is there a record of why he received the distinction of CB? Mentioned in despatches for distinction in command in battle? That would help to argue for a Keep. Just not seeing satisfaction of WP:BIO at this point. Edison 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As per another Arbuthnot AfD: we can't have a Wikipedia page for every general officer ever. Elrith 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think we perfectly well could (at least for a great many of them), if editors would care to assemble the necessary material to show more specifically what they did. But this article doesn't help DGG 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Major Generals and CBs are plentiful, and there is nothing showing why this one is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Giano 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• CB seems to be the very lowest rank within Order of the Bath, and there seem to be hundreds if not thousands of members. Running a small arms factory (Enfield) for a while isn't all that notable in and of itself unless he was somehow responsible for new innovations or something similar. It should be noted that this article is better sourced than some Arbuthnot articles are, but on balance, I'd lean toward a weak delete ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment September 20th, 1888 London Gazette says: "Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel (??) Henry Thomas Arbuthnot, half-pay Royal Artillery retires upon retired pay and compensation, with the honorary rank of Major-General. Dated 21st September, 1888." Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another Arbuthnot in the Royal Artillery - see the rather anonymous William Arbuthnot (artillery officer) (died 1876, and deleted), and the more distinguished Sir Charles George Arbuthnot GCB, 10 years his senior, who was a Captain in the RA in the Crimean War (kept). Perhaps this one is notable because he served in the Crimea in 1854 and then in India in 1857? Perhaps his "series of senior adminstrative posts" would be notable, if we only knew what they were. And what was the "Committee on Small Arms"? Did it select a "new rifle", perhaps? Which one - there are a number of candidates at British military rifles. Clearly the honorary generalship is not sufficient. On balance - Delete - unless evidence of hom doing something notable is added. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps a (referenced) section in Grand River? Neil (►) 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'twas now bridge

'twas now bridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no corroboration in reliable sources. Seems to be just a local in-joke. Eyrian 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Eyrian CredoFromStart ^talk 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "in-joke" ask anyone in the tri-city area and they'll know what you're talking about, thousands of people drive by that bridge daily. How do you reference a colloquialism? If there was an unreferenced article on cockney slang would that also lack notability? There have been two bands named after this bridge (since disbanded, excuse the pun) does that make it notable? Would a picture of it make you happy? There has been more effort put into this article than certain one-line, one-reference articles on the site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.124.155.26 (talk • contribs).

There is a very similar phenomenon, the Surrender Dorothy bridge. That article remains because the graffiti was reported on in reliable sources, and the article is referenced. This article is not. And in order for Wikipedia to remain verifiable, articles must be referenced to independent, reliable sources. Which this article does not have. --Eyrian 15:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a webpage I just found showing an image of the bridge http://www.sidr.ca/i/twasnow... Older picture I think.

There you go, it's referenced in an independant source!--131.104.152.179 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't get that page to load, so I cannot comment on its content. But a simple picture, or self-published description, does not count as a reliable source. --Eyrian 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture proves that it exists, which is the extent of the article. I would say that makes it a very reliable source.--74.124.155.26 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not correct. Read about the reliable source policy. Further, read the notability policy. This article does not fit either, so should be Deleted. -- Kesh 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Photographic evidence is of possible relevance--this is not entirely a word-bound civilization, or encyclopedia. It this case it does demonstrate the the bridge exists, and indicates the source of the photo. That's not enough to show that it's notable to anyone else,, but supplementary visual evidence , such as commercial postcards, might be able to demonstrate that. DGG 04:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe our fellow wikipedian User:Twas Now could have some insight into this... he's from Ontario, so I assume there's some kind of connection. However, I've been close to a dispute about canvassing recently so I'm not sure if it's cool to ask him. CredoFromStart ^talk 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He's affiliated with the university of waterloo. Waterloo is the neighbouring city to Kitchener where the bridge is located. I'm sure this is no coincidence. It's a well known bridge, and commonly referred to by that name.--131.104.152.179 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to refrain from offering my opinion on whether or not this article should be kept. However, it is true that my user name is taken from that bridge. Every time I drive by it, I make sure to read the graffiti. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm from winnipeg, manitoba. I met some people from the kitchener area a few nights ago and they were talking about fishing in the ponds that used to be quarries near the 'twas now bridge. I remember the bridge name and thought it was pretty weird, so I hopped on wikipedia to look it up, and hey! there was an article. I'm sorry to hear that it's been nominated for deletion, there's even a picture to prove it's there! If word of the bridge has reached this far, I think it should stay! --24.79.92.136 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can provide evidence of notability. I tried but Google has five hits, including Wikipedia. Nuttah68 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• A small tech company in the Kitchener-Waterloo area calls itself Twasnow Co. (it might just be one person). Not claiming this means anything outside of a local(s) finding notoriety in the bridge. --Oakshade 06:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil (►) 15:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global education network

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

No secondary sources to establish notability. The problem with Googling for sources is that "Global education network" is a universally used phrase and few of the hits relate to this specific project. For example, promising hits here, here and here all relate to other schemes. Delete. BlueValour 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no indication or evidence of notability. If some are provided I will consider, but any easy method of discovering notability is swamped by such things as the 'Apple Global Education network'. Nuttah68 09:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohmefentanyl

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

This is the second AfD discussion for this article, the first, which resulted in delete at author's request is here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl. The article was recreated shortly after the block on the author, User:Nukclear, expired: [6]. This article is blatantly written like a research paper (e.g. "Results", "Conclusions", etc...) and is completely and near unsalvagably unencyclopedic. There also seems to be an ongoing effort to cleanup copyright violations on the talk page. The user in question is also creating numerous examples of similar articles, which I am listing for AfD in conjunction with this (unless an AfD already exists). A lot of work probably went into these (per number of edits and probably collecting a vast number of sources), so I would rather have it userfied at least for a while so it can be saved, but ultimately it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Other articles for consideration for same reasons:PT, Nocaine, Phenidate. See also AfD for SNDRI. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. Indatraline was included with the SNDRI discussion. There is a proper place for this work. That place is not Wikipedia. DarkAudit 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the topics of the articles in question as they are all valid scientific topics (notable given the number of citations that the user managed to dish out), but they really do need to be gutted out and made into proper encyclopedia articles (my hand has been hovering over the edit button on a few of them, but I think I need a good night's sleep to attempt). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Worthy of inclusion, but not in its current form, which seems to be nothing but a copy-and-paste from a journal article. —dustmite 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite It sounds like an interesting chemical and it would be nice to see an article about it, even a stub, written for a nonchemist. Sci girl 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

*Keep and Rewrite*Keep as rewritten and similarly for the others. The material is transparently taken from a journal article, and not appropriate for WP as is, but any pharmaceutically interesting molecule is worth an articleDGG 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Volunteers? WP:INTERESTING is not a proper argument, and you know it. The article in this form is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. This would be fine in a university research library, but not here. My capabilities of doing it justice with a rewrite are nil. Do any of you three plan on being bold enough to give it a shot? DarkAudit 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm taking out the blatant copyvio stuff and paring it down a lot. Sci girl 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Useless Comment. Wow...she sent it to the guillotine :-P. Good job! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well make sure you spend some time on it. Im too preoccupied with other projects to put the focus on that one. Im a drugschemist, not interested in biological garbage. Infact, I thought the whole point in this molecule is killing people, the poor mans hydrogen bomb :D --Nuklear 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The revised version is just what this sort of an article should be. Nice work DGG 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite There is a lot of good research in Nuklear's articles, and all well referenced. The content is definitely suitable for Wikipedia, just the way they are written is not. I would certainly not recommend deleting them though, just reorganizing and putting any copied material into proper original wording. Meodipt 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator with respect to the article Estland. The nominator says that he still nominates four redirects for deletion, but I believe it would be extremely confusing to fundamentally change the focus of the AfD at this stage. The appropriate target for the redirects can be discussed on their talkpages, or if desired, they can be nominated at WP:RfD. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estland

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

This page is not linked from any main namespace article as it is misnamed. 'Estland' used to be one of old names for Estonia, derived from German. This article was apparently originally created to push the WP:POV that there existed an Estonian state on Estonian territory prior to the Republic of Estonia, which is incorrect; now, this has been removed and all that remains is historical data which is already available in History of Estonia. Digwuren 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I, the original nominator, have converted the article Estland into a disambiguation page, and thus repurposed it into a useful article according to consensus. Consequently, I hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion. Digwuren 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirections pages stay up for deletion at this time. See their appropriate entries for details. Digwuren 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following redirection pages:

Eestimaa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duchy of Estland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Eestimaa Hertsogiriik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Litauen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• I fixed the AfD discussion for you; you forgot to replace "PageName" with the name of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I did. I clicked 'Save page' too early ... Digwuren 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you not listing those four redirects on redirects for deletion?--Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was not aware I should do that. Digwuren 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• They are now listed. Digwuren 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Speedy keep. What do you mean it's misnamed and so forth? It's clearly linked to from many other pages. I see no reason to delete it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

*Merge to Estonia, now that I know the truth per User:Valentinian. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sorry for changing my vote twice, but this is a confusing discussion here. I say keep per [[User:Alex Bakharev now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Everything useful that is currently in Estland appears to have been merged into History of Estonia already. Digwuren 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• With the possible exception of the links regarding the Anvelt's revolution. These, too, should be reviewed and merged. Digwuren 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• It appears I was mistaken. When I first used 'What links here', all I saw were various groupings and categories, not main articles.

I will go through the mistaken references and redirect them to Estonia instead. Digwuren 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have completed this task. There weren't many references. Digwuren 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've long wondered why this one remained about, and it contains nothing that isn't better contained in History of Estonia. Both this article and the Kingdom of Livonia was created by socks of the same banned user, but the difference is that Kingdom of Livonia theoretically could have potential, now that we've got rid of some of its worst excesses. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, "Estland" is simply the German, Danish and Swedish name for "Estonia". Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't see the harm in the Litauen redirect to Lithuania. It is simply the German and Scandinavian name. For that matter, Estland could simply be converted to redirect to Estonia by the same criterion. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding Litauen, but there's a significant problem with Estland. Specifically, it can refer to the historical Estland region (known for a while as the Revel Governorate), or the current Estonia, which includes former Estland and parts of former Livonia. Furthermore, I do not consider disambiguation the proper way to resolve this issue, as disambiguation loses context. Instead, every link should explicitly refer to whatever is proper (which I tried to achieve). It helps that 'Estland' is not actively being used in English. Digwuren 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, my bad, I misunderstood. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, it was my bad. I botched the deletion proposal, causing confusion to happen. I apologise. Digwuren 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Estonia alternate name (German, Swedish). Carlossuarez46 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And Danish, Norwegian, and Faroese ;) Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Eestimaa, Duchy of Estland and Eestimaa Hertsogiriik to Estonia. As for Estland, all of its contents is in other articles already. Change to redirect - or disambiguation page, as there is "Estland" is also the name of a phantom island on the Zeno map" DLX 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 'Estland' should, as of now, most probably redirect to 'Estonia', and the subject matter merged to articles about the history of Estonia, where applicable. As for the source of the confusion, perhaps an altogether separate article would be in order to explain the various current and historical usage patterns of the terms Est- and Liv- / -s, -onia, -onians, ("-land"), etc. Cheers, --3 Löwi 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced original research/POV and redirect to Estonia. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Simply the name for Estonia in most Germanic languages except English. JdeJ 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have pondered, and I am fine with making Estland into a disambiguation page. I still believe the others ought to be deleted, though. Digwuren 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stop this madness – if necessary, by administrator action!

1. This thing is real – and it is not the same as Estonia. It also has separate articles in Estonian (Eestimaa), Russian (Эстляндия)and Dutch (Estland (gebied)) Wikipedias.

   The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition from 1911 calls this entry “Esthonia”.

   Esthonia corresponds to the territories of Danish Estonia, Principality of Estland, Swedish Estonia and the Imperial Russian Reval Governorate.

   Before 1917 the current territory of Estonia consisted of “Estland” and the northern part of Livonia. According to EB1911, in 1897 365,959 Estonians lived in Esthonia, and 518,594 in Livonia. After the February Revolution of 1917 these areas were merged and a national parliament created.

   I really do not know what this article should be called in the English language Wikipedia. English does not seem to be able to distinguish between the state and the province. It could be better to rename this to Estonia (province) or Eestimaa (Estland in Estonian), but no proposal has been made.

2. It seems evident that this proposal was made in bad faith.

   The nominator claimed that the article was “not linked from any main namespace article”. In fact the article had about 30 incoming wikilinks; these were all removed by the nominator on May 23, between 22 and 23 UTC.

   Also, most of the content of the article was removed before the AfD nomination; none of it has been merged to any other article. Here is the original, here the defaced version. I will try to restore the article and possibly improve, but I am afraid it will immediately be vandalized.

3. The real reason for the deletion proposal is an on going effort by Estonian nationalist to rewrite Estonian history, both on and off Wikipedia. The “provocative” content of this article was the (now removed) section on the socialist revolution in Estonia and the resulting Bolshevist state. Nationalist believe that any information on these slimy commie revolutionaries may give rise to the thought that Estonian communist had something to do with the events of 1940, not just the Soviet tanks and artillery. This is of course a very dangerous form on Soviet occupation denialism and must be expunged from Wikipedia!

-- Petri Krohn 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri, can you come up with a some sources to support your views? The article doesn't have a single valid reference (Estland#External links had two links that mention Estland - one was this very same article in reference.com and another was blog link. Britannica article handles just Estonia, using old name. Best link that I could find is Die Estländische Ritterschaft (partial English: The Estonian Noble Corporation) - and even that mentions it at best passingly. DLX 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am not trying to "put you down", I am just trying to find actually some sources that support this. Reval Governorate (see Baltic governorates) seems to be more or less the only time that Northern Estonia was officially called Estland. However - article, if it stays - should firstly mention that Estland is name used for Estonia - and then Estland as Baltic governorate/indistinct historic area. In that case, I would support keeping the article, providing it is properly sourced. DLX 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move and Current name to redirect of Estonia, I am completely fine with having article about that how Northern-Estonia was separate administrative subdivision from Southern-Estonia. I suggest making move to something like Estland administrative subdivision 1227-1917 (i am sure that there are also better name ideas, just you get the idea). Then we could have Estland ((disambiguation), Estland itsselfly should be redirect to Estonia because it is name of Estonia in many languages. Btw, there was no state of Estland as one previous version of article claims. Maapäev declared itsself only highest local authority. At that time nobody considered it to be a declaration of independence of new country. Declarartion of independce came at 24 February 1918 by Päästekomitee which was formed by Maapäev for that purpose at 19th february.--Staberinde 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Petri Kohn: the Dutch article simply means "Estonia (territory)" and has a short overview over the different countries historiclly controlling Estonia. The Russian is the same, just even shorter. We still have no documentation for the use of the name "Est(h)land" in English, and the article's first three lines of text are completely unsourced. In what is now Denmark, a madman declared Als to be a communist republic, but it wasn't recognized by anybody and German police arrested him after three days. If the 1917 administration was universally recognized in Estonia and / or controlled a large segment of Estonia's territory, it should be easy to find numerous references for it. The article doesn't contain any such list. Given the infobox and the very dominating text about 1917, this article seems like an advertisement for something I can't find references to elsewhere. The 1917 paragraph isn't included in the Russian and Dutch texts which essentially is a List of countries previously controlling Northern Estonia. So we have three problems: unsourced 1917 section, an unusual article name, and next to no content. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. You are misrepresenting the Dutch article; it is clearly about Eestimaa, not modern Estonia. Quote: "Estland (Ests: Eestimaa) of het Hertogdom Estland (Ests: Eestimaa Hertsogiriik) was een historische provincie in Noord-Estland". The countries listed are the ones historically controlling Northern Estonia (Estland). In most cases they did not have control over Southern Estonia in Livonia
2. There is no doubt about the fact that the Bolsheviks controlled Estonia until the German occupation in 1918. The question is, were these Estonian Bolsheviks or Russian Bolsheviks. Estonian nationalist would naturally like to portray them as Russian Bolsheviks. Anyway, Estonia before the German occupation (whatever its name was) should go to a separate article. -- Petri Krohn 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no such doubt. They didn't. Anvelt issued a declaration following the doctrine of War Revolution; he didn't have power nor authority, so it's a misrepresentation to say he created a state on the territory of Estonia. Maapäev had authority and eventually gathered enough power to raise an army.

