Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (T|C) 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Championship Wrestling

British Championship Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable independent wrestling company. No evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No independant sources so I can't tell if it's noteworthy. If someone finds some sources contact me and I'll change my vote. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As Tayquan. If they rep the people they claim then maybe, but sources are needed to prove it. JodyB _talk
• Delete There's not much to say about it. Sr13 (T|C) 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lack of sources. --Phoenix (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Oren0 07:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: As advertising. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:33, 6 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. Sr13 (T|C) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John David Ebert

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

Subject fails to meet the criteria of notability under WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Subject appears to have written two books, neither of which seems to satisfy the requirements to warrant a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Author does not seem to have made a significant contribution to his field. the_undertow ^talk 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A search pulls up many magazine/newspaper articles on him as an author. Seems to be notable.--Gloriamarie 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you could supply some links, or other information about these magazine/newspaper articles. I've sifted through google hits, and can't find any evidence of newspaper or magazine articles with John David Ebert as their subject reliable sources. Pete.Hurd 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Amazon carries his books in stock and there are reviews from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist. The author needs to firm up the sources but they are there. JodyB _talk 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I conducted a search similar to the one above and acquired similar results. --Phoenix (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: it's a decent article, and after I did a similar check, the guy is fairly well-known and notable. - It's-is-not-a-genitive/(parlōc-iōr!)
• Delete No actual references, just one external link, I agree with it not meeting WP:BIO (first section).The Sunshine Man 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that there are no references now, but I think it's notable enough for some to be picked up. --Phoenix (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be notable enough, though I'd prefer stronger sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as currently unsourced and no credibility established. I'd change it to keep if the proper sources were found. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Infrangible 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, off to a good start and should continue to improve with time. RFerreira 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: A Google search returned many results for his books, and thus both the article and the books are notable. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Two books or twenty books, it's still a notable author. --Mardavich 03:39, 8 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 (T|C) 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of most valuable comic books

List of most valuable comic books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article contains no citations; author has refused to provide them. As it stands, this appears to be nothing but original reasearch. Delete unless this information can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article contains original unverified research, namely the claim that the comics listed are the "24 most valuable" which is not supported by the article is a split from, First_appearance#First_appearances_of_popular_heroes.2C_villains_and_teams, itself unreferenced. Even saying that the comics are the most valuable without quantifying it would be original research, unless there was a definitive list of known record-breaking or setting auction prices with third party coverage thereof. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No vote yet but this might be suited best for a site like this. Hard to generate an accurate list here, and as that site shows, the prices vary by condition of the copy in question. Do we really think we can have an accurate list here? We'd never really be sure if the order was correct. --W.marsh 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And WP:NOT a price guide anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless the article becomes up to the standards of WP:V, I suggest a delete. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, "this list is an estimate" is not a good way to start an encyclopedia article. If it were a list of the most valuable recorded comic book sales it would at least satisfy WP:V, but not like this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete though this kind of thing might belong on a article about collecting comics, in some form or another, this overall list smacks of price guide, which isn't the sort of thing Wikipedia should try to provide. At least, not IMHO. FrozenPurpleCube 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly not notable. This kind of list demands good citation. JodyB _talk 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding Sourcing In it's current state this article very clearly exhibits original research, but to put in focus, this subject is certainly sourceable and verifiable. [GPA Analysis] provides market research on individual comic book sales, The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide gives value estimates annually on comic collections and I believe [CGC] tracks pricing on comics they grade. Just mentioning that the topic is viable (although certainly not in it's current form) and might be of interest to collectors, comics owners and auction houses. -Markeer 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently uncited original research. Attributing directly to Overstreet (or one of its competitors) presents copyright and NPOV problems. We don't say that Wikipedia is not a price guide, but we should. Also, as an aside, the current content is simply wrong. The Brave and the Bold #54 is nowhere near one of the 25 most valuable comics; there are easily more than 25 that trade virtually exclusively in the thousands of dollars, and probably that many in the tens of thousands, underscoring why this is out of the scope of this project to keep accurate. Serpent's Choice 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (note: this reply has been restored after having been improperly deleted [here] by User:Rodrigue): FYI attributing to Overstreet or any other reputable source is emphatically neither a copyright violation nor POV. The whole point of Wikipedia is to cite and verify all allegations. Please refer to WP:CITE and WP:V. Footnotes are good things, not bad :) -Markeer 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is it that the article itself is not notable or that it is not properly created, because that is a simple problem and does not require an AFD Rodrigue 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I should have said the article could be notable but is not given its present condition. If proper sourcing was given which validates the information then perhaps. But here's the rub, wouldn't such information almost require a copyright violation? I mean, the valuations would likely come from a pricing guide who's material would be copyrighted. Is there another source which would not prove problematic? This article would also, it seems, quickly run out of date as I would assume the valuations change over time. But that being said, the article in an of itself would be ok JodyB _talk 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I dont think you people can say that the article subject itself is not important enough to be an article.Just look at the article on list of most expensive photographs or most expensive painting.I can easily fix the sources and everything if that is the problem, but how about saying if you think the subject is important enough. Rodrigue 13:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with the article is that it is entirely original research. You took a table (an unreferenced one, at that) from an article on superhero first appearances, copy and pasted it into this article, and called it the "24 most valuable comics." You took a seemingly random and completely unrelated list, made a claim, and then completely failed to justify that claim. Even if you found a source to the prices of the books, the whole premise of the article "most valuable" would be thrown out. Additionally, if you were able to find out the most valuable comics sold at auction, you would need to back it up with independent third party sources to support every contention, not just shifty Overstreet listings or stuff crimped from the back of Wizard. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I copied the table from the article is because the information is more properly suited in an article like this, and it is not original reseach if the prices have been established.And so are you saying the article needs to be deleted or changed because of the fact that it says "most valuable" and not "most expensive".
  • But anyway perhaps another opinion is needed, because the fact that you nominated it for speedy deletion when you knew it shouldn't have shows how biased you are on the issue. Rodrigue 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, it was denied for speedy and nominated here by another admin. This is the second opinion. Hell, this is the third, fourth, fifth and nth opinion. And it is original research to say its the 24 most valuable, or even in the cases of some of the cheaper first appearances, most valuable anything. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Close and keep Actually, looking at links, diffs, refs , and surrounding discussion, it looks like all the refs are available and provided, though perhaps not entirely clearly. So the nomination reason (and that of several of the delete opinions above) does not in fact apply. Interesting! --Kim Bruning 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) oh, interesting, a revert war has actually obscured the one reference link that had been provided on the page itself. Even so, comics are pretty popular, so this information shouldn't be too hard to compile at all, either way.
  • Comment Like I addressed with you elsehwere, the whole basis for the article is based on faulty original research. Some of the prices may be accurate, but the basis of the article is inherrantly flawed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Neutral-ish (Definitely don't salt though). *NodNod*. I also talked with one or two other experts. The article is source-able, and it's possible to find the real info in those sources. I've even linked them. But the data in the article now likely does not agree with the sources, and I'm too lazy to actually put in the right data.:-P I'll leave that to someone else, if they feel like it at all. And else a similar article can always be re-started by someone who does have that amount of time on their hands. --Kim Bruning 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so... I've never seen a real comic book publication even try to do that. They can just list the most expensive ones they know about, which will by nature of the market be incomplete. A speculative list is not really something we've traditionally included. --W.marsh 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are multiple problems with this article. First of all, there is no reason to assume that the 24 most valuable comic books will all be first appearances of characters. Secondly, the article creates an artificial distinction between "most valuable" and "most expensive" without explaining that distinction. Thirdly, it would be difficult to write an accurate article about this topic without violating the copyright of a price guide or engaging in original research. --Metropolitan90 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is confusing. The word valuable can either mean how desirable an object is, or how much money it is worth. This article, as is made clear in its first para., is about the desirability of these comics as opposed to how expensive they are. That appears to be OR, and cannot be NPOV. I know NPOV is not of itself a good reason for deletion, but in this case there is no way NPOV could be achieved because desirability is such a personal thing. To then attempt to apply a monetary value to the desirability seems to be mixing up two separate things. A properly sourced List of most expensive comic books like the similar photos and paintings articles would be OK. Smalljim 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, so would that be a proper solution then.Instead of deleting the article we change to an article of most expensive comic books, just like list of most expensive paintings and list of most expensive photographs.Perhaps it was just a mistake to use the "valuable" terminology.
  • But this list is not the most "expensive". You took a list of first appearances and falsely claimed they were the most... anything. They're not. And try to read the arguments made above. W.marsh puts it very succinctly. "You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. To clarify my comment above, I'm not suggesting that to copy the existing list into a new "most expensive" list would be a solution. The data must be properly sourced, if that's possible. Oh, and it would have to include all comics - like The Beano and The Dandy :) Smalljim 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest that the article on comic book collecting would be the most likely target for any such information. It needs a bit of improvement anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bulldog123 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment But like I said, there is an article for most expensive photographs and most expensive paintings, and so by fairness this article should stay as well.Even if the content is something don't agree upon, the nature of having an article on most expensive or vauable comic books does qualify as a notable article doesnt it? Rodrigue 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or maybe those articles should be deleted as well? In any case, I support the article on comic book collecting (I would also support one on art collecting, photograph collecting I don't know, but I have no objection to it). However, those articles might mention some valuable paintings, but that coverage should be secondary to the main purpose of the subject itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say that I think the opposite should happen.I don't think the article on comic book collecting or an article on art or photography collecting should be there at all.Theoretically you can think of an infinity amount of "things" and write about how people collect them.And besides, who has ever used the term art or photography collecting anyway, atleast comic book collecting is something many people are familiar with.But when you make an article on list of most expensive things, that the things listed on that page will likely be of historic or cultural sighnifigance, even if what the item actually is isn't.I have already nominated the comic books page for deletion which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book collecting. Rodrigue 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out that the original reason for this AFD, that the article is original research and should be deleted unless verifiable, is now debunked seeing as how the sources are there, but I suppose people have their own reasons for why it should be deleted otherwise the discussion should have ended by now. Rodrigue 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, the deletion process ends after 5 days, or when the nominator closes it. The fact that the discussion is still going on has nothing to do with people having their own reasons or whatever. Second, slapping a few unverified sources on the article doesn't automatically debunk all arguments for deletion. Third, the fact that articles exist that you deem similar to your article, is generally not considered a strong argument for keeping an article. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more on that.--Atlan 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "the sources are there"? At the moment there are only two external link footnotes in the article, one to a dead page, the other to an article on a collector who wants to buy Action Comics #1 (which means it doesn't represent a real value on an item, only a potential unrealized value). The remainder of the entire article is still uncited, and above all else there is no citation that these are in fact the most expensive comic books out there. Someone earlier in this AfD already pointed out that The Beano and The Dandy have sold for more than, say, Brave and the Bold #54. Beyond this, a simple google search leads me to [this page] just listing realized auction sales from two months in 2004 -- several of which are for a larger amount than half the items in this article (e.g. Action Comics #45 for $2600, or Amazing Spider-Man #19 for $5000). People have called this original and uncited research for a reason: the data is patently inaccurate as a list of the highest sale prices, and beyond the simple state of the data being wrong as listed, there's no attempt that I can see to cite those prices that ARE there. As I said above, I think there's an article that could exist on this subject, but this is not it.-Markeer 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A comment on my own comment: I took a couple minutes to register an account with [Heritage Auction Galleries] (you need an account to see prices of their finished auctions) and noted there are quite literally dozens of realized sales for comics for amounts far in excess of those on this list. Forget that this article is missing, say, All Star Comics #3 (sold in 2003 for $126,500) or Human Torch #2 (sold in 2006 for $74,750). Looking down a bit I see that a copy of GENE AUTRY COMICS #1 was sold in 2002 for over $25,000 (seriously? Gene Autry??). I'm sure the article creator might say "great, add those to this article" but the problem is I have no idea if any of these sales are the highest for those issues or if other auction houses have sold other individual golden or silver age comics for more than those listed at this one auction house. So I have nothing I can cite toward an article on "Most Expensive" or "Most Valuable" at all. All this 5 mins of work has done has proven that the current article list has very little accuracy. -Markeer 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First of all people dont seem to understand that the reason they will find different prices for the comicb books is that this list is about desireability and not what they sold for, which is why it is most valuable comic books.And I don't think that an article with a lack of sources is a good reason to nominate it for deletion anyway, that is why you tagg it first and wait if the sources are there.but my main concern is that regardless of how unsourced the article is, the topic that it is dealing with is a notable one that doesn't deserve to be deleted otherwise, because there are other lists of most expensive stuff on wikipedia, and if people want it can just be changed to most expensive, because I suppose people would find more sources for how much they sold for. Rodrigue 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One problem is that I don't even know how we could expect to measure value in terms of desirability, as distinct from price. If I can't even figure out what the article is trying to say, there's no point in looking for sources to verify it. --Metropolitan90 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no problem with whether or not you can get sources. That's irrelevant to my concerns, which is that this article appears to be a price guide, and as such, isn't quite encyclopedic on its face. If there is anything encyclopedic that can be gotten out of it though, try comic book collecting as a place to put it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or turn into List of most expensive comic books: Value and desirability are too subjective to be the basis for a list such as this. DCEdwards1966 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• CommentI personally don't disagree with turning the article into one about most expensive instead of most valuable, I only used that term because I thought it would have been a better meaning, but the only issue here is wether an article on comic books by price is a valid article, which I think no one seems to disagree with so perhaps the article should just be changed to most expensive and subsequently the list would change, Now I think desirability was a bad method of listing. Rodrigue 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we do have a list of most expensive comic books, mind you, we'd need sources for every single price, as well as some way of capping the list (25 most valuable? 20 most? Everything over $10,000? $100,000?). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move I dont think that will be as much of a problem as you think, because there are the two article of most expensive paintings and most expensive paintings, and deciding how many to put on the list is an arbitray decision that can be made for any reason.I will vote for moving it to that article, it seems like a fair decision Rodrigue 22:44, 8 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 (T|C) 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan wargo