Anvelt's "contribution", however, was artificially inflated in Soviet propagandistic history, including the encyclopædias published under Soviet control, for reasons that should be obvious. Digwuren 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In context of Estonia the country (as contrasted by celestial bodies), 'Estland', if it has meaning in English at all, means primarily Estonia. Secondarily, it may also be considered to be a raw loan from a historical administrative unit, similar to Livland. Unfortunately, as the article was, and as Petri Krohn appears to still think, it attempted to make a clear bijective relation between English 'Estland' and the word 'Eestimaa' used in Estonian language. This is incorrect; the latter word merely means 'the land of Estonia' or 'the country of Estonia'.

Back in the early 20th century -- especially before the Republic --, this word was commonly used to refer to Estonia, and figured into a number of organisations' names, such as the 'Eestimaa Päästmise Komitee' (English: Committee for Saving Estonia) in the meaning of Estonia.

Some Estonian celebrities have suggested renaming Estonia into Estland in English as a public relations project. Nothing has come of it, and I do not think it was notable.

So, still, I believe that if Estland is to remain, it should be a disambiguation page, pointing first and foremost to Estonia and then to Revel Governorate, along with History of Estonia for more detailed description of the geopolitical situation. Digwuren 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Estonia, it is the name for Estonia in some foreign languages like Danish. Martintg 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination by people abusing Wikipedia to push their nationalist mythology. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• What mythology? Digwuren 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical Map of 1790

• Keep and Expand In Estonian Eestimaa is the name of the historical province, that is a part of the Estonian History but has clearly different meaning than Eesti (Estonia). Similarly in Russian historiography the name of the province Estlyandiya (Эстляндия) is different from Estinia (Эстония). I guess the same distinction is in the English-language publications prepared in modern Estonia. E.g. modern guide to Tallinn [7] states:Unlike other parts of the Russian Empire, the Estonian territories – Estland, Liftlan and Kurland, even after becoming part of it, retained their spirit and their “Germanic” way of life for a very long time.. I guess the province is clearly notable and deserve an article, not only because it is a part of Estonian history, but because of its role as a part of Russian Empire. Since I am not the native English speaker I am not sure what is the English name for the province (and frankly do not care much). Estland seems to be the preferential web usage, but e.g. Augustus Kotzebue in his 1805 book English-Language book "Travel to Italy" [8] used spelling Eastland. 1790 Map "A new map of the Northern States containing the Kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway" used spelling Estonia. Thus, I would prefer the name Estland but Eastland, Estonia (province) or even Eestimaa are fine with me Alex Bakharev 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. Eestimaa in Estonian means 'Estonia the country'. References to the historical province are *always* qualified: Eestimaa kubermang.

Usually, use of Eestimaa is considered slightly archaic: it features regularly in texts dating from pre-1930s, as back then, 'eesti' alone was considered adjective in function and thus, in need of a qualifying noun to form a word (or word phrase such as 'eesti keel'); however, over time, 'Eesti' became the accepted short form of the same meaning. Sometimes, it's even used in reference to the historical provinces, producing names such as 'Eesti kubermang' and 'Liivi kubermang', but this is not considered proper in the scholarly circles.

• Your source is worthless. Let me count some mistakes:

• The dark and gray fellow should be spelt 'Järvevana'.
• The lake should be spelt 'Ülemiste'. Using 'yu' instead of 'ü' is indication of the spelling being doubly transliterated through Russian.
• The hills should be spelt 'Lasnamäe'. Using 'ya' instead of 'ä' is, again, indication of double transliteration through Russian.

• Did you note the mistaken use of nominative instead of possessive?

• The name of the cartographer is Abu Abd Allah Muhammad al-Idrisi; usually called al-Idrisi in Latin script.
• "Olvree" is a mishmash. It doesn't even google! The actual name al-Idrisi used was something like Kolõvan. (If you can't pronounce 'õ', try Kolyvan. If German letters bother you, try Колыван.)

(Actually, he wrote in Arabic; his names inevitably need transliteration, and thus, there's some room for creativity.)

• The city was sold in 1346, not 1343.
• Swearing allegiance to Swedish king is factual but misleading. In fact, the city rat asked for protection from the Swedes; allegiance was merely a part of the whole procedure.
• Again, in 1710, the city didn't just "swear allegiance" to Peter the Great; rather, the city capitulated.
• The province of Livonia should be spelt Livland, not "Liftlan".
• It's a gross misrepresentation to call Estland, Livland and Kurland "Estonian territories". Together, these three provinces became most of what's now Estonia and Latvia, and there's some overlap with modern Lithuania. Only the province of Estland and northern Livland are modern Estonia. While a tribe of people that might have been of Fenno-Ugric heritage lived in Kurland (their heritage is hotly disputed), they're extinct or assimilated by now, and the territory belongs to Latvia.
• "Germanic way of life" displays Russian ethnographic bias by the author. Немецкие буквы I mentioned earlier are another facet of the same ... you-know-what. Again, it's incorrect for the context.
• The position was not of high significance for 19th century industrial development. Tallinn's primary industrial development sources have been closeness to a number of natural resources, such as dolomite, a number of forests, and a river (now underground), and these factors have been there, and aided relatively rapid industrial development, for several centuries. In 19th century, the primary contributor to industrial development was the Industrial Revolution, and it didn't really favour Tallinn over other Estonian regions. Tallinn's *position* was mainly convenient for trade, and for defence; these, of course, were factors primarily in the medieval times.
• "Dome cathedral" is yet another of those sucked-out-of-a-pencil horrible misspellings. I'm guessing the writer means Toomkatedraal.
• Saying "The first mentioning of this Gothic-style church dates from 1267." is just careless editing. First of all, the church has burned down repeatedly during the centuries, and thus, been repeatedly rebuilt -- either fully or partially. In 1267, it probably didn't even stand on the location it currently is; its current outlines didn't stabilise until the 15th century. Its current architecture is mostly a product of the neo-Gothic rebuild after the fire of 1820.
• The Baron's proper name is Nicolai von Glehn, not "fon Glen". Everybody who has even *superficial* understanding of German names or language should be able to spel "von" properly!
• The district should be "Mustamäe", not "Mystamya". What did I say about use of 'ya' above?
• "Nõmme", not "Nymme".
• The palace should be "Kadriorg", not "Cadriorg".
• The Niguliste church was built on 13th, not 18th century. The current form is result of restoration works done in 1980s; since Soviet bombing of Tallinn in the WWII up to the restoration, the church stood in ruins.
• The German merchants would spell its patron's name 'Nicholas'.
• "Maarjamägi", not "Maaryamyagi". And "Maarjamäe Palace", not "Castle Maarjamägi".

In summary, the article has nothing to be expanded on. Digwuren 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also Valdemar II captured Lyndanise/Revel/Tallinn in 1219 not in 1210.--Staberinde 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Background info on user who created the article: I feel like I should say a couple things. I was the one who identified and blocked the socks of user:Bloomfield. He created a number of articles, some of them are pure POVs (like some attack articles on "neo-fascists" in Estonia), some of them are not verifiable (like Palemonids that I merged just last night). He is keen on really obscure subjects, obscure spellings, unconventional sources. That does not mean the article is a total crap, but it's a good indication to be double-careful. My recomnedation: delete so that people interested in the subject would have a clean slate to start with. Renata 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of "Esthland"

It is extermely difficult to find on-line references to what Estimaa was called in the English language before 1900. Most likely it did not have a name at all, but was referd to by its German (or Russian) name. Also, there do not seem to be much pre-1900 English literature on Estonia, all the references listed in the EB 1911 article are in German, using the name Esthland.

There are some English language sources using the word Esthland

• Early Kings of Norway by Thomas Carlyle
• Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.
• The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume VI.

The word is also used in some more modern translation, including the Works of Lenin.

It seems to me that the word Esthonia is a result of the late 19th century nationalsit movement and most likely was not used anywhere before 1880. Both EB 1911 and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1906) however use it to refer to Eestimaa. We could in fact place the burden of proof the other way around: can anyone provide a reference or show a use of the word Esthonia in the English language before 1880? -- Petri Krohn 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It seems, that the use of the word Eesti for Eestimaa or Estonia in the Estonian language is a fairly new innovation. Can anyone show a use of the word "Eesti" before 1870?. I posted a similar challenge on the Finnish Wikipedia regarding the word Suomi. (See fi:Keskustelu:Suomi#Suomi -sanan historia) I later found out, that it was used already in 1841 as the name of the Swedish language journal of the Finnish Literature Society. -- Petri Krohn 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making a strawman. Before the national revivals of 1860s, most Estonians educated enough to know several languages, or discuss aspects related to them, spoke German, and thus, called the country Estland (spelt variously). In "border regions", where there was large number of speakers of Latvian or Livonian, speakers of these languages were typically called after their local county, not "Latvians" as such. (And conversely, the modern name for Estonia in Latvian, 'Igaunija', as well as the modern name for Estonia in Finnish, 'Viro', are actually names of nearby elderships; see Ugaunia and Virumaa, respectively. The modern name for Russia in Estonian, 'Venemaa', is more interesting; it is derived from the boats Rus' traders used to cross Lake Peipus.) Digwuren 05:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of ethnicity -- just like that of the concept of race -- being rather foreign to Estonian political and philosophical discourse before the national revivals, any discussion of the Estonian ethnicity, or the Estonian territory over county or eldership limits, would have been rather ad hoc, and thus used to take shapes such as the countryside people (as contrary to urban people, who were mostly Germans or Estonians pretending to be Germans, or this country with all the problems of using adverbs in definitive sense. For example, the first man to use Estonian to write poetry, et:Kristjan Jaak Peterson (whose writings on linguistics were published in a journal called "Beiträge zur genauern Kenntniss der ehstnischen Sprache", by the way), is known to have called himself 'a bard of the countryside people'. You can read his most important poetry in the Estonian Wikipedia's article, and as you can see in them, he routinely used euphemisms rather than a name to refer to the yet-to-be-developed nation. Digwuren 05:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. What is clear, is that Esthland or Estland when used in the English language_{(added 18:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC))} never refered to the whole of Estonia. It would thus be wrong to redirect Estland to Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When used in English, 'Estland' is always a leak from some other language, most often German. Leakwords leak along with their original shadows, which depend on context and thus, in this contextless context, it's incorrect to arbitrarily restrict the meaning. Digwuren 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the very English-language source (Early Kings of Norway by Thomas Carlyle) which Petri Krohn referenced above: "CHAPTER VII. REIGN OF OLAF TRYGGVESON. /---/ Poor Astrid had to fly again, deviously to Sweden, to Esthland (Esthonia), to Russia. In Esthland she was sold as a slave, ..." One really hast to stretch the imagination to conclude, based on this, like Petri Krohn did, that '"What is clear, is that Esthland or Estland when used in the English language never refered to the whole of Estonia". Cheers, --3 Löwi 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "whole of Estonia" in this context? Are you saying the Estland in mid 19th century already had some kind of irredentist claim on Livonia? -- Petri Krohn 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. 'Estland' referred to two distinct concepts: 'the province of Estland', and 'the land of Estonians'. 'Estonian', before national revivals, was somewhat ambiguous category, but it is generally accepted that the border between areas dominated by Estonian dialects and the areas dominated by Baltic languages was not far south from the current Estonian-Latvian border. The southern border of the province of Estland, though, was constructed differently: it was the border of an ancient Danish invasion, and thus defined by military practicalities enshrined by administrative convenience. Thus, the discrepancy. Digwuren 05:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Estland currently means "Estonia" in many languages(German, Danish etc.). Frankreich (france in german) also redirects to "France" in english wikipedia.--Staberinde 14:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian "Eestimaa" does not refer only to that North-Estonia administrative unit. Its is still actively used today like "Eestimaa Rahvaliit"="Estonian people's Union", "Eestimaa looduse fond"="Estonian fund for nature"[9] etc. and always Eestimaa=Eesti(Estonia).--Staberinde 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone doubts that 'Estland' is nothing more than modern Estonia in German or Danish need only go to: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estland or http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estland. Martintg 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Ottoson

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

The article is very trivial and also is not cited --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article may be a stub, but the content does not comply with reasons to delete an article. Are you going to nominate Sascha Konietzko for deletion as well? Mouse is back 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, True but if you go to Sascha Konietzko, and click his on his website, you will find a bio that shows the article to be true. Whereas, in the article Bryan Ottoson, there is mention of a "333" tatoo being on the back of his head, which I can't find a reference for anywhere. There is also a lot of Point of view info in the article. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can find reliable citations that assert notability. Also, just to nitpick, the article should not be written in the past tense ("was a musician"). -- Kesh 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The mention in the American Head Charge article looks sufficient for the subject's notability. Stellatomailing 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVATAR (MUD)

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

Note: I have removed the Gemstone nomination, as it clearly was in bad faith, or incorrectly researched.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) No independent references or assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep while I attempt to sort out notability. It currently is written as an advertisement. However, I recently came across a description of this very MUD (I'm pretty sure) in a scholarly text from 1999 - namely Patricia Wallace's The Psychology of the Internet, from Cambridge University Press. I do not have the text available at the moment, but I should be able to view it tomorrow and comment on it further. The description might be of an influential early MUD, or it might be peripheral. I'll have to see. Of course, there's also the possibility my recollection is mistaken. --Edwin Herdman 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I was doing fine when this AfD was for a single title. However, lumping in a HUGE number of other AfDs with it will mean that they might not get the proper attention. Thankfully, Wikipedia is set up so that the AfDs will simply fail, but if you are serious about wanting to run an AfD on each single article, you should run them each separately, and preferably not all at once so that you have time to make a comprehensive case for each AfD. As noted at GemStone IV's entry below, GemStone IV is simply not an acceptable AfD candidate, in this user's opinion. --Edwin Herdman 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

say I'm also proposing the following MUDs for deletion for no notability and/or no independent refrences: More information may be found at WP:MMO/MU*

Aardwolf (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – Only independent reference is topmudsites, a MUD directory.

Accursed Lands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – Only independent reference is topmudsites, a MUD directory.

BatMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – Attempts to claim notability through popularity. No independent references.

Has press coverage: was covered, years ago, in Pelit (or possibly MikroBitti, can't remember for sure). Likely not the only press bit either and it has, very likely, been covered elsewhere. One of the longest-running LPmuds in existence. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CrystalMUSH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – No assertion of notability, no independent references.

DUM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Legend of the Jedi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Legends of Terris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

LegendMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

LegendMUD was originally co-implemented by Raph Koster. --Hobo Dave 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, LegendMUD is entirely unique due to the fact that each area and the majority of mobs in game are accurate portrayals and depictions of prominent and well respected literature. -- [Greystone]

NannyMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Nanvaent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Have rewritten. Article should now fulfill necessary critera. fluoronaut 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Necromium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Nightmare LPMud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Only assertion of notability is that its one of the oldest continuous running LPMud's, LPMud not being very notable in its own right. Now defunct.