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

Idiot LSU student who threatened to kill Hillary Clinton and is now under indictment. Cites one news article, so not speediable, but he's no more notable than hundreds of people who've committed similar crimes. NawlinWiki 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, run-of-the-mill crazy, no evidence of concrete planning. There will be dozens of such arrests during the coming 18 months, they are not automatically notable. Also, indictment does not mean "arrested and charged". (In the US the term is generally reserved for charges placed by a criminal grand jury.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was the one who speedied this, and as I said in the discussion page, he'll be forgotten in 2-3 weeks. Wildthing61476 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete His time is up and wikipedia is not a newspaper. the_undertow ^talk 01:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem notable besides this very minor incident.--Gloriamarie 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (insert Hillary joke du jour here) He is not notable, well beyond his 15 minutes of fame. JodyB _talk 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; a very minor plot incident. No notability asserted beyond the alleged plot. Sr13 (T|C) 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Who cares? Nobody, seemingly. Moreschi ^Talk 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no one cares. RFerreira 06:07, 6 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 (T|C) 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leprachaun Vs. Chucky

Leprachaun Vs. Chucky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is about a movie that doesn't exist, hasn't been confirmed to be in production and isn't even rumored to be in production. The page doesn't cite any sources for it's information, but I found out that the movie's purported story board was copied and pasted from this message board. It's in the "creative corner" section, where fan fiction is posted. Furthermore, the movie's poster is obviously fake, with "leprechaun" misspelled as "leprachaun". When I pointed this fact out to the article's creator, he quickly changed the movie's name to Leprachaun vs. Chucky (as if that makes the poster any less fake). Hence, I move for deletion of this article on the grounds that it is evidently fake with fan fiction as it's plot and because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, where speculation about movies that might someday happen has no place. Atlan 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think this is just a horror fan's dream. I poked around teh internets, and I found a 'trailer.' It appears to be a fraud, as does the movie poster. Hoax. the_undertow ^talk 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All the reasons cited above. ---Gloriamarie 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Same as above, it's not in IMDB either. Even on the slim chance it's legitimate it's not significant. JoeyETS 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A definite (and poorly drawn up) hoax. Sr13 (T|C) 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, cute, but obviously useless. --Phoenix (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, crystal ball, very possibly a hoax. JodyB _talk 11:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not WP:V. Definitely a hoax, just look at the fake poster. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the love of god. --Infrangible 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Burn it with fire along with the creator of these lame hoax articles. RFerreira 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax - no AMG or IMDB listing, no sources, etc... SkierRMH 23:46, 9 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 (T|C) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOPH

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

Non-notable Warcraft mod/expansion/derivative (the article doesn't even really define what it is). No reliable sources furnished, and the article skews toward advertising in tone. Prod contested by the main contributor, so I'm sending it here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is not as mainstream as DOTA. Why don't you try opening the woph site? or play it? or help editing it so that it doesn't have the advertising tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slugonice (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

• Delete as non-notable custom game. The only assertion of notability is in the Recognition and Popularity section. If I'm reading this correctly it only asserts that an unspecified number of people have played it, and some amateur musicians used some of the music as inspiration. If none of these musicians or their songs would pass wikipedia's guidelines for notability, why would one possible influence pass? Many games have the ability to customize gameplay, it would be a phenomenon if any such custom game were to become so notable that it would be mentioned in multiple non-trivial secondary sources. But while that phenomenon may someday occur, it certainly hasn't in the case of this article's subject. -Markeer 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable custom game. Is not cited with "multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and unlikely ever to be. Sr13 (T|C) 06:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, non-notable. --Phoenix (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Simply not notable. JodyB _talk 11:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is a custom game catered to the Philippine gamers. You can't expect it to be as mainstream as DOTA. www.woph.co.nr lists over 300 members and growing. Slugonice 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A mere three hundred members? Again, this tells me this is a relatively minor game in the grand scheme of things—and is less likely to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• NOTABILITY?

A "mere'?

"Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.'

Ehem... looks like you're bordering on that line. Slugonice 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "[T]his tells me...[it] is less likely to be notable." I'm not saying it makes it non-notable; I'm saying there's a mathematically lower probability that it is, all else being equal. A game with three million users has almost certainly received coverage in independent published sources, which is the major criterion of WP:N. Three thousand users, it might have received coverage. Three hundred users...I'm not saying it hasn't received coverage, I'm just saying likelihood is dwindling. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you just delete the other sources I posted here? It was here a while agoSlugonice 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not. Another editor did, so I'm restoring here.
      • www.dotaportal.com
      • Philippine based online forums
      • www.wophportal.blogspot.com
      • www.woph.co.nr
      • http://deejaycmos.blogspot.com/2006/07/pinoy-dota.html -It is TAGLISH (so try getting a translator or something)

      It does not appear that any of them qualify under WP:RS, though. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Three hundred FORUM users is not equal to three hundred WOPH players. It is played in thousands of internet cafes around the country... The main reason it has only around 300-400 users is that, the WOPH moved it's FORUMS to another server. Slugonice 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've stricken my comments above relating to the 300 users figure, since the forum is a side issue to the game itself. The non-notability of forums about the game are not an issue to the notability of the game. We're still where we are: no independent publishes sources about the game; everything cited seems to be self-published, blogs, or forums. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete game mods and maps are pretty much non-notable by definition, and nothing in the article suggests this is one of the very rare exceptions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment okay, ill be posting ones that do not relate to self-published, blogs, or forums User:slugonice 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Slugonice: hopefully to simplify discussion here, please keep in mind that above and beyond all other considerations, including numbers of players, etc, the first rule of notability is that a subject is covered in a non-trival way in multiple secondary sources. I respect that you seem to be willing to improve this article to meet wikipedia standards and I strongly suggest that you start there. If this project is notable, there has been coverage of it in newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc. Those need to be mentioned (with verifiable citations). -Markeer 00:51, 7 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 g1, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 11:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven V. Walls

Steven V. Walls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No hits at all on this person on Yahoo or Google--likely a hoax article. Blueboy96 01:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This has to be a hoax. the_undertow ^talk 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This information is completely fabricated.165.134.194.139 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy? I added speedy deletion tag Corpx 05:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Oh, come on! "He died of syphillys, being known for enjoying young women..." Hoaxalicious. Sr13 (T|C) 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Obviously a hoax. Warn the author, as well. Oren0 08:01, 5 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 (T|C) 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Town

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

Likely a hoax. No sources. Much of the content is copied from The Futureheads. Paul Erik 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's likely a (bad) joke. the_undertow ^talk 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not real. WikiFishy 02:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per above comments...No google hits either. Corpx 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article tastes so hoaxalicious! Sr13 (T|C) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not absolutely sure its a hoax, but I am absolutley sure its non-notable, non-sourced, non-verified. JodyB _talk 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hm... --Infrangible 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely a hoax. Any band that had reached #8 on the Canadian Singles Chart (as this band supposedly did with "Obligations to Animals" in 2005) wouldn't be unverifiable. Delete; speedy if possible. Bearcat 08:57, 6 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 (T|C) 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karamzai

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

Subject appears to be not sufficiently notable. Article is completely unsourced and has no incoming links. Less than 50 non-wiki Google hits after eliminating false positives (about 100 total Google hits). Unfortunately, the article also provides very little context and is borderline unreadable as it stands now. Seed 2.0 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) -- Seed 2.0 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. I forgot to mention WP:COI. -- Seed 2.0 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Already nom. Sr13 (T|C) 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, "sub-clan family" seems to indicate fairly low rank. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks assertion of notability. Completely unreadable at this state. Sr13 (T|C) 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability, no context, no sourcing. JodyB _talk 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:38, 6 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. Krimpet (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters

List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate huge list; Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. —tregoweth (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:NOT#DIR and it's stupid. WikiFishy 02:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Sr13 (T|C) 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. JodyB _talk 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I actually enjoy the article, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. Pax:Vobiscum 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom and the other deletes. —A • D ^Torque 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It's not an "indiscriminate huge list" - it's a large list with clearly defined parameters. As far as I can see the article doesn't fall foul of any of the categories in WP:NOT. In particular, I don't see that WP:NOT#DIR applies - in fact "…tabular information for quick reference" seems to nicely describe the article. Because of Disney's predilection for anthropomorphising everything, it usefully complements the existing Disney lists. It does need a lot of work, certainly, e.g. lots of wls, a proper lead section, and the actors providing the voices should be included. But I don't see why it couldn't eventually become a featured list like List of Harry Potter films cast members. Smalljim 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Note that I have no particular interest in the article - this just attracted my attention while browsing the AfD list.
• Delete The list is comprised of loosely related terms. Not everything made by Disney is meaningfully connected, and Wikipedia should not create lists that could lead people to that conclusion. Jay32183 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article is not an "indiscriminate huge list" and I don't think it has a problem with the boundaries of WP:NOT and I definitely don't consider this a directory. As was said above, Disney/Pixar anthropomorphizes everything from animals to silverware. The list does need to be cleaned up a bit, toss in some more links and adding the voice casts is a good idea, too. Useight 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's still in the early stages. A lot of articles start off kind of sloppy before they get improved. I say keep per reasons above, and I especially agree that it could become like that Harry Potter article mentioned above, which is a pretty good article, if I say so myself. 208.187.181.70 19:48, 9 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 per rewrite of article. John254 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People First (now at People-first language)

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

This article concerns an apparently non-notable term, cites only a single, polemical source, is written in the style of an unencyclopedic POV essay, and might constitute original research. John254 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- I think it might be possible to start a worthwhile article on People First language, but this isn't it. — Demong _talk 02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Dalejenkins

Keep -- I believe the idea is linguistically and politically flawed (see [1]), but this certainly is a notable term which a multitude of sources can be found for courtesy of Google (43,000+ results). "People first" is also a common name of organizations for disabled people, or people with disabilities if you prefer. The article could use some neutral rewording, but other than that I find no real fault with it. However, it should be moved to People First language, as "people first" is also a political slogan in other contexts, with People First becoming a disambiguation page. kate theobaldy 09:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have revised and moved the article as per my statement above, I hope that's OK with you guys. kate theobaldy 11:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep the new version. The term seems to be notable (it is referred to in numerous academic publications). The other reasons given for deletion were perfectly valid for the first version of the article, but do no longer apply to the completely rewritten text by kate theobaldy. Regards, High on a tree 12:34, 5 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. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nintendo patents

List of Nintendo patents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate huge list; no need to duplicate the Patent Office database here. —tregoweth (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as data dumnp. Punkmorten 11:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Violation of WP:IINFO, even though it's not specifically listed. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delets as above - no value in the content Think outside the box 12:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe a clearer violation of WP:NOT#DIR. JodyB _talk 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We all know Nintendo has patents, it is written on everything you buy from them Tonyf12 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not notepad. QuagmireDog 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". Pax:Vobiscum 14:58, 6 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.

Result was Keep. Caknuck 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Pye

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

Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (non-notable biographies) by Diemunkiesdie but I consider that the article does assert notability of a kind. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs sourcing, but Harry Pye has been covered by independent sources as required per WP:BIO. This article in The Guardian calls him "the master of the lo-fi underground group show", and LexisNexis turns up further significant coverage in The Times. EALacey 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A likely hoax. --Listen up friend 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)— Listen up friend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Do you have any evidence he isn't real? His recent exhibition has been covered by multiple newspapers (including one online article cited above), and there's more minor coverage going back to the 1990s. EALacey 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, article in the Guardian, page at artnet. Corvus cornix 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per EALacey. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep EALacey has said all that needs to be said. JodyB _talk 18:31, 5 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 Gnangarra 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sten Hostfalt

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

Edit history suggests that this page is autobiographical. Also lacks published sources that would assert notability. Rainwarrior 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as a red-flag COI. This editor has done absolutely nothing except to put his own name into Wikipedia as many places as he can. I'll go remove all the other edits. YechielMan 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and just encourage others to edit it. --164.107.223.217 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (indefblocked user) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep despite conflict of interest; article cites several independent sources (though I'd be happier with better sources). NawlinWiki 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello all and thank you for your input. Helps to have experienced wikipeople involved. At this point, the article is supported by a good amount of credible and closely related sources. And the article is clearly and specifically referring to these and to what has been officially publicized. thanks --Sonusrex 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The links to several webpage CD reviews of the 29 Pieces for Microtonal Guitar do assert some notability. There is, however, still a clear conflict of interest, but at present the article seems limited to verifiable claims at least. - Rainwarrior 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ...The article seems to lack importance. If more information, cited within the article, would be included, I would consider changing that vote to a keep. As it stands now, it looks like a relatively minor person attempting to get their name on Wikipedia. That's not worthy of a keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.134.194.139 (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no Allmusic bio is usually a poor sign of notability. Most of the sources in the article are primary. Of the remainder, some of the mentions are trivial (woohoo, a Guitar Player editor was spinning his disc). --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. Thank you. However, Guitar Player is the world's leading guitar magazine. An editor's pick there means major recognition. Regardless of how many sentences written about it. And of course the New York Jazz / improvised scene is in itself highly esteemed, NYC being the world's capital of Jazz. Anybody with a documented creative activity there will by default be making a significant contribution to the art form. Being part of the current developments on the NYC music scene for over a decade means being in the major league of that activity. All music guide will have several reasons for not including a bio. Many prominent musicians does not appear biographically there. However their activity is always recorded there. Rather, their respective associations (to other musicians) indicate their importance. --Sonusrex 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete First, the Guitar Player link is a stretch at best and to me underscores the COI issue here. Assuming the COI is correct, Sonusrex probably should not even be participating in this discussion. WP:NOTE looks for multiple non-trivial sources which do not seem to be found here. That plus the WP:COI issues and the subject seeking to influence this discussion causes me to think it should be deleted. JodyB _talk 18:47, 5 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 merge to André the Giant. WjBscribe 12:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre The Giant (DVD)