This is absurd. LPMud is very notable and although Nightmare is now defunct, it was a notable example of LPMuds and a driving force in the genre. Not including Nightmare in the Wikipedia would be like excluding the Soviet Union because its now defunct. -- Hobo Dave 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OtherSpace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No claim of notability, no independent references.

MajorMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Only directory listings provided as references.

Materia Magica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No claim to notability (unless you count the unreferened 'widely played'), no independent reliable sources.

Middle Earth Mud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No claim to notability, no independent references.

Mirkwood (MUD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Ditto.

TDome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Tempora Heroica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

One of the longest-running DikuMUDs/CircleMUDs in existence. The only mud ever to run at ibiblio, a significant site. Is also only surviving Ars Magica MUD according to Project:Redcap an online Ars Magica community. --Hobo Dave 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tempus (MUD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

War of Gods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

RivaMUSH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability, no independent references.

Shadows of Isildur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Only has web directory listings as references; no assertion of notability.

Slothmud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No assertion of notability; external links are directory listings and blogs.

Sociopolitical Ramifications MUCK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Awesome name, but no assertion of notability and no indepedent references.

Star Wars Galactic Insights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No N, no V's

StarMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I used to play this and remember it very fondly, however; no independent references, no claim of notability.

The Two Towers (MUD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -No N, no V's.

• Delete, if perhaps somewhat uncomfortably. Huge group AfDs tend to be a bad idea unless the articles themselves are virtually identical, and these aren't. That said, I agree with the nominator's assertation that these have little-to-no claims of notability and lack independant references. In short, none of these would pass an individual AfD by our current standards, nor do they meet WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. Marieblasdell's comment above, and mine, should be proof enough that moving towards a delete at this time of at least two of the articles here is unwise. I would like to move that the AfDs be broken down into individual ones. --Edwin Herdman 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All: Just on the Gemstone article alone - the oldest commercial MMORPG and a multiple award winner, which is asserted in the article - the nom's methodology is sloppy as hell. I'm not familiar with the other articles, but after the GS nomination I decline to take any blanket assertion of non-notability on faith. Nominate them independently and be prepared to defend the nominations independently.  RGTraynor  02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Beyond that, I've just taken a look at WP:MMO/MU*. From what I can see, this is a task force with exactly three members (including the nom) that is exactly five days old, and has categorized a great many games under Keep/Borderline/unacceptable, without seeming to have developed any criteria under which to make any such determination and in a seemingly random fashion ... for one example, listing GemStone IV for deletion while keeping DragonRealms, a similar game with similar longevity and a similar player base run by the same company.  RGTraynor  02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That's correct. Martijn is the one responsible for adding all the items in this list; even within his group there does not appear to have been any other consensus that they should be added. So while there is a group, there is no apparent co-ordination of this project. That doesn't mean they couldn't have co-ordinated it outside Wikipedia (or that I missed something in the edit history, but that's unlikely), which is of course not good policy.

I think what's going on here isn't too sinister, though; Martijn had a very slight trouble (didn't put in the correct category tag, had "MU* games" which I replaced with "G" and it certainly looks cleaner than my first - and so far only - attempt at an AfD, and he might have decided that given how hard it was that it wouldn't hurt to put them all together. My comments on the unsuitability of this process is noted above, of course. --Edwin Herdman 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "sinister," myself. Malicious, no. Careless and ill-considered, yes.  RGTraynor  04:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All: This may be the stupidest AfD I have ever seen. LPMud is not notable? From about 1991-1996 it was the single largest base of mudding. And several of the muds mentioned for deletion are among the most significant examples of LPMud. Xinconnu 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All The articles need to be considered separately, on their merits. As I, and other, have said above, the GemStone nomination alone is enough to cast doubt on the whole nomination. Marieblasdell 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep all and relist seperately - You can't just lump all these together and claim they are ALL non-notable in a single AfD. I think this AfD should be speedily closed, and then each MU* re-listed seperately. But for the record, people who are saying 'X MUD is notable' prove it with reliable sources. DarkSaber2k 07:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Apologies for ruffling of feathers. Although I was helping sorting through the MU* articles, I wasn't expecting any to be taken to AfD so quickly. We made a shortlist of articles we considered non-notable, but they shouldn't have been taken here without being double-checked first. Marasmusine 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. >Radiant< 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? Did youa ctually look at all 30 articles that have been nominated for deletion here, or are you making a judgement call based on AVATAR?DarkSaber2k 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Marasmusine: No sweat. There would be no problem if these AfDs were submitted separately, as noted before. In any case, I'm going to end up looking up a source today. --Edwin Herdman 10:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All Individually some of these deletion nominations might be justified, as a group they definitely are not.--Caranorn 11:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All Same as above. Van der Hoorn 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All As said, some of these subjects are definitely notable even if their articles are currently inadequate. Also, the Gemstone article and possibly some others have had references added since the AFD was placed. Propaniac 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Any volunteers to look through all 30 nominations to see which have had sources added, and evaluate the reliability of any sources that have appeared, and then argue for those specific games here? This should AfD should be cancelled immediately before arguments for and against individual games turn this place into a train wreck. Remember, there's up to 30 articles that could be defended in this AfD. Good luck trying to keep the discussions seperate. DarkSaber2k 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All per the reasoning almost everybody else is saying. They are all separate articles and thus this is completely inappropriate. If this is meant as a serious nomination then I would suggest actually looking at each the articles and nominating the ones that make sense to nominate (rather than copy&paste from a category listing, or whatever it is that happened). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All Several of these MUDs (BatMUD, GemStone IV, LegendMUD, NannyMUD, Nightmare LPMUD, MajorMud, Materia Magica, and Tempora Heroica) are notable examples of MUD development and their inclusion is important to MUD history. If anything, the articles should be strengthened and expanded, not removed. Due to the nature of most MUDs, MUD history isn't well documented by print media and most came into being pre-WWW, so external references are difficult to come by. Often the best references for notability and historical signicance for MUDs is to be found in Usenet archives of the 1990s. --Hobo Dave 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all, clearly overbroad nomination and blanket nominating them won't work. Some of these MUDs are notable (BatMUD, for example, has been subject to extensive press coverage a number of times). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Any chance of getting some of those citations on the article? Marasmusine 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, there's "any" chance. =) The thing is, I can't find the bit I'm looking for from Pelit website subscriber archive right now, but I'm assuming the online coverage of very old issues is not 100%. I really, really wish Wikipedia would have provisions for "the guy who does the sourcing must travel across half the country and comb through decade-old magazines (which, by the way, may not be at hand anyway) by hand" kind of things. But hey, if it's not in Google, it doesn't exist. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, overly broad nomination. Recommend withdrawing and relisting smaller numbers. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest everyone read the second comment by Martijn here. The GemStone IV nomination was a mistake. I'm not sure why Martijn hasn't responded here, but he has on the talk page. The listing of all the AfDs at once was another mistake, in my view, but it was considered appropriate. When these listings come up again, please do not hold the project overseeing these nominations in low regard. It was a simple mistake, no skin off anybody's back. --Edwin Herdman 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He is suggesting the deletion of a number of articles based purely on his own ignorance of the subject matter at hand. As someone else noted, most of the history on this particular subject is specifically covered in Usenet and pretty much nowhere else. Unless you want to suggest Muds as a whole are not notable (which I would argue is absurd), then relying on what you can find in Google as being the sole proof of noteworthiness is absurd. Xinconnu 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Martijn saying that he depended on Google, at least not in the Talk page or the MUD project page. Anyhow, what you've got it one of the fundamental issues with AfD. Some people think that if there aren't sufficient sources now and that if it doesn't seem likely that there will be that it should be nominated as non-notable, and thus it turns into cleanup on demand. I don't feel that way, of course. I've made my case that it's likely they were shoehorned in due to difficulty with the AfD process (of course, I don't support this as a reason). --Edwin Herdman 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the selection the MUDs chosen for this AfD demonstrates a basic unfamiliarity with MUDs and their history. I think editoral comments such as "Awesome name, but no assertion of notability and no indepedent references." are indicative, especially when compared with the MUDs that were not placed on this list, of the subjectivity of this AfD. Those placed on borderline on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU* page could have been just as easily been placed on the AfD list. As I've noted above, many of these articles should be expanded and sourced, not deleted. RetroMUD is an example of a deleted MUD article that should have been instead expanded and sourced. --Hobo Dave 22:38 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of MUDs come from a period where information wasn't kept the way it is now, making historically significant MUDs as hard to source as non-notable ones, meaning a more careful look into individual ones would be much more beneficial. DarkSaber2k 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Sociopolitical Ramifications MUCK ("Awesome name, but no assertion of notability and no indepedent references."); I was using WP:N and WP:V, and it is an awesome name. These comments were never intended to be reasoning for AfD, which was premature. Marasmusine 10:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have every intention of holding this project in low regard as long as they categorize MUDs without displaying any criteria upon which to make such judgments, and as long as they show as little feel for the games they judge as they do. For example, the Gemstone entry (now moved to their "Notable" list) says "References for Gemstone and Gemstone III; perhaps article should represent the whole series?" Mm, yes, if this was a Final Fantasy or Zelda series in which each game was a standalone, barely connected game instead of a single game with nearly two decades of unbroken character continuity. That Simutronics chooses to rename the game after major overhauls they wouldn't necessarily know; that they're assuming what the game's about without bothering to check is a significant downcheck against trusting their judgment.  RGTraynor  07:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The criteria being used was WP:N and WP:V. I intended the list to be pretty rough, to help prioritize where attention was needed. As for Gemstone IV, that's why I checked on the article's talk page; no edits to the article were done, and I can see now where I to III fit in. Sorry you feel my judgement is off.Marasmusine 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All. Editor attempted to prod an article, I removed the prod, asked for feedback and/or further explanation as to what was wrong with the article (see MajorMUD) and received no feedback, just this AFD. As I said on the talk page at MajorMUD: we don't delete bad or poorly written articles, we make them better. Further, the notability guidelines don't really have any guidance for MUDs; these were text-based games of the 80's and 90's, and it's not like Time magazine ran articles on them. I'm not supporting totally unverifiable articles, but mass deletion is equally unacceptable to me. On a side note, I was very tempted to close this early myself, but refrained. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerundino Fernandez

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

Although there are a great deal of claims of notability, there are no reliable sources for the claims. Corvus cornix 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - definitely could be sourced. I found these, in just a short poke around:
  • http://www.guitar-gallery.com/ip/gerundino_fernandez.html
  • http://www.azstarnet.com/public/commerce/zavaletas/greene/bios.htm
• There's also a ton of site that mention him, and his guitars appear to be used by some notable Spanish singers. Given that most of his sources would be in Spanish, which makes them much harder to find, I'd say we should give this fellow the benefit of a doubt - and clean-up. --Haemo 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A book about the guy has been published by a Spanish university publisher([10]). The mayor of Almeria presented the book, referring to Gutierrez as to "one of the most important and internationally acknowledged Spanish guitar makers of recent times" ([11]). Moreover, according to this site in English , beside being "perhaps the finest luthier of all time", in 1988 he was awarded a UNESCO medal for his merits (confirmed here). Most references are in Spanish, but he's cited admiringly in various English blogs and commercial sites. Stammer 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Postlethwaite 11:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fahey Younger

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

Non-notable Australian comedian. While the article details her winning awards, these seem minor in nature. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. I can't find any reliable sources to back these up, and yes, the awards given are quite minor. --Haemo 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I could find no sources for her at all at Google News or Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One show won two awards at the same comedy festival. I wouldn't downplay either award - especially the Barry for most outstanding show during the festival - but winning both in the same year isn't quite enough. Might have given the benefit of the doubt if it had happened this year though.Garrie 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom by Mattinbgn.--VS ^talk 05:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Barry Award [12] and Piece of Wood Award appear notable, and the festival is the premier comedy event in Australia. I've tidied up the article. RS still need to be added. John Vandenberg 12:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, probably notable enough given the awards and appearing in semi-major roles on Australian television. Only just, though. Lankiveil 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Ryan (Luthier)

Kevin Ryan (Luthier) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio, spam. The article was PRODded and PROD2ed, but the creator removed the prods, so here we are. Corvus cornix 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Article seems like a big advertisement. Definitely violates WP:SPAM. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my original prod and per nom. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~EdBoy^[c] 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. What about the multiple, apparently reliable third-party sources cited at the bottom? Stammer 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Two of those supposed third-party sources are hosted on ryanguitars.com. The third is a site where users can talk about what they like or dislike about guitars. Not a reliable source. And definitely not support for the biographical information. Corvus cornix 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Here are the online references from the magazines' sites, [13] and [14]. I am not sure this establishes notability, but I do not share the previous participants' approach to sources evaluation. Stammer 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC). Muriel Anderson says "I have two main guitars, my Paul McGill classic, and my Kevin Ryan steel string". For me that points to notability. Stammer 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Neither of those links goes to anything about this person. And "I use a Kevin Ryan steel string" does not source his bio. Corvus cornix 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you. There is hardly any biographical information in the article. The guy is notable (assuming that the references establish his notability) as a luthier and the article is about his activity as a luthier. That is covered in the references. Are you implying that the articles that are hosted at his site are different from those that have actually been published in the magazines? Stammer 21:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources for any of the information in the article? Corvus cornix 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from the Inheritance Trilogy

Quotes from the Inheritance Trilogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not acceptable as a Wikipedia page. Violates NPOV. Quotes are biased/original research. Only reference is to a parent directory of a forum which is not reliable to begin with and most don't have much significance to begin with. Quotes are not properly attributed to their source (no page numbers or anything about where they can be found). Nothing is written in a formal tone and there are tons of mispellings/grammar errors. pIrish ^Arr! 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikiquote has had an Eragon quotations page, which is already linked to from Wikipedia's Inheritance Trilogy article, since 2005. There is zero need to duplicate Wikiquote in this area, let alone to duplicate it as badly as this. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. Delete. Uncle G 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's Wikiquote for these types of articles. *Cremepuff222* 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Corvus cornix 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Per Cremepuff222. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cremepuff. ~EdBoy^[c] 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. --Haemo 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. —dustmite 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Gimme danger 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator; article has been thoroughly rewritten and referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panorama Software (BI)

Panorama Software (BI) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. This article:

1. Reads like an advertisement. It's a business "specializing in MDX based Business Intelligence solutions." The use of the word "solution" in this nonstandard manner is a dead giveaway of promotional marketing-speak. FWIW, "business intelligence", as our pitiful article on the subject makes clear, seems to be another vaguely utopian and buzzwordy neologism used by software vendors to make their data-gathering software seem wondrously transformative.
2. Is almost free from context. The asserted claim to notability is that this business sold some sort of "OLAP technology" to Microsoft in 1996. What's an OLAP? This stuff requires some explanation or at least links for the uninitated before it establishes sufficient context to claim this business is notable.
3. Is free from references to reliable sources. The only reference given is an external link to this business's website.

Delete for these reasons. See also this discussion of a possibly related page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• OLAP. You can find documentation of this company's sale of technology to Microsoft on page xix of ISBN 1846281741, page 265 of ISBN 0130809020, and page 431 of ISBN 0789713276. Uncle G 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, according to WP:COMPANY, a company is notable if the "scope of activities are national or international in scale." According to this article, it serves customers globally. The reason I'm saying weak though is the lack of content and sources. *Cremepuff222* 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That only applies to non-commercial organizations, and isn't a good criterion to use in any case, because (as the guidelines say) it is only a rough guide to what is usually notable, a shortcut that doesn't always get to the right place. Uncle G 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep so weak it might crumble, because of the same reasons Cremepuff said. It's valid, but needs content and sources. ~EdBoy^[c] 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've cleaned it up some, needs sources. This is a significant second-tier database software vendor with plenty of reliable sources available.

  The background here is that there's a group of image stitching editors, and image stitchers are used to create panoramas. They thought that they needed Panorama Software to be the top of the category Category:Panorama software (then incorrectly capitalized as Category:Panorama Software), and so it was nominated for deletion to get it out of the way, and then somebody decided it should be disambiguated with the (BI). Or maybe the other way around. They're confused. Anyway, now they have Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities, which apparently is supposed to be the category top, but they also have Panorama Software because the AFD was closed as keep since the closing admin could not determine what there was consensus for. (It doesn't help that the image-stitcher editors all have a years-long feud predating Wikipedia.)

  It is my contention that this article should be at Panorama Software and that the stitchers article (which has a dumb name) could possibly be at Panorama software and head up the same-named category. A hatnote can take care of any confusion. They didn't seem to know about that. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. First of all, it's misnamed. It lacks notability, and, as tagged, reads like an advert. We've got two weak keeps and a "keep but it needs sources". This adds up to a "delete", methinks. Unschool 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Being misnamed is a reason for renaming, and does not involve deletion in any way, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And it is best for AFD if your conclusion is your own, rather than a summary of other people's. You say that it lacks notability. Upon what research is that based? How does the subject fail to satisfy our WP:CORP criteria? Uncle G 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: I've added a fair number of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 Zsinj^Talk 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harris Baptist Assembly

Harris Baptist Assembly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; contested by an anon vandalism account with this well-reasoned argument, which whilst compelling fails to address the basic problem expressed in the original prod that this is spam for a campsite. (16 ghits all from non-notable sources or their own website, for those who care about such things.) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7 --Whstchy 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per Whstchy. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, not notable. Corvus cornix 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy A7, so tagged. Charlie 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7 ~EdBoy^[c] 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per above. *Cremepuff222* 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delet. not notable, bordering spam. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shdcllt

Shdcllt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod by author. WP:NFT, WP:OR, WP:V, generally non-notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, more so the WP:NFT --Whstchy 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The author has confirmed here that he and his friend made the game up, thus lacking verifiable sources, and making the article original research. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. Articles need to be notable and backed with sources. *Cremepuff222* 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as something made up in school one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the author of the page up for discussion. I understand your logic for wanting to remove the page, but I want to ask how my article is different from Bullshit (drinking game) besides the point that Bullshit is more popular and well known. That page does not have a verifiable source that I can see, unless I am missing something. This game wasnt made up in school in one day. Its been played for a while in my surrounding area. All i'm trying to do is to get the name out there more. I dont want credit for its invention or any popularity it may gain.

• Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I don't believe that my article is offending anyone, nor is it being used for self-promotion. It is merely posted to give people more ideas for games to play either at party's or while drinking. Please consider this an "occasional exception".Fatmonkey94 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - there are some concerns about the reliable sources guidelines. However, none of them would endorse keeping an article which is clearly made up one day. As per Bullshit (drinking game), if you look at the AfD, you can see that it has some 200-odd Amazon links, and was featured in a book about drinking games. I don't think your game can boast the same. (If you can't tell, I'm arguing for deletion.)--Haemo 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And, WP:V is a policy, and so is WP:OR. I'm sure it's not being used for self-promotion, but WP:NOHARM isn't really a valid excuse, either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that this game cannot claim to have been in books. And you have also brought up the point that I did not notice the AfD of Bullshit (drinking game). Again, you would be correct. So if this page were to be deleted, in order to repost it, all I would need is one outside source that can be agreed upon as reliable?Fatmonkey94 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I suggest if you find (a) source(s) that you post it at WP:AfC, despite you registering an account, to be checked by a regular, with a comment that you're doing it to get it checked. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation. This wasn't speedily deleted before by RHaworth (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on the grounds that the article didn't assert the notability of this club, which would have been a reason to bring this to AFD. It was deleted because it is a copyright violation, a straight copy and paste of copyrighted non-GFDL content: Two pages on the organization's own web site, which even say "© Adelaide EDGE" at their bottoms. There is no prejudice against a proper article being written on this club in the future, using as sources multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the club and reliable. But we don't keep copyright violations. Uncle G 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary club of Adelaide EDGE

Rotary club of Adelaide EDGE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Restored from speedy. Slam-dunk delete, valid speedy, but article author really wants his day in court, so... Unnotable club with 35 members. Herostratus 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article needs actual references, not links to newspapers that supposedly wrote about him and links to vague search results. If there are actual published articles that can be pointed to, I will consider undeleting. W.marsh 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabit İnce

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

Biographical article about Turkish poet fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and possibly WP:COI. Google brings up numerous unique ghits on "Sabit Ince", but they all seem to be in Turkish. Using the advanced Google search to return only sites in English, the list slims down to only 44 ghits, although few of them are actually in English, and none of them establish notability. Article was created by User:Sabitince (who replicates the article as his/her userpage). It's unclear from the article whether Sabit Ince is dead or alive, so it may or may not be WP:COI. There is also a page on the Turkish Wikipedia for Sabit Ince, and it was also created by a user named Sabit Ince. Ford MF 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is identical with the nominated page:

Sabitince (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete, a Turkish poet doesn't belong on an English Wikipedia. It does make sense to have him on the Turkish Wiki, but the poet just doesn't seem notable in the English-speaking countries. *Cremepuff222* 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In fact, notable Turkish poets do belong on the English-speaking Wikipedia, just as notable English poets belong on the Turkish wikipedia. A topic is encyclopedic, or it isn't. There is no such concept as "Notable in Turkish but not notable in English"; Wikipedia aims for the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of Anglophones' knowledge, and so WP:N and WP:V establish no requirement for English sources. Your argument is basically "delete because I lack the required background knowledge to read the potential sources." That wouldn't be an acceptable argument on a math/science-related AfD, nor is it here. cab 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. cab 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment, sorry, I didn't realize that, so I've striked out my vote. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. cab is absolutely correct, a Turkish poet has as much right to be here as anyone. But this one does not merit inclusion. He lacks notability, he appears to have a fairly unremarkable life (for an artist, anyway), and I just don't see it. Two months in prison and dropping out of law school does not make one all that fascinating. Without some notability being demonstrated, delete. Unschool 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, with comment, The language of sources doesn't matter. If he's been written about, he's been written about, regardless of what language it's in. However, this appears to be a biography of a guy writing about himself who fails our guideline for what people we include. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of reliable sources on a simple Google search. Unfortunately, my Turkish is not good enough to create an article so tag it for some expert attention. Nuttah68 09:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Recognizing a name popping up on Google a lot isn't exactly a sterling proof of notability. Ford MF 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. No, it isn't. That's why I qualified by opinion with 'plenty of reliable sources on a simple Google search'. Nuttah68 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Night Gyr and nom. Plus, he may be the one who wrote his article in the Turkish wikipedia as well - COI. Stellatomailing 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to The Universal (song). Srikeit 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Universal

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

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources to verify any assertion, tried looking for some and couldn't find any, so I'm nominating for deletion. DarkSaber2k 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This AfD has been linked to from the games offical forum here. DarkSaber2k 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete current contents. The Universal (song) belongs here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; no independent references (WP:V), no claim of notability (WP:N) Marasmusine 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Is a Offical Game recongized by http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/universalcombatonline/index.html and others. Midnight 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment No, that link is for a game called "Universal Combat Online", made by a company called 3000AD. Marasmusine 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. Are these sources any useful?[15]

[16] [17] [18] [19]VDZ 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll address these one by one:

  [1] - softpedia.com - directory listing and download site (trivial) with user-submitted review (not reliable)

  [2] - gamesdex.com - user-submitted directory listing (trivial, not reliable)

  [3] - betawatcher.com - directory listing (trivial)

  [4] - 3dgamers.com - directory listing (trivial)

  [5] - demonews.com - directory listing (trivial)

  So, not useful I'm afraid. Marasmusine 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this. It's just the usual collection of link sites we always get presented with as 'evidence of 'notability'' when one of these article is up for deletion. They are exactly what I found when I tried to look for sources before nominating the article for deletion, and it is because I could only find pages like those that I nominated the article for deletion.DarkSaber2k 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not going to participate in this AfD one way or the other, but I did remove the Keep from User:Vikingzaroba as it did not present any reasoning, but rather was just a personal attack on 2 of the above editors. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  As for Vikingzaroba's removed comments, well, looking at his user page, I'd say there's a clear conflict of interest and I'd ask him to read WP:N and WP:V (the reasons why it is being AfD'd) and WP:COI. And WP:CIVIL. Marasmusine 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: I would like to note that due to the relatively small nature of the game community, and the generally unknown nature of the game, that there aren't any third party sources for a very good reason. It's not big enough for most review sites, or anybody who doesn't play, to really care about. Thus the only people who would make reference material for the game are by necessity players of it. I feel this should be taken into consideration. 24.138.20.223 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Keira47 on The Universal forums. — 24.138.20.223 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

Mmmm, fresh meat! And by the way, if the game really is not big enough for most review sites, or anybody who doesn't play, to really care about. then it shouldn't have an article here. We have WP:NOTE inclusion criteria, and a verifiability through reliable sources policy for a reason. DarkSaber2k 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A search of "The Universal, -Wikipedia, +game" on a search engine reveals little content about the games. The only ones I can find are "directory" sites which hold a database of most games that are made anyways. Since it hasn't been mentioned by any reliable sources, I'd say it's not notable.--Kylohk 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing, popularity cannot be used to assert notability. Even when something is very popular within a community, it might not be noticeable in the world if no 3rd party sources mention it.--Kylohk 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacking in third party non-trivial coverage. Wickethewok 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep. first of all cquan, i only said that they should read the pages and goto the site instead of making judgements on stuff they know nothing about. it is complete bs that you people who know nothing of the game are gonna sit here and try to dictate wether or not it can be here. also, you are not an admin or anything, so don't act like one by deleting others comments in order to get your way. there are MANY internet games on this thing, many pages that have much less info. do these harm any of you in any way? if not, then why are you going out of your way to delete this one? it seems to me more like you guys just want this entry deleted fo the hell of it. either that yor you just had a bad experience in the game and instead of solving the problem on the forum or accepting punishment for rule breaking, your just taking your anger out here. Vikingzaroba 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) — Vikingzaroba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If there are many internet games on Wikipedia that are not notable, it would be a matter of time before they are found and nominated for AfD too. The nomination was made in good faith, it's likely many of the posters above have not even touched the game. Also, if not many people know much about the game, it's not the responsibility of Wikipedia to make it known. It's the responsibility of independent sources like gaming review sites to make it notable, and that is required for an article to appear in Wikipedia.--Kylohk 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • even if that is tryue, instead of deleting it, its better to fix it. the game is on many gaming websites, you just have to search for them instead of assuming it isen't on any. you guys are also assuming it isen't well known just because you haven't heard of it. just because it doesn't have a high player count doesn't mean its not well known. it just means not many people stay to play it or aren't very active. hmm...13000 registered accounts on the forum, and i think well over 10000 registered accounts at any one time in the game. it would be many, many, many more, but unused accounts are automatically deleted to save on file space and bandwidth. Vikingzaroba 16:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)— Vikingzaroba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • hey look, heres a game that is absolutly nothing compaired to The Universal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_descent. it doesn't even have any links or anything else on the page, and even the games owner has pretty much abandond the game, so why don't all you guys go hassle them instead of harassing us dedicated, helpful, happy people at The Universal? Vikingzaroba 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)— Vikingzaroba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • Done. Any other articles that have been overlooked to recommend? DarkSaber2k 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• You say that the game is mentioned by many gaming websites. A simple search engine check revealed little mention of it. Can you please give some specific examples of reliable sites that have mentioned it? For instance, has it been reviewed by IGN or Gamespot? Or any other notable gaming magazine?--Kylohk 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked. It has only the usual user submitted reviews on Gamespot (non-reliable) and nothing on IGN. DarkSaber2k 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• well, apparently most of the sites i can give would be unreliable when it comes to your standards. so it'd be a waste of time. is PC Gamer considered a reliable source to you guys? The Universal was featured in issue 143 which was released around xmas of 2004. it was also in a non-us gaming magazine in early 2006. i'll have to see if i can find its name on the forum. (p.s. this is the 4th tim i'm typing this. damn edits!) Vikingzaroba 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PC Gamer is a reputed magazine in gaming. But the question is, what was said about the game? Was it a review, preview? How detailed was it? Link it if possible.--Kylohk 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • a year and a half before that the game had a 2 page review in the mag under its old name of A-Tractor. i'll have to see if i can find a scan of it. Vikingzaroba 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

      Is that the UK or US version of PC Gamer? Marasmusine 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

      • i believe it was in the UK version both times it was in PC Gamer. Vikingzaroba 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Just in case MPOGD is reliable.[[20]] [[21]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.96.164 (talk • contribs).

It isn't. Directory listings are trivial sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 04:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per DarkSaber2k. Sephylight 23:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:N and WP:V. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to University of Oxford. The categories can go to a template deletion venue. - CygnetSaIad 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford University Orienteering Club

Oxford University Orienteering Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page for deletion because it doesn't mean the standards of WP:ORG, and the only reference I could find to it was [22] which I consider a trivial mention at best. I'm also concerned that these two categories are a problem: Category:Oxford student societies Category:Oxford student sports clubs. Oxford University is a fine old institution, but not every club and association deserves an article on Wikipedia. I suppose some might, but there's got to be a limit. FrozenPurpleCube 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect, into University of Oxford. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to University of Oxford. There should be a section or a link regarding the various clubs/organizations. Alone, this is nowhere near notable enough. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim or indication of notability. Wikipedia does not need to maintain lists of student clubs for each university. Nuttah68 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy Funding

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

The article (and related articles: see below) appears to exist solely to promote this company (a hard money lender), its CEO and its charitable tennis tournament, contrary to WP:NOT#SOAP.

The subjects of these completely unsourced articles fail the general notability criterion and primary notability criterion for organizations and companies in that none appears to have been the subject of secondary sources or non-trivial press coverage: there are plenty of Google hits and some minor coverage at local media websites, but the media coverage all carries the byline "PRNewswire" (see PR Newswire), which means that the content is a paid press release. The rest of the hits are on pages on the company's own websites (variously named), or else to seemingly promotional posts on Google Groups and various chat boards.