Andre The Giant (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nn DVD, just a compilation of matches with Andre. WP is not a directory or indiscriminate source of info. See similar reasoning on WWE DVDs in the afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake "The Snake" Roberts: Pick Your Poison Biggspowd 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to André the Giant or André the Giant#DVDs. A plausible search term. meshach 16:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Two options: Either keep (as a legitimate DVD chronicling the top matches in the career of one of professional wrestling's most famous stars) or redirect/merge per Meshach, and include a graf or two in the main Andre the Giant article. [[Briguy52748 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)]]
• Delete I suggest delete and just use {{cite video}} to cite it on Andre's article. Govvy 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to André the Giant. It wasn't even a bio DVD, it was just a DVD (originally VHS) release of his early matches. TJ Spyke 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The DVD is distinct from the person. Why should they be the same article? A distinct compilation deserves an article. Oren0 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andre's article. Nothing suggests that a separate article is required to cover this material, and nothing "deserves" an article. Otto4711 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the main article. JodyB _talk 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. --Infrangible 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge details into main article. Surely it's more useful to have the details there instead of in a separate article, and the main article is not too long to need sub-articles split out. Smalljim 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I think the information in this article should be added to Andre's article. Kris 01:59, 10 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. WjBscribe 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Gray (technology journalist)

Tim Gray (technology journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Author almost certainly has a WP:COI, and in any case he doesn't seem to be notable. A Google search was inconclusive. YechielMan 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and give a chance for further research and evidence to be added to indicate notability and references. --164.107.223.217 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (infeblocked user). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This anonymous user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, reasonably successful technology journalist but accomplishment != notability. No third party sources attesting to same. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability. Wouldn't you think a reporter would have sources? JodyB _talk 18:53, 5 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. — Scientizzle 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Stretch

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

A university-sponsored summer school program that doesn't appear to have received attention outside its group of participants and the faculty who take part in it. It doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines or precedents. Joyous! | Talk 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• This program, while certainly is not incredibly large, still caters to hundreds of students annually. Since it is part of an educational system, it should fit into Wikipedic guidelines. Might I compare it to links on the pages on Universities, where you can find student organizations and assorted university programs. One might check the pages of Brown University and the University of Washington to confirm this.

NSD Student 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of notability presented. There are hundreds of similar programs around the country; what makes this one special? --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No relevancy Corpx 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:42, 6 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 -- Samir 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanna Sherry

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

Non-notable Ghost Yacht 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is it too much asked that the nominator at least states why he thinks it's NN? Malc82 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• So I have to put forward a case for why I think this person isn't notable, rather than somebody having to put a case for why she is notable, as if people are notable unless proven otherwise? Bizarre! Ghost Yacht 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete The external links contain two references to external sources about her. I don't think that's quite enough to meet the threshold of WP:PROF. It's borderline. YechielMan 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand. Sherry's books are widely read, significant, and certainly noteable contributions to the academic literature on American constitutional law and the role of the federal courts. Newyorkbrad 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With those two works, it meets the general WP:N, and with the additional information about her publications it meets WP:PROF. She holds a named full professorship at a major university law school, and such people are almost always notable. DGG 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: She is mildly impressive, but here are thousands of law professors who could have similar, if not more substantial articles. WikiFishy 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Erring on the side of caution here and think it should stay. Corpx 05:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, named professor at a prominent law school, and lectures at others law schools[2]. John Vandenberg 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. --Infrangible 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per malformed nomination which leaves us all guessing. RFerreira 06:25, 6 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. Sr13 (T|C) 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mennonite Church in Vietnam

Mennonite Church in Vietnam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The unsourced statements in this article cannot be allowed to stand, per WP:BLP. I'm in the mood to just blow it up and start from scratch, but perhaps some of you can find a more moderate solution. YechielMan 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's an important subject and could be made much better with some small changes and references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.240.120 (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, needs better sourcing which is pretty easily found.[3][4][5] [6] I think the external links in the article aren't broad enough but they certainly satisfy WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No question that the article is poorly written nor is there any sourcing of the claims. Neverthless the article documents a prevalent issue in SE Asia and should be kept and sourced properly. The fact that he was arrested is really not a negative reflection on him as much as the government. JodyB _talk 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep And, a reminder, this is NOT the place for articles that need improved, it's the place for articles that need deleted. Please be responsible for AfDs, and don't use them to procure article improvement. Thank you. KP Botany 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Any article about Amish in Vietnam is worth keeping. --Infrangible 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Amish are a splinter sect of the Mennonites. Only Old Order ("Horse and Buggy") Mennonites closely resemble the insular practices of the Amish. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs improvement but not deletion.Ans-mo 10:24, 7 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 (T|C) 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potterrow

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

A student union building. At present this article consists entirely of OR, WP:NFT, general nonsense, etc. A quick google seems to turns up mainly listings pages and people's photos. I'm not convinced there are enough non-trivial independent reliable sources to make this building any more notable than any other night-spot. (A redirect to here might be a solution.) -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non notable building. Nuttah68 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: A quick internet search does not reveal any sources that indicate notability outside the local area. It already has a mention in Edinburgh University Students' Association and I think that's enough. Smalljim 21:23, 8 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 (T|C) 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Eade

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

Person claiming to be the subject has been attempting to blank or otherwise clear most facts from the page. Claim of inacuracy have been made, though the references look good, and nothing is particularly negative to make this a major BLP issue. This is mostly a procedural nomination. The main reason I would see for deletion, beyond the subject's wishes, would be notability. The article claims a "British National record". The sourcing backs up the feat, but says nothing of it being a record. So the record itself is not confirmed. And the record would be the only reason I can see for notability in the first place. So, with the one claim to notability unsourced, I myself am a weak Delete on the thing. While the desires of the subject are not enough to remove a article on a truely notable person, in a, at best, marginal case like this I would lean towards getting rid of it. TexasAndroid 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per TexasAndroid. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If he is the record-holder, he's notable,so we should try to see if anyone can verify that. And anyone can claim to be anyone in an edit summary. DGG 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, the source says he exceeded a British national record, but the result is unofficial. I don't think an unofficial record should count for purposes of WP:N. If and when he is able to have an officially certified record perhaps the article can return. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my tentative comment above. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with Dhartung, the possible record cannot count as notable because it was unofficial. Actually, after looking at Bench Press world records I'm not sure that even if it was an official record it would be important enough for inclusion. There is no other claim to notability in the article and a quick internet search doesn't reveal any either. Smalljim 22:04, 8 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTTP File Server

HTTP File Server (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The software has won many awards. --Sbluen 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• The sources appear to be 2 forum posts and a Wiki... not a good sign. --W.marsh 04:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of those review sites have no credibility and some are just saying its not spyware. Non-notable. Corpx 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources cited. kingboyk 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, article also fails WP:RS (eMule used as source?). --Tinctorius 08:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This software was reviewed on several printed magazines, in Italy (Internet Magazine, nov 2006), Japan (Hacker Japan, don't remember the issue, i have a copy in my apartment), France (SVM magazine, may 2006) and Germany at least. The last article, April 2007, it's 4 pages long, but since it is copyrighted material i cannot put it in the WP article. --Rejetto 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is to put in the reference, and translate & add a key sentence where the article discusses the importance of the software. Ditto for the others. When you have done that, it will meet the standard requirements for Notability.

Weak keep, in the hope that you'll do this. DGG 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what i needed to know. Can references be not an URL/link (being them printed), but just report the name of the magazine and other coordinates?--Rejetto 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. And yes, references can be to sources not on the internet. Printed references often have more weight than internet references due to the transient nature of web links. 212.181.133.116 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete spammy. --Infrangible 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep provided there are more refs placed there fast. SMC 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears to be more popular in the non-english-speaking world. I'm persuaded by that pdf of the article in April's c't - that at least should be cited, as DGG mentioned above. Smalljim 22:57, 8 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. WjBscribe 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Condé

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

Unsourced autobiography which doesn't make a case for meeting WP:BIO (under "creative professionals"). Contested prod. MER-C 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, this guy shouldn't have written his own article entry. But although inline citations aren't provided the external links to galleries and exhibitions confirm the content and show that he has exhibited in major shows. I think he meets WP:BIO, he just needs to be warned (which I've done) and the article stub tagged then left for development.Madmedea 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Was the user who wrote this, User:MiguelConde.info, the artist himself or did you just infer that? I don't see edits by this user for any other articles, registering for the sole purpose of making a dozen or two edits is just as valid as unregistered users editing. This could have been a fan or someone who doesn't regularly edit. I just don't see where the user ever said that he is Miguel Conde. theanphibian 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his userpage indicating that his name implies a close connection with the artist, leading some editors to assume he is the artist... I thought that was hedging it enough.Madmedea 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak 'Keep' on the basis of the museums. True references and reviews would of course help. DGG 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: His exhibitions warrant notability and, if so many cricketers and, oh yes, even frickin' dog mushers (yes, dog mushers!) can have wikipedia pages, so can this guy--and conspiracy theorists. <eyeroll> -Eep² 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - from the museum collections he's involved in, he certainly looks notable. As with DGG, I'd like to see some more sourcing, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:24, 10 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. WjBscribe 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameArena

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

{{{text}}} the mutilating of this thread was in responce to a thread on the concerned website after the article went up for deletion its quality greatly improved (eg all insulting content removed) and i think it no longer needs to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.171.52 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 April 2007 GMT

Agreed, it no longer needs to be removed. Quality has been increased greatly and what was mucking around has now been weeded out.

+1 for leaving it

Still though, It is a vanity article and has little notability and should be removed. Nightwolf 07:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

+1 for leaving it. it's not offensive, it is informative (even if it isn;t "encyclopedian"). and it's a good thing for the community. what it comes down to is: why delete it? [-Varni]

yeah, leave it, the stupid stuff is gone, and it's informative. [-dman]

Vote to keep. Things have settled down and mature minded individuals from the site in question will continue to monitor the article for vandalism. - laz

Keep As Laz said, things should have settled down by now.203.214.92.220 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD was never logged. I'm about to log it in today's logs. --ais523 10:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I would be very willing to keep it, but there are no independent sources at all. If it is this important, I would expect it to be mentioned in some reasonably reliable source. DGG 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per DGG; it may be a very notable service, but there are no sources at all. --Tinctorius 09:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but the sourcing is still very poor. Again, GameArena may be very notable, but the lack of good sources still annoys me. --Tinctorius 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately I couldn't find any sources for this site, via google or gamesindustry.biz. Happy to change mind if some sources appear. QuagmireDog 06:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as GameArena is one of the primary gaming server providers in Australia. Virtually no Australian gamer has not played on (or cursed at) a GameArena server. I'm sure finding sources would be very easy as it is a notable "organisation" (ie. subsiduary of Telstra), however it's just a matter of adding them. SMC 06:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced a fair few areas of this article. Please take a look. SMC 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Sources present aren't strong, but considering that it's both a news site and a gaming server host (biggest in Australia apparently) and that it is being mentioned, I believe it should stay. QuagmireDog 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Changes made by User:SMC should address the concern of the delete !voters above, the article is currently properly sourced. The GameArena Ladder system is apparently the largest computer games competition in Australia. Not bad. PeaceNT 15:15, 10 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 --Selket ^Talk 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margarethe Zinndorf

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

record superceded R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

More detail: this case is/was a 'placeholder' as the 'world's oldest person.' However, we now have evidence that Ms. Elizabeth Kensley of the UK was the actual titleholder (being 109) and thus this page is no longer relevant and will be 'orphaned.'R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Margarethe Zinndorf" when entered with the quotes has 144 hits on a google website search. Also, the article seems to be well-integrated into a template system for the old age record-holders. If it goes does the template need to be dismantled. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment True, this was not a 'SPAM' or 'JUNK' article...but it was a 'placeholder' article. Now that we have an older person to replace Mrs. Zinndorf, I'm not sure if we still need her article. The same goes for Kiet Portier-Tan which could also be deleted. I'm all for keeping historical placeholders, but these were only recognized for about 2-5 years. Regards 68.211.77.10 00:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: both Portier-tan and Zinndorf were still their country's recordholders at the time, which is notable nevertheless. Extremely sexy 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment This case is actualy very simple. I edited the article as Guinness never awarded her the oldest person in the world title. Just the people who didn't know of the Guinness 1965 edition book presumed she was oldest.

Comment. The records-collection process can be dicey. In 1988, Guinness had awarded the "oldest living person" title to Orpha Nusbaum, 112..only to have several older claimants emerge. To be more correct, Margarethe Zinndorf was listed in the 2005 Guinness Book, and so was recognized by Guinness then. It was a case of the 'left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing'. People working at Guinness in 2005 weren't the same people from 40 years earlier, and the pre-internet age means that much early information remains unincorporated into the system. It may be that additional early cases will emerge (for example, does anyone have a 1964 Guinness Book?).R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And since she is still the verified 2nd oldest person in the world list, her status on deletion should be parallel to all other second-oldest-person-in-the-world article biographies that did not become the oldest person in the world. If you want to see a list of second oldest persons in the world, you can consult with the updating http://www.nealirc.org/Gerontology/Since1955.html for other people parallel to Margarethe Zinndorf. Neal 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't agree with that. Note that the 1960's records were sort of a 'shoestring' effort, whereas today we have very large datasets. Second-oldest today means a lot more. to be the second-fastest of 100 participants in a race means more than being the second-fastest of five participants--and what if you only had two entries? Would finishing second and last then mean as much as finishing second of 100?R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. As per my own comment and also Neal's. Extremely sexy 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as notable for oldest person in her country at the time. Notability of old people is not just contingent on their being the oldest in the world. Maybe she can be a place-holder for her country, with the rest to be filled in as and when per Eventualism. Jdcooper 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Interesting question--successive record holders, trend expected to continue. Do we include them all? Yes, on the same principle that we include successive record holders of sporting events. The time for a race is expected to continually decrease, and we do include them all. N is permanent. WP is subject to recentism in adding articles, but we haven't yet started deliberately deleting the earlier notables. . DGG 19:49, 5 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. WjBscribe 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray Parker (broadcaster)

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

A weatherman in a city with 600,000 people. I think Al Roker may be the only notable weatherman. Also, this TV station has articles for about a million local personalities. General comments on notability of local television reporters is welcome because I may be AFDing more. Calliopejen1 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about Calliopejen1. Murray has been with the station for several decades and is currently the station's weathercaster on the 6 p.m. news, and is strongly associated with the station because of all the years he spent as station announcer and weathercaster. If you don't live in Winnipeg you have no clue as to who is important and who is not. Is your main complaint the length of the list of 'Former CBWT personalities'? If so, then maybe the list can be moved to its own page, but please leave the biography pages alone! --Jimj wpg 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that everyone in Winnipeg knows who he is, I'm just unsure that local TV personalities like weathermen deserve encyclopedia articles. In the city I'm from, everyone knows who the local weatherman is, but she doesn't have her own page (and I don't think she should either.) My main complaint isn't the length of the list at all--it's about the notability of the individuals on it. I just wanted to generate discussion about more general issues because if this one goes I would be nominating others too. Calliopejen1 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He has not only done the weather for several years, and was station announcer, but also was co-host of Reach for the Top. He hasn't written any books (yet). I don't know if that's the criteria you use for keeping or deleting an article. What you're doing is not any different than article vandalism. Here's a few videos that Jason and myself put on YouTube featuring Murray:

• CBC Manitoba Reach for the Top - Murray Parker co-hosting (1982)
• 24Hours - Murray Parker announcer to stories on 24Hours (1987)
• 24Hours - Murray Parker does the weather (1988)
• CBC Tv 50th Anniv. - Murray Parker co-hosting Montreal Olympics coverage (2002)
• CBC News at Six - Murray Parker returns February 19th, 2007

--Jimj wpg 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any disagreement about Parker's longevity and experience, Jimj wpg. The question is instead whether or not his longevity and experience makes him notable. --Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think being a national broadcaster on some scale (Montreal 1976) surely makes this article worthwhile to keep. Because Winnipeg is a major North American city, and other major cities have articles on their local TV personalities from past and present, I don't want to see Winnipeg TV being ignored on Wikipedia. --PsychoJason 05:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I am generally leary about articles on purely local TV personalities but the soruces imply that he is notable at least in Winnipeg. Eluchil404 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I doubt a television personality with 40 years' experience who had hosted a major sports event and was perhaps the best-known television personality in a United States city would ever, ever, ever be brought up for AfD. This guy passes WP:BIO if everything in his article is accurate. --Charlene 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to me as a Canadian equivalent of our "Scooter", the one who on chanel 11 hailed Yankees' every and each home run with "Holy cow!" or late Polish sports' DJ - Jan Ciszewski - who used alternative but almost same words after a home team in soccer or hockey scored - "Justice was done!" greg park avenue 02:13, 10 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 redirected to Hungary. MER-C 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungery

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

Not an encyclopedic entry.