While failing WP:N is not itself a reason for deletion, the absence of secondary sources or independent, non-trivial press coverage:

• a) tends to reinforce the impression that the pages exist for promotional/advertising purposes (as does the tone of the articles, which read like lists of achievements or resumes, and also the fact that two of the three articles have been edited almost exclusively by two possible WP:SPAs whose only contributions have been to articles relating to this company)

• b) suggests that the articles are probably OR and/or have WP:COI problems

• c) makes it impossible to rewrite to articles for WP:NPOV, which would have been a preferable alternative to nominating the articles for deletion

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Jeffery Wolfer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A7 -- John Reaves (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Funding Invitational (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Rrburke^(talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11--Whstchy 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11. So tagged. I'll look at Wolfer and the Invitational as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. My !vote to G11 the Kennedy Funding article stands. The article for Jeffery Wolfer should also be speedied, but under A7. For the Invitational, simply delete. I'll watch the image. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak keep pending better sourcing for the company--we seem to have the same problem with businesses that we do with Turkish poets--we do not understand them. On that basis I have removed the tag to ensure a fuller discussion. I doubt that the man is N, so I've left it. DGG 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Squire

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

I guess this is a biographical article? Except it's not really about a person, just a non-notable event the person founded. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. Ford MF 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. One local press story doth not notability make. Incorrectly namespaced and no assertion of importance. Though kudos for the charitable efforts. tomasz. 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nice to see people doing good things for their communities, but single local events aren't really encyclopedic. Interesting that it's copyrighted, though. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. And I doubt it's a valid copyright, what they want is a trademark. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To the editor: under the Berne Convention copyright is inherent, but you have to file with the government to have an enforceable trademark. Nice try, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, though I'm at a loss for a good reason. The article is not at all about Ms. Squire, the article is (at this time) apparently about a food-and-fund raiser event that is ostensibly copyright and trademarked to Ms. Squire - and even then, it is such in brief. On top of that, I'm not sure what is to be considered copyright - are they trying to claim copyright on an item in Wikipedia? =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete apparently a high-school cafetaria worker. She's not even mentioned in the linked-to article about the event (a school fundraiser) which she supposedly inspired. Even if the event is notable (and based on the presented facts, it isn't), then it would get an article at the title Pastarama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a copyvio--the article is actually says it is copyright on its face. DGG 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but a copyvio of what? I mean, you can't copyright an event. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 22:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crowd Deterrent

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

Non-notable musical group basically sourced only to a myspace page. Fails WP:N (WP:BAND, rather) and WP:RS. Ford MF 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. --Whstchy 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beno1000 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Interesting amount of low-level buzz about them, and apparently they did participate in a couple of compilation discs, but I don't see anything that helps them meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. --Random ^{Say it here!} 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Eagle 101. Non admin closure of AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower benefit consultants

Tower benefit consultants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:SPAM and fails WP:CORP. Ford MF 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom - no outside coverage to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G11 (spam), so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. PeaceNT 05:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Peter's RC Primary School, Plymouth

St. Peter's RC Primary School, Plymouth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, no notability asserted, mediocre Ofsted assessment (3 on a 1-5 scale). Delete recommendation. Bridgeplayer 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I removed the Speedy notice as this doesn't fall under CSD:A7, but agree with nom--this small primary school isn't notable. Owen× ☎ 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Plymouth to assist those who may want to research the topic (or re-start a similar article). Yamaguchi先生 07:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bridgeplayer 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Plymouth. The Plymouth page has a small section on the local schools and this content could easily be incorporated there. Dahliarose 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, and don't merge per WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riot-Folk! Collective

Riot-Folk! Collective (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cooperative that puts out its members' music (for our purposes, a record label). Article cites no independent reliable sources. 121 unique Google hits, none of which are non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Google News Archives gives two hits: one piece that talks about the group in the first person and so is not independent and the other which is an article about a member that merely mentions the collective. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No reliable citations to support notability. -- Kesh 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless credible sources can be provided.--JayJasper 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and delete this version without prejudice. Article may be recreated from the userfied version if/when notability concerns have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As a side note, in reviewing this, I'm somewhat concerned about vanity and OR issues. Material is taken from first-hand interviews with the subject by someone seemingly quite close, which presents OR and COI concerns. I would suggest that before reposting, several experienced editors review for these types of issues. AKRadecki 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adriana de Barros

Adriana de Barros (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet notability standards for people. Appears to be vanity. -- Merope 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This reads a bit like a resume. Reference WP:AUTO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you review the actual artwork, "visual poems", the link refs you'll see how her work is distinguished online and why it was awarded and featured for many years. Why it is different and worth reading or seeing. Do a Google search about the artist and you'll see. She combines various disciplines into her projects, providing uniqueness to her creations. She has also launched an online magazine, Scene360, which provides free articles within art, literature, film, and web for all readers. And her illustration and poetry has inspired many people. If that isn't notable enough, than I'm not sure what else is required to fit the criteria. Breathe200 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the comments above. We have placed third party links into the article, this to provide authenticity of facts. Awards, visual poem mentions, interviews on third party sites.Breathe200 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Breathe200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It still sounds li ke a promotional article, and I am still not seeing how Adriana is notable. My !vote stands as is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the basis of the awards listed in section 3. But it needs better documentation.DGG 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With much consideration to comments on wiki discussion, we have added refs, and citations, and more. We've made many changes to improve the article. Breathe200 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • ...are you her publicist? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No, I'm not her publicist. If you have any constructive criticism on how to improve the article to Wiki standards, please advise. Thank you. Breathe200 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The standards we're going to work from are going to be primarily notability, verifiability, and reliability of sources. In Adriana's case, the policy at WP:BLP will also apply. Another thing to consider as well is that, per my original !vote, it looks a lot like a promotional article - in fact, I initially thought the article was autobiographical. (Also read WP:COI for that one.) See, we're not looking for something that necessarily makes a person look good, we're looking for something that explains who this person is - and why they're notable. See WP:NPOV for that note. I'll post a welcome template in your talk page - this will give you some other pointers to work from. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Dennis, Thanks for your comments and links. I will review them in hope to improve the article. I'm a bit confused what the problem is, that is why I asked. There are facts in the article that are biographical to give historical refs and a timeline to understand the person's work and what they have provided of substance to the community. I first reviewed other web designer and artist articles on Wiki to see what your project looks for, and how the content should be displayed. We thought it was within format and not supposed to be "publicity". I even spoke with Adriana, to get more facts and quotes to make this more human, releastic, first person comments from interviews as sources. For example she wanted to be a filmmaker, and she isn't one. So this is realistic note from her bio, and not at all positive or putting her as a superhero. She didn't pursue her dream, but has managed to make small films in flash, and those have really inspired many people. They have not been commercial films...The reference of Scene 360 is another example, non-commercial over the years, many articles written for free. And I think many more readers coming to Wiki can learn about 360 and read web related article, design, film...and it isn't about Adriana. I always thought that the point about being "Notable", is someone who is remarkable, has something positive done to show to others. So the notes in this article are not to make this person just "look good," but rather show what she has done and why it is notable or worth reading about. When providing information, especially for notability reasons of an artist, it seems impossible to write without showing positive examples. Nonetheless, I will review your further guidelines to make fixes. If you read most profiles on wiki, almost all make the person sound like they are good at what they do, that is why they have been noted by others in the first place...in books, sites, etc. (e.g. Joshua Davis, Floria Sigismondi...). It is unavoidable, if you are writing about someone who's done many things, and you list it. The work should speak for itself in the end, and people will see if it is what it is. I thought that was the point of providing the article, to share more info about someone. Breathe200 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm currently reviewing the guidelines you sent Dennis, to adjust the article so that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to ask if the citations and reference/sources are appropriate/suficient? I had to research and speak with the Adriana to get evidence of facts to note on this. A funny thing about submitting to Wiki, is that I was reading on WP:COI "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." From someone who is new to Wiki and is trying to submit an article (yes I possibly didn't submit correctly, I apologize but didn't even think it would appear as publicity or something less than information and writing about an artist and connected projects. I based the info on information found online to add into the article. I had reviewed various accepted articles on Wiki as template and thought it would be okay to submit similarly.) I understand there are policies and they need to be respected, however I did not find the initial comments motivational or helpful. This definitely works both ways, and a policy is not only for the submitter but for the person putting an article in question. So I would like to work together and not against, so that I can write more articles and participate in this project. Thank you. Any further advice to improve the article is appreciated. Breathe200 18:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dennis, can you please review article to see if it is fine, or if there is something specific I should work on? I've taken out original research, I thought I could write openly based on things I read about a person. I've kept to the facts, and have linked to the refs/sources on each part of the article. I've also gotten permission to put parts of Adriana's official biography up (which I had already previously based as source/real facts), under quotes, and they're linked to references too (for veracity and also ref. credits). I've also read some more guidelines, those that you sent me today. Thanks. Still need to finalize the reading this weekend, but have realized what some of the mistakes were, and made changes according to that (i.e. added a quote from an interview to verify a comment I wrote about the visual poems and the intent of the artist in making it. In addition to some other changes now with links to refs). I hope it has improved substantially. Breathe200 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - smacks of self-promotion. Biruitorul 06:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is very easy for anyone to log on and say "delete". Aside from Dennis and DGG, I would hope that those questioning the article can in fact pinpoint specifically what can be improved and where. I've made further changes based on comments about "publicity", which isn't the goal of the article. I've based much info from refs online and bio of the artist, so some might have sounded more publicity than it was meant as it was based from references. I hope the article has improved. If you have anything to address, please give hints to what is wrong. For example, DGG stated there were lack of refs to the Award section, and I've tried to fix by including a "reference section". Sometimes I add more thinking that will make the article better based on comments, and right after I'm attacked about "publicity". If the article requires proof of facts, I've been doing that. I do not think verifying facts is publicity at all. Breathe200 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's still more of the same. Most of it is quoting articles and interviews - that would be copyright violation, and that alone would be grounds for speedy deletion. The only improvement I can suggest is to not make it look like an advertisement. I might suggest sticking this in your user space to work on it, and go from there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable. Huge vanity article. Stellatomailing 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Dennis. I was open to fully rewriting the article and not give up because of a few comments. This is like an attack column. Is the artist on trial, this isn't a court case. People have opinions. Fine, but give a chance for things to evolve and grow. Or else who will write for wiki? I'm okay with helpful comments, but one-liners do not seem to contribute to anyone writing a article. I would like to write about a musician after this one. If this is to be deleted than do. Otherwise, if I have a chance to rewrite to fit site's goal, than I will try to do that. Wiki is not a circus, it is not a vanity press, so please bear in mind your comments are contributing to a gossip column. People use the "delete" talk as a form of expressing their frustrations and being mean. Be helpful, be positive to those submitting. Dennis's comments have helped me understand what the problem is. Breathe200 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dear Breathe, that's not the case. The current point this person is in her career does not ensure in my opinion her inclusion in Wikipedia. When she becomes famous enough, she can have an article. Even the inclusion of several links and the additions to the article does not seen to assert the central point discussed in the deletion, that is the importance of the said person.

Stellatomailing 18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Stella, if you and others actually contribute with comments in this manner, I can understand the problem of the article and make changes to improve the reading and not appearing as an ad or as something else that has been commented. My goal has never been to write an ad, laugh, it seems like I'm writing one which ever way I direct or change it. I do, however find some comments lacking "good faith", or not even positive of Wiki's mission and actually go against it with notes about "vanity" (read policy about that). I will try to understand the comments, and some I respect as they've provided some guidance on the issues. What I have been doing is trying to understand the problems, and make edits to improve the information. I will attempt to rewrite this fully in my own words based on research I have already done. I will take out the quotes and comments that infringe copyright, I actually thought that citations could contribute to verability as that was an initial comment and I tried to resolve that matter. If I can get this improved; I will. I have tried. If I can please the court (smile), I'll surely try to write the next article about the musician who I find of interest too, as well as contribute in other existing articles. What I ask is how can I improve the article at hand? Be specific. What would you like to know about this specific person to centralize and assert the issue of information or notability? Are the art examples problematic, is there a paragraph? What exactly? I look forward to your response. Thank you. Dennis has given me helpful hints, and I'm already rereading wiki policies and also rethinking how to edit this. Breathe200 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I add this to my user space? Breathe200 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Breathe, my personal opinion based on the policies is that Adriana is non-notable; I do not think the article itself is at fault, just that the importance you are attributing to the person is not enough to add her to Wikipedia - this is the base of my "Vanity" comment. Other users opinions may differ. Stellatomailing 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You mean this discussion or your article about Adriana? Stellatomailing 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dennis mentioned adding this to my user space to work on, the article. I'm not sure how to do that. Breathe200 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh. Copy the entire article, click [23] and paste the article. Stellatomailing 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You can also create a sub-page for your userspace. Edit your user space (by clicking on the red-linked username of yours), create a link by surrounding some text with brackets, save it, you'll get the red link that will be your sub-article. Click on the red link, and there you go - an edit page. Paste your work, save it, and vavoom, you have it on your user page. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Modified slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will do this. Do I leave the current article online as I edit on the user page? I suspect the user page allows for me to edit and ask for comments before publishing. Breathe200 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, leave the current one alone, and we'll get it from there. As far as the userpage one, you will be able to edit it however you want, and you can encourage others to comment as well. Check those links on your talk page that I posted for you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Dennis, thanks for the hints and help. I've read more of the guidelines you sent (manual style), and have been making changes to the userpage version. Specifically with notes you've given me, in mind. How do I ask for comments to the userpage article? I'm not asking for feedback already today, but in a day or so I should have some changes. Just want to make sure it is a step forward to wiki-happy readers (smile). Breathe200 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Check out the {{helpme}} template. It might get you feedback directly - it will more likely, though, get you a pointer to feedback. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been significantly improved since the beginning of this AfD. It now has 23 references and multiple external links showing the subject is notable. Great job by Breathe200 to fix it up. Paxse 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The reason given for deletion was incomprehensible. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colegio La Salle La Colina

Colegio La Salle La Colina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notation Guillo7x 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XPAF

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

This software product does not meet WP:CORP. No secondary sources are given in the article. A Google search revealed only a few web sites that claim to be designed using XPAF, but nothing that could establish notability. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. When searching for references on the web, note that there is as well a printing utility by Xerox named XPAF. Use "XPAF -xerox" in Google to see the relevant results. --B. Wolterding 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no evidence that anyone uses XPAF. Novalis 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources provided, none found in the usual places. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article is crap. But there is a website on XPAF that looks fairly professional. But the website confuses me. Is XPAF a company or a product? Unschool 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a company website; but what we need for notability is independent sources, i.e. others writing about this company or product. --B. Wolterding 07:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only evidence I could find of anything called XPAF was a separate product for Xerox. Even the one ostensible outside site just speaks of a merger and refers back to the XPAF website.Unschool 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that was already mentioned. Did I mention that I'm a bit slow on the uptake? Unschool 07:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Henderson (writer)

Robert Henderson (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally unsourced, and I can't see how this individual is notable. Minor notoriety on a newsgroup doesn't make the individual encyclopaedic. Js farrar 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Posts to a lot of blogs, but the media seem uninterested. Fails the notability guidelines, as not covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The "Is It In The Blood?" essay in Wisden Cricket Monthly really was a big deal at the time and even made news outside the UK. The article does need sourcing however and could be pruned rather dramatically removing unsourced claims about political and racial views under WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems some of Henderson's views on race can be seen in the source provided by Loganberry. Change vote to keep-- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The essay and subsequent controversy in WCM, the front page story in the Daily Mirror published on 25 March 1997, a similar story in the Daily Record [24] and the court case brought by a couple of England cricketers all make him notable outside 'minor notoriety on a newsgroup'. Nick mallory 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Mattingbn including the part that the article made news outside UK. But I suspect that apart from that one paragraph, the rest is not worth being in the article. Tintin 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep under the assumption that the sources mentioned will be added to the article. DGG 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs a good deal of editing as well as proper referencing. As far as notability goes, Mike Marqusee devoted a chunk of his book Anyone but England to the affair. (Available on MM's website: [25]) Loganberry (Talk) 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with due reluctance, but needs to be put in the wider context. Johnlp 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable for the Wisden controversy alone, even if nothing else. It was very big news in the UK at the time. AdorableRuffian 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Liccachelli

Prod contested without improvement to the article. Subject (presumed to be living) appears to be non-notable, with no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, thus failing WP:A, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. Burntsauce 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep providing sources can be found and the article improved, delete otherwise. He did have a noticeable (if not particularly successful) run in the then-WWF, but the article in its current form is certainly not up to snuff. --Finngall ^talk 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are inconsistencies, for starters his real name is spelt, Ray Liachelli then at one point in the paragraph, it changes from he to she!! Further google search reveals the name correct on his onlineworldofwrestling.com profile. Next I went through a load of websites and they were all just lists, there was no real solid information for this person. Unless anyone is prepared to do some real research and add citation, as well as starting an article with his name spelt correctly, I suggest that this be delete also. Govvy 09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice due to cited WP:BLP issues. The page can be recreated at a later date if verifiable sources can be identified. Yamaguchi先生 06:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to point out that an unregistered user did attempt to improve the article after removing the PROD (albeit in a manner not suited to Wikipedia) but the nominator simply wiped the edits and reinstated the PROD (before being notified by a more experienced editor of the correct procedure). However, that aside I will advise Delete because of previous identity confusions regarding the article's subject due to lack of verified information. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BlastOButter42 says it best, this stuff belongs on the individual book articles... compiling all of these into a single article is odd and not really needed. If anyone needs this content for merging I will userfy it, assuming it isn't a copyvio as argued below. W.marsh 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen King's inspiration

Stephen King's inspiration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has a number of problems. First, it is redundant per the various articles on the books (and incidentally the covers fail WP:FUC in this article). Second, the suject of the inpiration is covered in a very short para, a throwaway remark that belongs in Stephen King. Third, it reads as original research, althoguh there are osme citations. It has the appearance of a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge the individual book sections to the entries for the appropriate books. Since the inspiration for each book seems to be different, there's not a common theme here; if King was on (sourceable) record as saying, say, all or most of the books were inspired by a particular incident (as with, say, Kurt Vonnegut) I could maybe make a case for keeping it separate to stop the main article on the author from getting too long, but that doesn't apply here — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A delete and merge isn't a valid option in most cases since the GFDL requires a history of edits be kept. So the choice is to delete, or keep in some form, even if just a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to appropriate novels as necessary, and, because there is no one novel that one can redirect to, a deletion might have to be in order. Note, had to replace the AfD tag - looks like JgZ accidentally struck it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you can't delete, the GFDL requires a record be kept. In this case, if a split to the various novels/stories is warranted, a redirect to Stephen King would serve with a clear description of the splitting. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I didn't think of that. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Stephen King is a pop culture phenomenon, and the questions of his various inspirations is one oft asked of him at events at which he appears; I recall King once mentioning that the majority of the mail he receives includes, at least in part, some question about his ideas. Merging this into all the various books would eliminate the ease of simply pulling up this one article.Timmybiscool 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but merge anything not already repetition to the articles of the novels in question. Having a separate article covering his inspiration for all novels is very much a loose collection of information. A1octopus 11:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Each novel already has an article of their own, and this information belongs there. Elrith 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect page to Stephen King. Move parts of the article to the individual book articles. --Whstchy 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Most of the books he written have their own articles. So the best idea would be to take each individual section and merge it with their corresponding book article.--Kylohk 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Elrith. Pavel Vozenilek 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Well referenced, though the it is possible to merge the information into the book's articles themselves. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. King's inspiration as a writer has used up acres of newsprint and seems to be a fascinating topic for both fans and detractors. The article is very well referenced and fairly well written (with some messy parts). I can see some merit for an encyclopedia of WP scope including this information given how prolific and famous the author is. Checking a few of the individual book articles, merging could be problematic - Carrie for example is getting quite long already. However, if the article is kept it needs some TLC to give it a more consistent tone and incoming links from each of the individual book articles - only three are linked at the moment. Paxse 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- A lot of the information there is copy/pasted from the "inspiration" links from his website. Content there is copyrighted, and a good portion of this article looks subject to copyright violation, even though it provides the link. Simple references (for example to Inspiration Page for Eyes of the Dragon) on each article would suffice in place of this, where the information is available. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure where the copyvios are -- perhaps you could point them out, wizzard2k? Paxse, I agree with you. The article is well-written, fully referenced, and interesting to read. Unless there are copyright violations, which I cannot find, it should be kept. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Every section that starts with something to the effect of: On his official web site, King tells how he came up with the idea for Insert bookname here.

• Stephen King's inspiration#'Salem's Lot
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Stand
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Long Walk
• Stephen King's inspiration#Cujo
• Stephen King's inspiration#It
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Eyes of the Dragon
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Dark Half
• Stephen King's inspiration#Needful Things
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Regulators
• Stephen King's inspiration#The Storm of the Century
• Stephen King's inspiration#From a Buick 8

all appear to be copyvio either from the printed books, or the website. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reason to have the inspiration for each of his novels on one page, instead of in each article about the books. Having the inspiration for a novel in the article about the novel makes sense, since it tells something about the novel. But what purpose does consolidating the inspirations for all of his books into one article serve? To tell something about Stephen King? Maybe, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. A paragraph or two in Stephen King about his inspirations and giving a couple of examples would be better suited for that job. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wesi

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

Prod removed by anon IP (on last day of tag no less). Article is about an acronym which I can find no reliable sources to verify its use. Google searches for both Western English Speaking Isles and WESI turn up no results for this term. Wildthing61476 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pointless, can we speedy it under A1 as well? --Whstchy 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No. It has context. It is simply original research. That comes through AFD. Uncle G 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Daithiquinn (talk · contribs) had a novel idea, and came to Wikipedia to publish it first, as evidenced by the very first edit to the article, where xe states outright that this material has no source to back it up. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for novel ideas. Delete. Uncle G 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, neologism. One has to wonder why speakers of Gaelic would prefer this over the British Isles. Corvus cornix 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was a wintry delete per obvious precedent. Krimpet (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of People Shot by a Sitting US Vice President

List of People Shot by a Sitting US Vice President (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Really only serves to trumpet the incident last year, already well covered at Dick Cheney hunting incident. Really trivia, in the grand scheme of things. Not *quite* a recreation of previously deleted material, but older related debates can be found here, here, and here TexasAndroid 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - far too narrow a category to be of any use. CLW 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No need for this useless article. Elfin341 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as argumentative and useless, even if it were changed to any VP anywhere anytime it would be unnecessary. Even a "List of politicians who personally killed people" would not be all that great. --Bejnar 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Clift

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

Vanity article - all major edits are by User:Pclift, who has previously removed a speedy delete tag from this article. I don't feel that this subject meets the notability guidelines for professors. CLW 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, there's quite a bit out there by this fellow. A Google News Archive search shows a number of results regarding his Indus River studies and one BBC article, and Google Scholar turns up quite a few papers he's authored or co-authored. To me, that edges up on WP:PROF. Weak keep - but suggest to the author that he read WP:COI and get some of these sources into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know enough about geology to judge whether Prof. Clift is notable; if independent sources discussing his work can be cited, I'd say keep. I don't think the COI issues are unresolvable, since as it stands the article mainly just lists his areas of study. EALacey 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Full professors in research universities are almost certainly notable: he is holder of a named chair in a UK university, which is more than equivalent to a similar position in the US. His home page shows 93 publications, almost all in peer reviewed journals, most of them the leading UK and international journals. Co editor of several books, associate editor of several journals. As always, the external sources testifying to notability are the committees of his peers which appointed him to his position, and have therefore necessarily carried out a more stringent review for notability in his position than any we could do. Such a person always will have multiple important publications, and he does. That's the additional evidence. I'll get it & the rest of the details in the article tomorrow. The speedy delete was altogether out of order, for the assertion of notability is unmistakable--unless one believes that no professor can be notable. Despite potential COI, a straightforward article. Too modest, if anything. DGG 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deerhunter

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

Non-notable band, page does not meet Wikipedia standards Tdogg241 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please, no speedy deletion opinions. This has already been speedily deleted once. Contested speedy deletions should come here to AFD, and the re-creation is a de facto contest. Please look for sources and determine whether this band actually satisfies our WP:MUSIC criteria. Uncle G 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Non-notable? A simple Google search brings up the following:
  • The New York Times
  • The Village Voice
  • Pitchfork Media
  • The Pittsburg City Paper
  • North by Northwestern
  • Treble
• Not the mention the fact they've been on a national tour. --Haemo 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They've received critical acclaim from nationally-known sources. Any two of the above articles would be enough to validate the article, let alone 5. --Orang55 02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One of my favourite bands. I have pictures from their concert in April and I have interviewed Bradford Cox. He's a goof, but definitely real.

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

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

The result was Deleted by Xezbeth with the reason (cut and paste how-to).--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ace's Jacket (Doctor Who Cosplay)

Ace's Jacket (Doctor Who Cosplay) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a usage guide: instructions on how to make a costume falls foul of this policy. Tim! 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as this article makes no assertion that the construction of Ace's jacket for purposes of Doctor Who roleplaying is notable. Propaniac 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No sourcing. Article appears to be a cut-and-paste job, potentially constituting plagiarism, perhaps from a Dr. Who fan site or a "Dr. Who technical manual" style publication meant to allow fans to make costumes resembling props used in the series. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as above.--Elfin341 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)--
• Speedy delete presumably well-intentioned, but absolutely not an encyclopedia article, nor could it possibly be turned into one even if rewritten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I can name several reasons why. You probably can too!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as copy-vio -- the jacket and its design are undoubtedly copyright of BBC or one of its subsidiaries, and this article would encourage breach of the copyright -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecomusica

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

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Ford MF 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is also a problem in that Ecomusica is a program at the Escuela Colombiana de Música S.A. (Colombian School of Music). --Bejnar 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. While there is a brief review of Raul Ramirez's one-man electronic show in the Miami New Times 12 October 2006, there is no mention of ecomusica or Raul Ramirez in The Music Index "The editor-librarians at Harmonie Park Press index more than 800 international music periodicals. ... Covering all styles and genres of music, The Music Index duly cites book reviews, obituaries, new periodicals, and news and articles about music, musicians, and the music industry." --Bejnar 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find anything on the web to suggest this lot are notable under the terms of WP:Music. A1octopus 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free People's Movement

Free People's Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable fringe political organization. I couldn't find any reliable sources that covered it. Google News Archives, for example gives exactly one hit for "Free People's Movement," from 1941 and unrelated to this organization. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination also includes the article on its youth organization, Revolutionary Youth. None of the sources I can find that use the term "revolutionary youth" seem to be talking about this organization ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. This is odd. On the one hand, the article states that "The organization has branches in New York, Connecticut, Maryland/Washington DC, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, the United Kingdom, Luzon, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Tamil Nadu, India, Andhra Pradesh, India, West Bengal, India, Solomon Islands, Lagos State, Nigeria, Uganda, Alberta" which, if true, would bespeak a truly worldwide organization, thus tending toward notability. But there's no sources whatsover (except their own web sites, none of which I could even get to work) and apparently no easy way to get any. Generally speaking, the solution to sourcing issues is to tag the article, not delete it. But there's not a shred of proof that this whole thing doesn't consist of one guy living in his mom's basement. I think without some indication that the organization even exists, we have to delete it. Herostratus 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified and possible hoax. The external link to *The Revolutionary Youth is bogus as ry-jr.org is an available address for purchase.--Bejnar 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not as a hoax (they seem to be very real), but as non-notable. I could find nothing, and their page listings for localized branches is turned off at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Result was speedy delete for copyright violation. AKRadecki 03:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article on church group fails WP:N and WP:RS. Ford MF 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio from the organisation's web site. So tagged. It even contains a sentence starting "We welcome you to our Web home"! EALacey 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good catch. Ford MF 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Copyvio is tagged already, pile on G11 to add fuel to the fire, and per the nom's finding, light it with a lack of notability or WP:RS. Don't get me started about the failure to attribute the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Cornsilk

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

Basically unsourced hit-piece on non-notable individual Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - well sourced article and notable individual involved in Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Bad faith nomination by editor following the author around the site just to revert articles and cause disruption. Individual is mentioned at Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and is a political player in these issues. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keeep as appears notable, and no evidence subject doesnt want article, SqueakBox 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawn rewrite by Uncle G is excellent. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke's Prediction

Luke's Prediction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a mixed drink. After I put on a prod tag citing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, the author immediately took down the part of the article that indicated that its subject probably was concocted in a dorm room somewhere [26] and assured readers of the Talk page that the drink was not invented by bored small children, and that it was in fact "becoming quite popular in Malta." Until it actually does become popular in Malta and there are reliable, third-party sources to back up the assertion, its article should be deleted from Wikipedia without prejudice to its eventual recreation should it ever become verifiably notable. [EDIT: Extensive original research on my part earlier thiis afternoon indicates that, despite its apparent non-notability, this drink is quiite good.] --Dynaflow babble 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sources cited, and I can't find any relevant Google hits. Fails WP:N, WP:V, and probably WP:NFT. EALacey 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - while the attempt to disguise the fact is amusing, it is still something made up in a dorm one day. --Haemo 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For the time being, as not notable. However, when I can go down the street to my local and order one and not be cut off for the mere suggestion, I would support such an article.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this website containing the above recipe for a shooter: http://www.cocktailmaking.co.uk/displaycocktail.php/2138-Luke's-Prediction

Can it be a 3rd party proof for its existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flugs (talk • contribs)

• Not when there's a big, bright link right below the recipe that says, "ADD YOUR COCKTAIL!!!" --Dynaflow babble 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.cocktailmaking.co.uk/displaycocktail.php/2139-The-Bastard-Goose Now where's my article? --Dynaflow babble 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok i get the point then. I have to search form more supporting evidence then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flugs (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will reconsider if sources can be found. W.marsh 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radivoj Glavardanov

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

Biographical article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Only receives 7 unique ghits; one is Wikipedia, two aren't in English and the other four are just passing mention. Ford MF 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Utterly unsourced. If appropriate citations can be found to show that Mr Glavardanov was truly the inventor of light beer, I would retract my opposition to the article's staying on Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The wiki article on brewer Joseph Owades claims he (i.e. Owades) was the guy to invent light beer, and so do these articles in the San Francisco Chronicle and Business Wire. Ford MF 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. The argument that it it reads like an ad is understood, but not really that strong - as noted, the preferred solution would be a rewrite rather than delete. And that rewrite has occurred. Thus the first two Delete comments may be be deprecated. Herostratus 12:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus 12:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahanagar Boys' Inter College Lucknow

Mahanagar Boys' Inter College Lucknow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy as spam. Written in the tone of a recruitment flyer. May be copyvio. DarkAudit 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. Tempshill 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete its pure advertisement, likely also fails WP:NOTE Black Harry (T|C) 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I've tidied it up a little as this is a new contributor Ron48ron (talk · contribs). Please try to determine notability rather than judging based on the limited information available in the article. John Vandenberg 23:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with that request, by the way. There's nothing wrong with deleting an advert article. If some editor wants to write a future article, and because of this AFD vote, he has to do so from scratch, that's OK. There's no onus on us to keep an advert stub around based on hypothetical actions of a future editor. Tempshill 06:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• potential keep--depending on some source being found. the college is notable, most likely, but the information is about the main organization. Not spammy at this point.DGG 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  I've stubified it adding two sources to verify its existence. However, I am not sure about notability as I havent been able to find a clear definition of an "intermediate college". However, there are many examples of similar articles, such as St. Mary's Convent Inter College. John Vandenberg 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  Intermediate college in North India is where you study XI and XII classes (i.e. two years after passing highschool and before Bachelor's degree). This looks like a school + intermediate college i.e. it offers education from Std. VI to Std. XII[27]. Not sure, but seems at least as notable as most of the schools in Category:Elementary schools in the United States.[28]. 202.54.176.51 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on input from 202.54.176.51. John Vandenberg 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hope it is much more notable than most of the present elementary schools articles, for they are being rapidly screened for deletion. What it corresponds to is a US Junior College or community college. DGG 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 10:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devin Anderson

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

Incomplete AfD. Template was addded by unregistered user who could (obviously) not complete the process. No reason given. This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - minimal work in the film industry, no major releases that I can track down, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO unless I'm missing something. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom and Tony. Non-notable. --Kimon^talk 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I sort of agree with Tony and Kimon - this particular artist might be too low profile for wik. However, I've seen films he's scored (it had Death Cab in it) and been to concerts. This page needs work though, alot of stuff is missing, but I say keep. --Se7endeadly^talk 00:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Due to the low notability of the individual and not meeting WP:BIO. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monomate