• Speedy delete as a biographical article with no claim of notability. So tagged. —Celithemis 03:28, 5 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. Dakota 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert B. Stein

Robert B. Stein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Google search says that this article is probably a hoax. Looking at the author's userpage, it looks like it might be an autobiography under a different name. The irony of it isn't lost on me either :-) -- ugen64 04:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, even if real, fails WP:BIO. Also, my linens are dingy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and is a borderline candidate for speedy deletion, A7. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but we should continue the policy of not speedy-ing hoaxes, because someone might recognize it. There have been embarrassing near-misses. DGG 19:51, 5 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, CSD A7. kingboyk 08:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Normanby & Marton junior football team

Normanby & Marton junior football team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. King of the North East 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete strongly Even if the club met the notability criteria for football clubs, it reads like is an essay and, at the risk of running afoul of WP:AGF, I dare say it has the awful stench of copyright infringement. Ytny (talk) 04:30, 5 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 Gnangarra 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zongshen 200 GS

Zongshen 200 GS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Non-notable motorbike, fails WP:CORP. Nothing on Google - 4 non-wiki ghits - nor in the Google news archive. MER-C 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly self-promotion; created by User:Zongshen 200 GS, who very likely has a stake in the company that builds these bikes. Fuzzform 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment if it's a bike sold in China, Turkey and the Phillipines, perhaps those Google searches should be in Mandarin, Turkish and Tagalog? Strange that there's no American reviews though, if (as the article asserts) it's sold in the US as well. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:41, 12 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. WjBscribe 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuka Foxxer

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

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Non-notable fictional character, fails WP:FICT. 4 non-wiki ghits. Also WP:NFT and WP:COI applies, as the creator of the article also made up this character. MER-C 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic of some kind, or equivalent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy Article created with edit summary 'All about Nuka Foxxer, Morganmoi's character', by User:Morganmoi, who is also labelled as the creator. Obviously a young contributor (see userpage) who's using WP as a free host. Suggest closing early (WP:SNOW) and someone pleasantly explaining to the creator what WP isn't. Is it possible to userfy it so it can be copied back to their PC? Or would that be frowned upon? Whatever, you guys know what you're doing. QuagmireDog 02:38, 6 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. WjBscribe 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U2's 16th album

U2's 16th album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is very unencyclopedic because it contains nothing but hearsay and rumors about the upcoming album, and features very little "confirmed" information. Crashintome4196 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean "not encyclopedic?"... I think so. I still say Keep because by reading the sources, there is definitely going to be a 16th album. True, there is a lot of hearsay, which should be deleted, but what would remain is encyclopedic. Sancho (Review me) 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

*Very very weak keep witha big cull of fluff. I agree with Crashintome4196's sentiment but reluctantly suggest keep. I'd much prefer an encyclopedia to report on things that have actually happened, but someone else will no doubt re-create it and it serves as a good place to dumb all the speculative fluff that gets dumped into the high quality U2 article. But, yes - unsourced gossip should be strictly culled from this article. Merbabu 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - the article's name is a problem. 16th album? Who names an article like that? And it's arguably not their 16th anyway - certainly not the 16th studio album which is what counts.Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - I've changed my mind. Now slightly on the side of delete. I suggest when a name is confirmed would be a good date to re-create an article. What do people think? And how do we stop it being recreated? Merbabu 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Crystal Ball. The references are weak. This will get recreated, and if/when the album has a title and some concrete references. But having possible tracks/producer is too much speculation for an encyclopedia. the_undertow ^talk 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - good points - a few more convincing comments, and I could change to 'delete'. Merbabu 07:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the name is a concern, and implies that we could create U2's 17th album. I understand that editors are taking the position that there is definitely going to be a 16th album, but is there any guarantee? the_undertow ^talk 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the difference here is that we know for a fact that U2 are spending a lot of time in the studio, preparing possible material for a new album, whereas we have absolutely no indication that there will be another album after this one. MelicansMatkin 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's all speculation; indeed, the last quoted comment from The Edge suggests they're not even thinking in terms of an album yet, they just have a few songs knocking about. --kingboyk 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is undoubtable that the band will release another album, and that at some point in the future this page would have to be recreated. I would also like to point out to other articles that have had similar issues of being created before much was known - notably this one. Confirmed facts will replace theory quickly as more is revealed. MelicansMatkin 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

comment I'm not a fan of leaving X because Y stayed. Besides, wouldn't you agree that the Harry Potter article is well-sourced? the_undertow ^talk 21:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The Harry Potter page is now, but at the time that it was requested for deletion, it wasn't. MelicansMatkin 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Harry Potter? Precedence is almost always the silliest of justifications for anything on wikipedia.Merbabu 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I generally believe that we should not create articles until such time as the album has a name and there are some verifiable facts to include within it. The Harry Potter book has a name and a release date and various other facts for inclusion in an article. As yet, this doesn't.Capitalistroadster 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Capitalistroadster--VS ^talk 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be speculative, no strong sources. I say Delete. Sweboi 21:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WTF? the article is very well referenced and at last informative. --Ciao 90 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is well referenced in terms of quantity, but not quality. it is largely based on gossipy fansites. I've made the comment on the article talk page that references to such sites should be removed. How exactly is it informative? There is barely anything concrete or encyclopedic there. Merbabu 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Impatience. Write the article in Notepad and then create the article when the album's released. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait until the album is released, we just need to wait until we have a decent amount of varified information. And also an album title would be nice too. –Crashintome4196 04:48, 10 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 close per request of nominator. Sr13 (T|C) 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Bradley

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

The subject of the article has not asserted why it is notable (CSD A7) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. By convention, every player who has been drafted in the 2007 NFL draft, which took place yesterday and today, is given an article by fans of his new team. If he ends up not playing for that team, the article might later be deleted. I'm not sure this is the best system, but it's developed as a kind of consensus. YechielMan 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am the creator of the nominated page, and I am a fan of the NFL in general, but especially the San Diego Chargers. I was following the NFL Draft on the Internet, and I reated this page because I wanted a page for every player drafted in Rounds 1-3 and Mr. Irrelevant. I am trying to stay out of the discussion in the spirit of NPOV --Dial 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll go ahead and say that I want this nomination closed per nominator. As I am not a huge fan of sports, I didn't know that Stewart Bradley was drafted per the NFL Draft, and I just thought that it was some NN football player. Sorry for the confusion that I have caused. Btw, DialH, an even better link would have been WP:COI, just sayin' ;-) ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again this was just deleted as a PROD, and the status of the individual has not changed. Let him make the cut and we can have a page on him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 1 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 --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society

Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mouldy article from the list of suspected COIs. Vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. Fails to make a case that the subject passes WP:CORP. MER-C 05:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, article doesn't claim any notability outside local area. Fails WP:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations. Maybe replace with a mention in Scarborough, North Yorkshire? -- Smalljim 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No Sources, No claim of notability, No real chance it is actually notable.--Work permit 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Work permit. Gwernol 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not sure if this is the right way to add my thoughts, but I have added a history to the article and listed the three major publications (ie books rather than just the 'booklets' used for annual reports) that the society is responsible for. I don't know if this qualifies as 'notability', although I have seen the two older works (from 1953 and 1956) referenced by others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfns (talk • contribs).
  • The question is not whether the society has published books, but whether there are multiple, non-trivial mentions of the society in books or other reliable sources - ones not published by the society. For example, articles about the society in a national newspaper would be an excellent source. Gwernol 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, given the nature and scope of the organization there should be something notable; tone of article does need to be tweaked though. Is this really any less notable than a single episode of southpark?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:21, 12 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 while it may have been a contested prod theres been no discussion about keeping the article Gnangarra 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SYGY

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

Vanispamcruftisement - it turns out that the author was a designer of this internet game. No case is made that the subject passes WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The term "Syncretic Synergy" returns minimal google hits. I didn't know the article's author created the game, that would explain the smell of spam. Would need a complete rewrite even if the subject were notable, which it ain't. --Bongwarrior 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The url http://www.sygy.org/ looks like a click/tag to get paid type of site and the whole article reads like an FAQ from their site. Looks very much like they're using wikipedia for commercial gain Corpx 05:55, 5 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, CSD G11. kingboyk 08:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remora USB Quick Launch

Remora USB Quick Launch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spammy and unsourced "article" on non-notable software. No evidence of notability, in the article itself nor Google News archive. MER-C 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• SPAM and written extremely poorly. Corpx 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. --Sbluen 06:04, 5 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 User:Kusma as a copyvio. kingboyk 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protus taniform

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

I can't figure out what this extremely poorly formatted "article" is about. Either way, there is a conflict of interest here. Neither the author nor the book appears to pass the relevant notability guidelines. Contested prod. MER-C 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Added a speedy delete tag since it was only created yesterday. Looks to be a list of African authors from edit history. Corpx 06:03, 5 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. WjBscribe 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a smoke bomb

How to make a smoke bomb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Anyway, the little information contained within is pretty much a verbatim copy of a part of Smoke bomb. Why this page was created in the first place is a mystery, since original editor (User:Peace keeper II) began the direct quote with the phrase "How to make a smoke bomb Straight from wikipedia". Rather pointless. vLaDsINgEr 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with User:Vladsinger. This isnt the place for something like that. Corpx 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to another wiki involving how-to. I support the article existing, but its just that it needs to go elsewhere within Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Guroadrunner 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I think wikipedia probably shouldn't have how-to guides for making bombs, even harmless looking ones. Someguy1221 10:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the information is duplicated from an article already on wikipedia. vLaDsINgEr 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO, speedy if anyone can find a relevant clause. This is probaly kust copied from the Anarchist's Cookbook, so no need to transwiki. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per BHGirl. Rgds, --Trident13 21:41, 5 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 speedily deleted by Sam Blacketer (author request). MER-C 11:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kid USA

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

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:11, 5 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.