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

Describes a subject that is very unlikely to be notable; page is written in a dictionary-definition style Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is no reason for keeping an article like this. But make sure the information is somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixonsej (talk • contribs)
• Delete Non-notable item from a role-playing game. Caknuck 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into somewhere like Phantasy Star series#Fictional universe. It hardly matters which, since the article contains such little content. EALacey 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The item should be better off written as part of a list rather than having its own article.--Kylohk 11:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs covered by Jimi Hendrix

List of songs covered by Jimi Hendrix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - It is not notable that Hendrix may have played a particular song at a concert. In addition to the notability concerns the list is completely unsourced. Any sourced information on actual recordings should be added to Jimi Hendrix discography and this list should be deleted. Otto4711 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Many of the entries on this list are unverifiable. More importantly, this sets a bad precedent that could lead to a slew of "List of songs covered by..." articles. Fails WP:RS and WP:NOT for starters. Caknuck 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. --Dynaflow babble 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Any verifiable entries from this list belong in Jimi Hendrix discography and not on their own article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This belongs on a Hendrix fan page where it would no doubt be a very interesting article. But in an encylopedia it is like an ocean fish that has lost his school. (non-notable list). tomasz. 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jimi Hendrix Blueboy96 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Ganeshan

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

Should be speedied - one claim of authorship, which falls apart when looked into. Otherwise, nothing notable at all. Except, maybe, for the claim of extensive travel in Yorkshire. By gum. - Tiswas^(t) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I should have AfD'd this myself, I was just too lazy. The author said "go ahead and delete it" [29], but also removed the notability tags whenever I added them. Not that it matters particularly, but the author appears to be the subject[30]. Userfy might be reasonable here since he really might have meant to create a user page. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment - I agree - userfy would appear be the way to go. - Tiswas^(t) 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia is not myspace. - Tiswas^(t) 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless some evidence of the publication of cartoons in multiple newspapers is provided. Nuttah68 10:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If sources are found, let me know and I'll consider undeletion. W.marsh 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Sutherland (attorney)

Howard Sutherland (attorney) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy-delete. See Talk:Howard Sutherland (attorney)#hang on. Anthony Appleyard 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: best known as columnist on a website, but nothing indicates that he is known outside a circle of likeminded websites. No newsreports, at first glance no independent reliable sources about him... Fails WP:BIO. Fram 14:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only claim to notability is writing for a conservative political commentary Web site. While the site itself appears notable, there's no indication that Sutherland himself even marginally passes WP:BIO. Caknuck 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find anything approaching enough useful material from reliable sources to write a decent bio. William Pietri 02:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. VDARE is an important, and massively controversial, anti-immigration center and Sutherland has written some of the more important articles on that site. I've found several references to his articles as seminal and several of his pieces are very frequently referenced beyond VDARE in the anti-immigration community. I can't recall the details of why/when I created the article (it was a while ago and I don't know or follow the anti-immigration community very close) but I am reasonably sure it was because I followed a reference and recommendation by Michelle Malkin. mako (talk•contribs) 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mako, can you possible find some of those references to his articles? Depending on where they were that might demonstrate N.Otherwise merge with the article on VDARE. DGG 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry I've been busy over the last couple days. I'm going to take a look into this. mako (talk•contribs) 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: for the articles Phenyltropane, SNDRI, Nocaine, Phenidate and Peridine, KEEP the articles as very short stubs but DELETE their contents from article space, but USERFY to save the material for the author's use. The history of these stubified articles still holds the old material, which might be of some use to some future author. I am a little over my head content-wise in these articles, so to stubify them I basically cut them down to the first sentence or two.

The articles Ohmefentanyl and Indatraline are already pretty short so I left those alone. Herostratus 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SNDRI

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

As original research and possible copyvio. Nuklear is posting research papers as articles. I also include Indatraline in this nomination for the same reasons. DarkAudit 13:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how using reference material is copyright fraud? How is this original research? When someone has over 80 references to back up their claims its a bit rich calling it either plagurism / original research. Besides fentanyl and cocaine are difficult to procure, so there is a need for new research to fuel the needs of the economy.

I never said it was plagiarism. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a research paper. Research papers do not belong on Wikipedia. DarkAudit 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an overview/summary of SNDRI compounds. It doesnt present any 'synthesized' conjecture. It is just a conglomeration of work already published in existing scientific literature. If this doesnt belong on wikipedia please could you point me in the direction of where it does belong and i will move it there.

• Delete This is not an encyclopedia article, merely a collection of talking points regarding depression and its treatment. While highly-referenced, the article makes no attempt to explain what SNDRI is, how it is synthesized and administered and why it is important. Article reads like an abstract to a academic thesis. Caknuck 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, before I go out and kill anybody like an MI6 employed assasin, I had to delete alot of the 'filler' and break it down into cross-sections because the article was losing its structure and just becoming a bunch of collective waffle. It's not like I can just finish an article in one day though. These things take time and effort to do properly.

• Userfy If you look at the history, it's clear that LOTS of work has been put into this article already (although I don't quite understand the methods being used to build this article or the motivation for doing so in such a fashion). Move it to Nuklear's userspace for now and if it does ever take on the form of an encyclopedia article, the article can be recreated. By the way, Nuklear, please sign your posts by adding four tildes after your comment or clicking "Sign your username" below. Propaniac 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• After reviewing the article further, it looks even less likely that it's headed in a direction to be an acceptable Wikipedia article, but it's still a lot of effort that might as well be saved somewhere. Propaniac 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy the whole lot of them (OMF, PT, Nocaine, Phenidate, Indatraline; SNDRI). They are all written and presented like journal articles, which goes against WP:NOT. I agree with Propaniac that they should be saved since they represent a lot of work. The articles themselves could probably be stripped down a great deal into ok stubs for expansion, but as is they are not encyclopedic in the slightest. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If you dont like it, I dont see why you cant just ignore it instead of trying to undermine it. Do you have any idea how offensive it is being told all your work is retarded and that it should be deleted?--Nuklear 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was never the case. The problem is that this is the wrong place for this work. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, and that is the proper forum for these articles, not here. DarkAudit 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case i'll just have to make a few telephone calls to respected journal publishers if im getting that advanced. I didnt know I was that clever. In the mean time, is there anywhere I can buy a webdomain that will allow me to use similar code to wikipedia to prepare my articles? believe me, I want and have my own website (www.hochemicals.co.uk) but it wont allow me to use html code etc, and the border width takes up half tha page. Thanks for your helpful input. --Nuklear 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuklears articles (including phenidate, peridine, nocaine, phenyltropane, ohmefentanyl, and 2Design) are not original research, nor are they copyvios. They are essentially scientific review articles in the areas of pharmacology and medicinal chemistry that summarize published experimental data. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source that summarizes from such secondary literature. In their current form these articles are not really suited for Wikipedia and need heavy editing to become encyclopedic articles. However, these articles are legitimate articles and topics and can be wikified, so I see no reason to delete them. Cacycle 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how large copy and paste edits from research articles are not copyvios. Are research articles not protected?? Are they fair use? --User:I already forgot using Alpha beta 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I could gather from a quick check of copyright guidelines: "you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself" could mean that he could post it here under the terms of the GFDL, unless the original location claims a different license. It could still be a copyvio from another site even though it's the author's work. If someone with deeper knowledge of the copyright guidelines could clarify this, please? DarkAudit 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reorganize Published articles are copyright, & can't be reproduced here, unless one wrote them and owns the copyright--but in general, the publisher unfortunately owns the copyright. Summarizing content of articles in one's own words--no matter who wrote them-- is not a copyright violation. Copying part of the abstracts of articles, and inserting them in an article of one's own --if that is what has been done here--is borderline fair use. I do not think that's what has been done, for they sound like notes on the articles, not transcripts-- and I see nothing that is likely to be a copyvio.

But this is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific review journal, nor a repository for even excellent student papers or class notes, and this article has elements of the three. The more general parts of this could possibly make a WP article; we already have articles on the general subject, but there might be room for this, if written in the right tone. The material on individual compounds , similarly, is appropriate on articles on the compounds, but again, made less academic.

If the author would like to work on the material, we have provision for it, and it can be copied onto a subpage of the user page--this is a frequent way of developing WP articles. I think that would be best. I've gone ahead, and copied this article onto User:Nuklear/sandbox; the other articles can be copied to that or similar pages. DGG 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posited on his talk page that an editor with better connections and resources than I may be able to help find these articles a more fitting home. DarkAudit 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite There is a lot of good research in Nuklear's articles, and all well referenced. The content is definitely suitable for Wikipedia, just the way they are written is not. I would certainly not recommend deleting them though, just reorganizing and putting any copied material into proper original wording. Meodipt 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I've mention the copyvio edits (cut from my talk page) ...

Section I deleted: [31] which had exactly the same text on the article at [32]

Similar copyvio edits removed here [33] that was copied from the article at [34]

And he recently creates an article with the same copyvio edits: [35] which is again a duplicate of the article at (under heading PHARMACOPHORE MODELING) [36]

If the user is a pharm genius, he makes it difficult to assume good faith when you find the bulk of an article to be copy and pasted and then see a string of edits like this...[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47]. I'm willing to assume good faith, but soon as you add nonsense and copy and pasted articles, it becomes difficult to keep assuming, especially when I can keep looking and find more of the same.-- I already forgot  talk  06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Encyclopedic topic, unencyclopedic article. I'm trying to assume the assumption of good faith, but the article as it stands violates WP:OR and WP:NOT and I feel this goes for most articles this user has contributed to. I would go for either keep and complete rewrite, otherwise delete. Paul079 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lots of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK pointing, along with uncivil and off-topic rants. This is how we do not discuss an AfD. Sr13 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State terrorism in Sri Lanka

State terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". There simply are no citations given in this articles as such. All citations provided merely establish the occurrence of the given events, and not that they are so called acts of "State terrorism". To be very clear, and I hope everyone understands this, I am not disputing whether the incidents took place or not as mentioned in the article, but that categorizing them as "State terrorism" is the POV of individual Wikipedia editors. Also note that there is absolutely no proof that the government played a direct role in any of these incident. Most allegations are mere hearsay, and in any case, the acts of individual military personal cannot be called as "state sponsored". That makes this article a clear violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV , WP:V and especially WP:OR which explicitly states

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

As per these policies, Wikipedia editors cannot arbitrarily decide to call these incidents "State terrorism" and create such an article, and therefore the article should be deleted. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please note, a related and similarly highly disputed and POV-titled template {{State terrorism in Sri Lanka}} was deleted following community consensus (discussion here), and replaced - per the opinion of the closing admin - by a non-biased, universally accepted template {{Sri Lankan Conflict}}. Similarly, there exists an article Human Rights in Sri Lanka where all the incidents in this article can be listed, without implicitly attempting to draw conclusions based on the apparent POV title of the article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since the nomination I have tried to clean the article and remove any original research as well as cite with reputable sources that directly comment on aspects of State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Taprobanus 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The article is being edited by users which may and will degrade the quality of the article. Please take the look at the original version (when the AFD was nominated. Thanks Watchdogb 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Original Version when AFD was nominated.Lustead 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Conjecture should be highly discouraged. The effort to "connect the dots" across multiple incidents without reliable sourcing is counterproductive. --Aarktica 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please look at the article now, an attempt has been made notto connect the dots and only add incidents that have RS sources saying they are State terrorism. ThanksTaprobanus 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The controversial title of the article must go. While it may be appropriate for a term paper, it is hardly encyclopedic. Also, the introductory section — when measured against WP:LEAD — leaves much to be desired. --Aarktica 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I will work on the Lead but what you suggest the title should be ? Taprobanus 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see some refferences in the article, that mean is not original research.--MariusM 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah only 6 sources for the whole article :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Before this article was degraded, it had over 20 sources now it has 32 sources of which over 20 attest for State terrorism Taprobanus 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lahiru, only 6 ? please look at the article now 32 sources of which many attribute state terrorism in Sri Lanka including Human Rights groups, News papers and even governments. ThanksTaprobanus 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And even those only allege state terrorism. Hardly any credible info on "State Terrorism" conducted by SLGOV there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubuman (talk • contribs)

Actually if you read the sources, there are many human rights groups which state the Sri Lankan Army was behind these massacres. And since they are controlled by the state and commiting terrorist acts... is it not state terrorism? Thusiyan 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please go through the nomination, it says No independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination is flawed as the article now has 32 sources of which many attest to state terrorismTaprobanus 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say that Lahiru. Check the other state terrorism articles. Please show me where independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism" in each of the articles Watchdogb 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Snowfold, additionally the so called "refernces" on most occasions do not adhere to the wikipedia policy of reliable sources.Pubuman 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you look at the article again, it has 32 references, tell me which ones are not RS ?Taprobanus 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep please delete this article along with the holocaust, these never happened and have no connection with the government!! also read holocaust denial.--131.111.235.31 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

— 131.111.235.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy Delete Per nomination.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I too feel, this article should be deleted along with the holocaust as these have never happened or have no connection with the Nazi government!! I also suggest to read holocaust denial.Lustead 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Above user is a single issue person with absolutely no good contribution to wikipedia. for a new user ,he seems to know quite a lot of inside inside work of Wikipedia.I haven't seen that from a newbie at all!! As we see from his above remarks ,this person has shown us he is here for only one reason, spread anti Sinhalese/Sri Lankan sentiments. His total lack of knowledge of present situation in SL,or even Nazi holocaust for that matter, is highly comical.I would like to ask Admins to take a good look at his contributions and his record, before counting his vote.thanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:-Your observations are unncessary at this point after I have been accepted as an involved party for Chemmani Massgrave Mediation. The intention why you revert ignoring the Thusiyan (talk · contribs) explanation for keeping the image is still unknown while the similar images attributed to LTTE attacks were kept here.Lustead 15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me have ever even had a look at the TITLE of the article ? How on earth that picture prove State terrorism ? Did the state asked EDPD soldiers to kill them ? Did the sate issue order to kill them ? please use

You can never compare any incident happening in Sri Lanka to Nazi holocaust. It is infamous that terrorists and underworld gangsters are behind this. Nirvanatoday 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Have you any evidence to support your argument?Lustead 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you have any evidence break Nirvanatoday's argument? If yes pls go ahead and cite that on the article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Available evidences and the circumstances are leaning to Government / Forces or the negligence of them to prevent those incidents.Lustead 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a true fact that the Sri Lankan Army committed some horrible massacres. Again, they are controlled by the state, thus this is state terrorism. And yes there are dozens of human rights group and witnesses who have placed blame firmly on the armed forces. Pinning the blame on "underworld gangsters" is foolish.Thusiyan 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I strongly feel that somebody or some organization is behind this! Recent events unfolded in International arena of politics, I feel SLGOV is doing the best governance comparing to other governments. Taking into account of the reliability of this article, you have a limited number of ref and most of them are also unreliable sources. Nirvanatoday 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The subject is on State terrorism in Sri Lanka and not the governance of the present government.Lustead 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely keep. The fact of the matter is, there are elements of the state behind these events, such as Black July. The massacres committed by the Sri Lankan Army, in essence is state terrorism! The facts are, the state has been behind riots. There can be no argument with that. Another fact is, the Sri Lankan Army has committed human rights abuses, which since they are state controlled, amount to STATE TERRORISM. There should be no question over whether this should be deleted or not. Deleting it would really be a big mistake. Thusiyan 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note : Possible Single purpose account — Thusiyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note The above accusation is false. This user has had many contribution before this AFD was nomiated. Please take a good look at his contribution and the earliest edit by this user. He is not SP because he was here before the AFD. Also Kerr avon has made a mistake... he is pointing at the wrong user. Use this insted and you will see his many contributions and his date of registry Thusiyan Watchdogb 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at his contribution,started from 16 th may ,of course from the State terrorism article.He has no contributions outside a couple of articles,author has taken a keen interest in deleting accusations against LTTE ,even without reading citations.Has shown is extreme pro-LTTE stance already.There is no doubt that these kind of editors bring more harm to Wikipedia, or I would say these kind of sock-puppets bring shame to Wikipedia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not attack another usr Iwazaki. Accusing another person is not allowed here unless you have proof for their sock puppetry. Also If I were you I would take a close look at your own contribution and your bias towards the SLF and the SLG so if you are allowed to stay here then so will he thanks Watchdogb 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep these "State terrorism in Fooland" articles are kept by precedent. Clean it up if necessary, but don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve Reliable sources exist and can be utilised successfully, I would like to highlight the success of other similar pages in maintaining a strong NPOV and verified article. --Sharz 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Sinharaja2002 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is Political and inadequately supported by references to Peer reviewed evaluations. This kind of article brings down the standing of the Wikipedia enterprise to the level of a partisan political tabloid. It is best to delete it as it is now in an unrecoverable state.Bodhi dhana 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor, can you look athe article now because since you voted we have tried to improve the contents. ThanksTaprobanus 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve Wikipedia ADMINISTRATORS, please do not remove this article. If you look at the person/people who created this nomination you can see that they are on a mission of Ethnic Cleansing of tamil articles in wikipedia and hiding/distorting the truth. In his page it says the person is male/supports srilankan troops/opposes LTTE, how can anything coming form this person in articles concerning the war be neutral NPOV. He should be editing other articles where he has no personal interest in. (this is not a personal attack, it is an obeservation and recommendation) --12345ka 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

— 12345ka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: This article depends only upon 6 sources and out of these sources there are two sources which saying government does not take the responsibility of those incidents. And even two of them are the books which are not available on cyber space. So this article is based solely on an Original Research and it is an LTTE point of view (POV) pushing biased anti government article which contains individual editors point of views. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stong and speedy delete - LTTE thinks the SriLankan govt., is terrorist. Bin Laden thinks the American govt., is terrorist. So? The fact is that both Sri Lanka and USA are members of the UN and Prabhakaran and Laden(cold blooded murderers as they are) are NOT. This is not even a POV fork. Its outright trash and nonsense. We cant have wikipedia articles every time somebody goes nuts and starts branding elected, democratic governments as terrorists.Sarvagnya 17:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:-

So where do you stand on State terrorism by the United States?. According to your comment either Federal government of the United States is not democratic or Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda helped State terrorism by the United States from AFD. Lustead 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is also a POV fork and as you can see disputes are raging on that article also. It also has multiple tags sitting on it. It may only be matter of time before somebody noms it for deletion. So dont point to that article as if it was an FA. Having said that, even that article has more encyclopedic credibility than this one because, there, some of the critics include Presidents and Vice-Presidents of bonafide countries and not just a driveling self styled gangleader of a rag-tag bunch of outlawed bandits operating out of jungle hideouts. Sarvagnya 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let there be muliple tags sitting on. But that doesn’t mean that that will be deleted in the near future. That is your highly POV observation. Leaving State Terrorism out of wikipedia will only lead to a outright Rwandan Genocide in the corner of the world in future and many hundreds of thousands people will be massacred before the UN and other international watch-dogs rush to the scene. Further, your comment “self-styled gangleader of a rag-tag bunch of outlawed bandits operating out of jungle hideout’’ is irrelevant to the subject State terrorism in Sri Lanka which we are discussing here. We are discussing here some mechanism which is protected by some out-ward democractic set-up but failing for a real multi-ethnic democratic political participation and spreading state sponsored terror for political solutions.Lustead 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Its not the LTTE who are the only ones accusing GOSL of State terrorism. Also it doesn't matter if there are tags sitting on the article. If you follow any of the SL related articles (specially political) you can see many tags sitting there. Why don't we delete that also ? Watchdogb 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sarvagnya 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve First off there are some RS in the article so its not all OR . Secondly It is a well know fact that the governemnt of Srilanka is supporting a renegade group called "Karuna Fraction" who are terrorising people in Srilanka. The disapearence has reached new hights in Srilanka and the HR violations (mind you by both sides to the conflict) has also increased. This article needs to be improved but not deleted. Watchdogb 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Above user could well be the banned User Elalan (talk · contribs). Has similar interests, similar writing skills,similar hatred towards Sri Lanka,see this tirade. And most importantly his liking for letter b is amazing. Remember Elalan's sock-puppeteer Trincoman (talk · contribs) also has a b at the end of his name.ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Funny that you accuse me even after an admin has warned you. I think I will take this out with an admin. In the mean time how about you report me and see what happens ? Your false claims are very funny. Go ahead and ask for a check user. thanks Watchdogb 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Oh isn't it an Original Research? The whole 18 passages of the article depends on only 6 references. Is it a known fact that SL GOV supporting to the Karuna Fraction? But unfortunately the known facts should too have WP:RS to backup it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well I dunno I think Mr. Rock is enough of a RS for us to link the Gosl and the Karuna fraction. If you still need proof's like white vans abducting people and going thru army chekpoints (without a licence plate) I can give that too. Or if you want RS on how SLA saying "They will bring them back after talking to them" I can also give that.

Also there have been many insidents where the people violating Human Rights are caught but then they do not recieve any punishment. Sometimes they have even be promoted to a higher rank.

Here is a direct quote from Amnesty International Amnesty International welcomes these initial steps but notes that there is a disturbing pattern of incomplete or ineffective investigations by the government, with the result that perpetrators of such violence generally operate with impunity. In accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Sri Lanka has ratified, the government must carry out independent, impartial and effective investigations into all killings; the results of these investigations should be made public, and those found responsible for the attacks must be brought to justice. Without effective investigations and prosecutions, the cycle of retaliatory violence that so endangers the lives of civilians is likely to escalate. here

CommentSri Lankan government may be killing people and its army may be committing massacres helping paramilitaries to abduct people by white vans, black vans, minivans, white buses, white trains or by aircrafts or anything, but here in wikipedia everything should have to be verified with reliable sources but not with someone else's personal opinion. This article has only 6 sources for the whole 18 passages. So it's a clear violation of WP:OR. And here we are talking about an article deletion but not about the Human Rights Violations so stick to topic. Even if you stand up side down and say the Sri Lanakan government is doing human rights violation there's no use because this is a debate on article deletion and not a debate on anybody's HR violation. Hope everyone understands. Thank you. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to ask how India can be branded into State terrorism and not Sri Lanka. Take a look at this article please. How can this article here be still on wikipedia with soo little source? So I guess whats true for other articles are false for State terrorism in SL. Specially seeing that the argument for deletion of this article is its source or atleast its "lack" of sources. How about this Where it basically links State terrorism to the torture and killing by the Army. Or hare where the army killed the civilians (does not say that the government gave direct order to kill these people does it ?). If that is accepted as state terrorism then I don't see why when a Srilankan Army personnel kills civilians its not state terrorism. Are we here in wikipedia saying that the life of Tamil people are less worthy than the life of people in other countries who have suffered in the same fate by the Army of their country? All I can see is that there is a pattern in the State terrorism series. Nothing directly links the government of many of these country to State terrorism but they are still around in wikipedia with the name of "State Terrorism". Then why would we want to delete Srilankan State terrorism on the basis that no one (who are RS ) has gone the distance and called it for what it is? Watchdogb 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Acording to wikipedia "State terrorism is a controversial term, which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state". It does go on to say this is a controversial term, but the fact of the matter is, this is exactly what has been happening in Sri Lanka. Deleting this article would be denial and it truly would be a sad day Thusiyan 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since Lahiru seem to deny the fact that SL forces are helping Karuna fraction. I got proof. I think this should pretty much close the deal on the fact that there exist State Terrorism in Srilanka because they Srilankan Forces are obviously action from orders from the Government. Watchdogb 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not deny and I'm not accept that too but I'm sticking to the afd's topic, not for the allegations of HR vios. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Who says there are no reliable sources?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6144200.stm - BBC - United Nations(UN)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/25/slanka13262.htm -Human Rights Watch (HRW)

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/lka-summary-eng -Amnesty International (AI)

Please answer these alligations if you are voting Delete, i would love to hear them. Please be constructive and give sources which are more reliable than the BBC,UN,AI. No personal ramblings. I would also suggest a new article on Human Rights Violations in Sri Lanka by GOSL/LTTE.--131.111.8.104 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

— 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't know how Iwazaki magically pulls numbers. But if you check this users contribs then you will see his ip has more contribs than just this topic. Watchdogb 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times are you going to say Keep from IPs?? and I couldn't find any of your reliable sources on the article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:: Personal attacks are frowned upon, don't resort to Ad hominem. i.e replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.--12345ka 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many we are going to add. As you can see the two "IP" that are given are different. This user seems to have contributed before this AFD was created and have edited in articles that has nothing to do with Srilankan Related Articles. So this is not a sockpuppet attemp as you seem to suggest Lahiru. Thanks Watchdogb 01:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times these IPs and SPAs said Keep because the closing admin will count only the well established users. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Than well-established but less-informed users, well-informed IPs, will enlighten more the closing admin on the topic, we have taken for discussion.Lustead 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - User:131.111.8.104, your sources dont even use the word "terrorism" in their articles. They speak of some cases(isolated perhaps) of alleged breakdown of law and order. That is not "State terrorism". This article seems to be a particularly bad case of improper synthesis of sources. And worse, many of the 'sources' used in the article are not even reliable given their blatantly partisan nature. Sarvagnya 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Do you think this Source is an unreliable one? You can’t wait for others to word it exactly as ‘Terrorism’, but if those acts qualify to the definitions that has been accepted as State Terrorism in wikipedia, they are also coming various States-Sponsored Terrorism. You can’t wait for the right ‘word’ for interpreting things, then the Governments also before they brand various organizations as terrorists organizations they should have discussed with an International Arbitration Committee, a special one or by utilizing the available judiciary establishments.Lustead 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please list what are the incidents in the article you think, should definitely belong to state terrorism..We already have an article for human rights in Sri Lanka and criticism sections under STF and other forces,and do you think we should repeat the same incidents 10 times in Wikepedia because it might make LTTE and other racist tamil elements happy ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you all can bring everything under Sri Lankan Civil War or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, you don't need separately the following various atrocities related to LTTE;

Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Your edits in various Sri Lanka related articles shows, you only promote a violent anti-tamil stance.Lustead 03:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

well,i am for　having just one article..Since you are very very new here, why don't read the talk pages of those articles to see why we are having 3 instead of one article ?? Read first before crying like a little boy here.And thanks for showing us thatit was you who voted 3 times ,with two different IP's here. You have actually made admins work much easier. Thanks for dearly admitting your sock-puppeting and vote stacking.Next, remember unlike you,who have had absolutely no contributions here, I have contributed to variety of articles and none of them is anti-tamil or anti-anything. Instead of telling stories,could you please show me where i have been anti-tamil? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When you all clever big boys want, you all know how cleverly to justify something. All your explanations are biased. I suggest if you want to amalgamate State terrorism in Sri Lanka with something else, then no reason you can’t expect to keep those three separately as well. But State Terrorism in Sri Lanka is a unique issue and at any level it can’t be amalgamated with other articles.

You earlier accused another user here [48] and now you are accusing me with various IP addresses.

And ??? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer ends there, there is nothing to expect more.Lustead 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A few examples are here to sense you are an adamant anti-tamil.[49][50][51][52]Lustead 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse , but I do not see any ant-tamil there..If you see them could you please specify what is anti-tamil, then we can move the discussion to your talk page and proceed with our discussion.So, please be specific rather than crying like a child. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Those who are in a Paranoia state generally won't accept others view point. Discussing with them will make more complication at one-to-one level without third party involvement.Lustead 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion This user must be reported, i do not like to use the word, but from his edits on many tamil based articles he is clearly racist. And from above evidence clearly on a mission of Ethnic Cleansing of wikipedia. Such behaviour not only reflects badly on wikipedia but also peace loving Sinhala majority. I also wonder how he is an expert on tamil history and culture to be editing so many tamil articles such as Tamil language, Ancient Tamil country, Sri Lanka Tamils, Jaffna Kingdom, List of Tamils of Sri Lanka --12345ka 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Suggestion.. Why don't we move my anti-tamil claims to mr Lustead s talk page.there we can discuss.. So far,neither you nor him,has given a single proof..Thoroughly disappointing I would say, considering how blind and fast those accusations came against me..It makes me even surprising that, these accusations come from possible sock-puppets, people with no track-record, no proper editing, before this debate. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CommentSri Lankan government may be killing people and its army may be committing massacres helping paramilitaries to abduct people by white vans, black vans, minivans, white buses, white trains or by aircrafts or anything, but here in wikipedia everything should have to be verified with reliable sources but not with someone else's personal opinion. This article has only 6 sources for the whole 18 passages. So it's a clear violation of WP:OR. And here we are talking about an article deletion but not about the Human Rights Violations so stick to topic. Even if you stand up side down and say the Sri Lanakan government is doing human rights violation there's no use because this is a debate on article deletion and not a debate on anybody's HR violation. Hope everyone understands. Thank you. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Then this article should be improved, not deleted.Lustead 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For that what I would like say is Too Late, because the current status of the article is un encyclopedic piece of crap and waste of server space. Sorry to say that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Server space is not an issue during debate for AFD, I also find it highly dubious that you, a proponent of this AFD have been actively editing the article during the process and as this diff demonstrates ^[1] have deleted some of the reliable sources, as well as some of the more unreliable one, for example, the Chicago Press source. --Sharz 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I deleted and formatted the page. Most of the sources were dead links and some were cited by some gentlemen which do not contain a single word regarding the topic. Don't know whether it was done on purposely, so lets assume good faith on it. If you are looking for the Chicago Press book, have a look at the top of the page and you will find it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru I dont understand what you are saying. There are proof for the the SL forces helping Karuna. Karuna opperate in SLA controlled areas. This is enough to link the government is actually using Karuna to terrorize people. IF you want proof to that then I can do give you many. Remember MR.Rock is a RS. It doesn't matter if the SLG says that he is not but he is a neutral sorce from Canada . The AI has said "notes that there is a disturbing pattern of incomplete or ineffective investigations by the government, with the result that perpetrators of such violence generally operate with impunity". I think this is enough of a argunment for state terrorism in Srilanka. Watchdogb 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Lahiru - understandable mistake, however some of those links were still in action and it wasn't established that they were unreliable or un-related, if an editor put them there, then its probably for a good reason. --Sharz 14:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

here is more that relates to State terrorism : There were numerous reports of torture in police custody. According to the non-governmental Asian Commission for Human Rights, two people died in custody in 2006. Torture in police custody... In July presidential directives were re-issued requiring the security forces to issue receipts for arrested persons and inform the Human Rights Commission within 48 hours. The Commission reported 419 enforced disappearances in Jaffna for the first half of 2006. A local non-governmental organization recorded 277 abductions from April to September. Disappearances and abductions were attributed to several forces, including the security forces, the LTTE and the Karuna group All groups involved in dissapearences. The number of unlawful killings dramatically increased. Several hundred extrajudicial killings were reported. They were carried out by forces of the government, the Karuna group, a splinter group of the LTTE reportedly co-operating with government forces, the LTTE and other armed opposition groups Unlawful killings and impunity by again all forces. I can give more but I would much raher give the link. Watchdogb 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)