Result was Keep and Rename to MythBusters episode guide. Caknuck 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythbusters episode guide

Mythbusters episode guide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Duplicated information from individual season episodes. (not to mention that the title is MythBusters) I think aggregations and episode guides may have their place at Wikipedia, but not in this context. kelvSYC 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep as it's notable enoguh, just change the title to "MythBusters episode guide". Dalejenkins 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It serves as a more compact listing than the individual season guides, though it could use quite a bit of wikifying. Someguy1221 10:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Almost every TV series has an episode guide here. No big deal. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as above Think outside the box 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dale. It should be renamed "List of MythBusters episodes" to conform with other similar articles on WP. TJ Spyke 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the others that tv shows should have episode guides on wikipedia. This one definitely needs some work, but it's worth keeping. By the way, what's up with the lack of info on the third and fourth seasons? Chipmaster32 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep see above --WTRiker 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with the opinions above. mixer 22:43, 8 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 speedily deleted by Adambro. MER-C 11:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnie D. Lishus

Ronnie D. Lishus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple non trivial reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:22, 5 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 speedily deleted by The Rambling Man. MER-C 11:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Kahlua

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

Non notable wrestler. No evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:29, 5 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 speedily deleted by Steel359. MER-C 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Johnson (Talent Manager)

Bruce Johnson (Talent Manager) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, but more importantly reads like an advertisement. Guroadrunner 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - blatant advertising created by what appears to be a MyWikiBiz style PR account: Idolmakerpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Tagged. MER-C 11:11, 5 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. Dakota 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floating pleasure palace

Floating pleasure palace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources or anything to assert notability. Contains various claims that are completely unverifiable not to mention libel if tied to the examples of existing ships that are given.MartinDK 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - two hypothetical examples, two "examples" which don't meet the criteria, and Jabba's sail barge? Please. Couple this with no sources whatsoever, and you've got a good candidate for deletion. --Haemo 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Phoenix (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like a fake. I couldn't find any other references to Floating Pleasure Palace. And like it says above.--James52 03:11, 8 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. Dakota 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan L. Murray

Jonathan L. Murray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a single word of what is in this article is verifiable. No reliable sources or anything to assert notability. Fails WP:BIO and most likely a hoax. MartinDK 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. I must admit I did laugh when I read it, but obviously there are no references or verifiable sources and the article seems to be a hoax.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 09:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and nom, not verifiable. --Phoenix (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Person who is not notable. Corpx 19:28, 5 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. WjBscribe 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sealand sports

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

Trivia dressed up a serious article, with no independent reliable sources cited. Sealand is in fact a small platform off the coast of the UK, and whilst it's no doubt appropriate to have an article on Sealand itself, this is mere fluff. kingboyk 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge edited down contents to Sealand. Minature golf on an offshore platform is not notable. --Work permit 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the sports actually take place at "Sealand", these people "represent" the "country" when playing, that's all. --kingboyk 11:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and redirect any usful content. A few games played on a legally disputed micronation are by no means notable alone. Martinp23 22:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep, the phenomenon has been picked up by secondary sources Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's one article about the "Viva World Cup", in which Sealand is mentioned. Maybe the "Viva World Cup" is article-worthy, I don't know. --kingboyk 11:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge verified and trimmed content to Sealand. We don't need a separate article on this trivia. Hut 8.5 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is first choice, but no strong objection to a merge... if reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to Principality of Sealand page. A second article is not needed. Unidyne 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 12:31, 9 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. Delete arguments are more diverse and convincing; additionally, many of the keep arguments appear to be skewed by canvassing. Krimpet (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coats of arms of micronations

Coats of arms of micronations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The coats of arms of various made up countries. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. No sources provided. kingboyk 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Further statement: Most if not of all these "nations" have no international recognition as countries or states, and few sources which cover them as anything other than curiosities. Whilst I have no objection whatsoever to articles about the more notable "micronations", what I do object to is the attempt to legitimitise these micronations. They are not countries, and shouldn't be covered as such. A small handful of the "usual suspects" who always pop up on micronation debates seem intent on legitimising these curiosities in the face of what the reliable sources say.

There are also copyright issues in this page, as some of the images are copyrighted, and some are tagged PD but probably wrongly. As essentially a gallery page I believe it is not possible to provide an acceptable fair use rationale. --kingboyk 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Spurious nomination. These are all well known and are thoroughly documented in multiple reputable third party sources. --Gene_poole 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any references. --kingboyk 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's because you didn't bother to look for any, funnily enough. --Gene_poole 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you going to provide some them, or do we have to take your word for it? --kingboyk 11:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep This is not for all micronations. Besides, even if some of these were made up in school one day, they have expanded to become notable and have been cited by international newspapers. For the sources, check out the websites of the micronations and the newspapers. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole --kingboyk 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the micronations documented in the article are notable, whatever their origins. Hut 8.5 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a list of miscellaneous vanispamcruft made up in school one day about wannabe "micronations" that never existed outside someone's overheated imagination. Fails WP:N and WP:A Edison 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the standards for the article are high enough that nothing in it is fairly described as "made up in school one day." Every micronation listed is notable enough for an article of its own (except, I suppose, for the Republic of Talossa). It may be useful to add references to this article, but there's no need to delete it. PubliusFL 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole --kingboyk 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have known about this anyways, as I have the article watchlisted. You'll note that I have edited the article before, and made a comment about it on Gene Poole's talk page in January. PubliusFL 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, every micronation represented has an article. If you're going to argue against the legitimacy of including micronations, target the articles of the nations themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • They are not "nations", that's the thing. It's fine to be covering these entities as curiosities, in one article each, but there's no reason we should be giving them the same level of coverage as real nations is there? What's next, Music of Sealand, Coins of Sealand, Stamps of Sealand, Sealand royal family, Economy of Sealand??? --kingboyk 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced cruft, mostly original research. Jonathunder 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "original research" mean in relation to an article like this? Do you think that the editors who created the article actually invented the coats of arms on their own? PubliusFL 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It probably is "original research", because it brings together various entities ranging from concepts literally made up in school one day to Australian political statements to fraudulent countries, and presents them all as a single topic. It also presents them as legitimate for coverage as a group of nations, whereas most of the sources on these phenomenon are lighthearted or dismissive. --kingboyk 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The sources on the topic of micronations seem to group these things together - i.e. they are all described as "micronations." Some more serious, some less so, but the different categories are often included as part of the same discussion. See the references in the main article. If this is what the supposed OR issue is, it ought to be dealt with at micronation. But as long as the class is coherently defined there, the other articles on micronational issues should follow the same general approach. That's the only way to avoid POV-forking of the various micronation-related articles. PubliusFL 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The micronations listed here have articles on their own, with multiple reference sources each. They meet the informal working notability requirements for micronations on Wikipedia (multiple press sources, real-world presence including producing something like stamps, coins, passports, etc.). This is not a list of things made up in a day, as reference to the articles behind this would show. Applying "nation" notability standards is simply wrong; micronations are a different category. There are a whole lot of non-notable, non-real-world micronations out there - which don't have Wikipedia articles, and aren't showing up here. These are different. And pre-emptively, Gene popped me a note about this AFD, but I've been working on Micronation articles on and off since I arrived on WP a couple of years ago now; this is not canvassing. Georgewilliamherbert 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole. It's canvassing because Gene only contacted editors who he knew would oppose deletion. --kingboyk 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This user has had AFD on watchlist for the last 2 years. Please give me a break. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That most micronations themselves deserve a Wikipedia article is debatable enough - that we need a gallery of their coats of arms seems baffling. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is even more specialized and on an even more tenuous topic than say, Toilets in Japan. Though we do have pages for thumbs of flags/coats of arms for real countries, these aren't "real" in the same way. I DO agree with having the List of micronations, though, since it is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic. This however is not. —ScouterSig 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have grave doubts about even the existence of master articles for these "micronations", and as for their "Coats of Arms"... Where are the secondary sources? Are they heraldically(?) acceptable? About half of them look like badges or logos rather than coats of arms. - fchd 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For anyone confused, these are not real countries, they are fake and not recognised by any other government. Patently unacceptable for an encylopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If they are all fake and unacceptable, shouldn't we be eliminating their articles? If you look at their articles, they have multiple nontrivial sources and meet our standards, so why not have an index to them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We do, it's at List of micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So we can have appropriate articles for the verifyable ones, a list of them, but not a list of coats of arms of them? Why, if the notable ones are notable enough, not have pages for their notable collective features (money, coats of arms, etc)? Either they are notable, or they aren't, and that question seems to have been rather solidly answered as are (for the ones meeting real-world verifyability criteria). Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - because their very existence is sourced, yet their coats-of-arms is not? - fchd 05:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Patently unacceptable for an encyclopedia of real countries, obviously, or an atlas of political geography. But "not real countries, fake and not recognised by any other government" are not appropriate deletion criteria to apply to the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. For example, Narnia is not a real country and is not recognised by any other government, but that's quite beside the point. PubliusFL 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Very good point, Publius, but Narnia is not claiming to be a country itself, is it? —ScouterSig 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply We have ways to deal with claims that are generally rejected, like those of Flat Earthers. Wikipedia must ensure that we objectively portray such claims so as not to give undue weight to tiny minorities or extreme fringe views, but that is a separate question from their notability. Many mockumentaries are obviously not what they claim to be, but that doesn't mean that any coverage of them should be deleted from Wikipedia. It just means that they have to be covered from an "out of universe" perspective. In general, micronations are to real nations as mockumentaries are to documentaries. Other micronations (like the ones set up as scams) are more like hoaxes or counterfeits, which are also not what they claim to be but still may be suitable for coverage on Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And there's the problem. Many of these mockumentaries are notable, but we cover them as though as they are documentaries. We give undue weight to their "statehood". Please come to WP:MICRONAT and help thrash out some guidelines. --kingboyk 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sympathetic to your point, but I think that's cause for reviewing the perspective of the articles, not deleting them. I think your WP:MICRONAT page is a good idea. PubliusFL 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Also, the fact that the proponents of this page resort to canvassing is a good indication that they don't have much of an argument. >Rad<fontcolor="#00EEFF">iant< 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Some may, I don't and wasn't. Bo 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's only a policy violation for canvassing if you pull people in who aren't actively involved in a subject. I am both actively involved in micronation articles and in AFD; the presumption that we wouldn't have come here and !voted anyways is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Regardless of whether Gene Poole's actions violate the spirit of the guideline or not, it is not appropriate to attribute his actions to everyone who opposes deletion of the article ("the proponents of this page" have certainly not resorted to canvassing). I adamantly maintain that I would have voted in this AfD, and the same way, whether Gene Poole contacted me or not, and oppose any suggestion that my vote or my opinion should be discounted due to a comment on my talk page that I had nothing to do with. I found my way to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Sealand and previous micronational AfDs all by myself (and probably voted contrary to what Gene Poole would wish). PubliusFL 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe anyone has suggested your !vote should be discounted (for the record, I shall now say: I don't think it should be discounted, as I will take your assertion that you would have found the debate anyway at face value). It was, nonetheless, canvassing as defined by our policies, and one of the reasons he's currently serving a block. --kingboyk 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I appreciate your clarification. PubliusFL 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep,The article title makes it clear that these aren't 'real' national coats of arms (no undue weight to their claims/presented properly). The list of entries is confined to the notable (actually to the noted in this encyclopedia, best I can tell). A reference page to all the notable micronation's coats of arms is encyclopedic. Bo 13:31, 9 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. WjBscribe 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sith Apprentice

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

YouTube movie, not notable, no references (bar 1 or 2 "external links") Dalejenkins 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This has nothing to do with YouTube. YouTube videos don't get entries in IMDB. Having said that, the article does not sufficiently state why this is notable. You should be aware that not all videos distributed over the Internet are just YouTube videos and some Star Wars and Star Trek fan movies have actually attracted enough attention to be notable. This isn't one of them unless better references are given. Keep Notability has been properly asserted now per WP:N and WP:RS. MartinDK 09:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "won the Audience Choice Award in the Lucasfilm-sponsored 2005 Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards" gives it sufficient notability to merit inclusion (although it could certainly do with a lot more references). _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Martin and Dale. Bravedog 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per UkPaolo. TheRealFennShysa 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Winning the award makes it a keeper in my books, winning an official competition seems notable especially in the world where there are a lot of these fan movies out there. Ben W Bell talk 07:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -i agree with dalejenkins and martinDK80.43.94.93 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)— 80.43.94.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - I've rewritten the article somewhat to include references, since this film easily satisfies WP:WEB and any notability concerns by virtue of the film's award from a Lucasfilm-endorsed contest, the press coverage, and the contributions of Lowell Cunningham. MikeWazowski 05:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -LtNOWIS 11:28, 11 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 already redirected by nominator. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia (song)

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

I don't see the point of this article. The story behind the song is already covered in the article about the album it's on. Other than that, nothing notable is said about the song, it's not even a single. kate theobaldy 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, what a silly reason to want to delete an article...Dalejenkins 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What a silly reason to want to keep an article... Do you have any arguments other than that? kate theobaldy 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:MUSIC. The song itself is not notable, the album is. MartinDK 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Phoenix (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I'd also suggest that calling a deletion rationale which is explained quite well "silly" isn't a great way to win friends and influence people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm not quite sure it's a good idea to create redirect pages for any song on any album. Creating this one would also justify redirects from Man Of A Thousand Faces (song), One Fine Day (Marillion song), 80 Days (song), Memory Of Water (song)... (you get the idea). Still, I'll be fine with a redirect, so I'm going to create one because there seems to be an overwhelming consensus. (I don't know if I'm formally allowed to do this, if not, please undo this). kate theobaldy 08:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The procedure regarding this kind of thing is normally that if someone ends up creating an article on any of those other songs you've named, they can be redirected/AfD'd as appropriate, the logic being that clearly someone's searched for the song in question, so we can point them to the album where the song appears. Only very rarely does every song on an album end up with an article (and even then it's normally an album like "Dark Side of the Moon"), so there's no particular need to worry at the moment about what might happen down the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. It doesn't necessitate the creation of those redirects, but they should be created if someone decides go create an article there, because it might mean ths song is nearly notable enough for one. --Phoenix (talk) 17:56, 6 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 Grand unification theory (and salt). Krimpet (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unification theory (2nd nomination)

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

Pseudoscience (looks reasonable at first - but read the later parts!); no references; probably contains Original Research. Note: A page having the same title as this one was previously nominated for deletion; the result of that previous discussion was delete. greenrd 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing Admin this AfD has been notified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience[7] as a stereotypical pseudoscience, this project intent is to remove alleged Pseudoscience articles from wikipedia Gnangarra 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Err, no. The point of the notification is that it is quite clearly under the purview of the project, and thus many of the people watching the project's pages will be interested in the AfD. This includes both skeptics and supporters of things like these; it also includes both those who believe it is notable and those who believe it is not. My comment that it is stereotypical pseudoscience says nothing about the notability or verifiability, and thus nothing about whether the article should actually be deleted. This also isn't the right place to discuss this issue. --Philosophus ^T 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note to readers: Lengthy discussion of the merits of the article have been moved to the talk page. --Philosophus ^T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• keep it. Article in progress, be patient. im recruiting other system scientists to complete info and references. Wonder how to access the original one. Most info are available in the work of the leading general system scientists of today, which gathered last year at the 50th anniversary of the isss.org: http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/issue/current notably Mr. troncale from pomona university and mr. Sancho from barcelona university, preceded mainly by the work of prygorine on the 2 time arrows of the universe. The end might be messy i was working all night, but it is part of a growing alternative approach to unification theory with 50 years of tradition. None is original research certainly not mine. I wish that!

General system theory is not pseudo science, and physicists are not the only scientists looking for answers. It deserves a place in wikipedia in the 2 common names we use: General System theories and Unification theories. If some people dont like General system theories is perfectly ok. Others dont like string theory for lack of proves but none would erase those articles. Please be serious about it. Give it a chance... I suggest to erase the oparts i did with low quality and let system scientists during the next year to improve it and complete it, ill take care of that (sortry i ddint do that the first time forgot about it, but it lasted a year, and so i thnk people are interested). This time promise to do my home work, just give me a couple of weeks ok? i work hard during the week and have also to learn the drill of this system. sorry for the errors, think on the essence.

The search of truth is a common quest and certainly doesnt not belong to physicists in this case till the right equations and logic thoughts are fully proved, in any theory from string theory to general system unification ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.41.234.125 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete or Redirect to Systems theory, which describes GST (aka Unification theory). This article is poorly written, unsourced, and takes a pseudoscientific approach to the topic. --Work permit 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Grand unification theory or unified field theory. This article is nonsense. Someguy1221 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think redirecting Unification Theory to the cites you mention is somewhat misleading (and degrading to real science). "Unification Theory" was a pseudoscienctific application of General Systems Theory that I remember made the rounds a few decades back. It was seperate and distinct from unified field theory, which is of course real science.--Work permit 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think it's degrading if all content within this article is deleted. No merging. Someguy1221 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I had a vague memory that Bertalanffy had some sort of "unification" theory that was an extension of his system theory, and was supposed to cover all science. quick google search didn't find anything notable, so I withdraw my concern.--Work permit 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect per Someguy. Also, the article is nearly unreadable in its current state. If it's a work in progress, there shouldn't be that much prose without wikification or a section breaks, or a construction/long-term in-use template should be added. --Phoenix (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As if its not bad enough, this article is WP:CP. Entire sections are lifted from luis sancho's article. Note similarities in this articles sections 4 to sachos 2, section 5 to sancho 4, section 6 to sancho 5, etc etc. Please put this article out of its misery --Work permit 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Per above.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Crackpottery . Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• OK GUYS, YOU ARE RIGHT PARTIALLY, last part is badly wrriten, i erased myself. I only left the historical beginning. Latter i will try to do a much better analysis within a month I still think though you should leave it because unification theory is used by system scientists since bertalanffy not by physicists.
• please can you guys re-read it? i hve followed all your advices on this deletion notes, Anyway i only left paragraph 1 which was not that much criticized and taken away all the other parts (aws per greenrd), i deleted also what was taken from past articles as per phoenix, and the central concept of organicism explained much better. My english is not perfect but if the content is interesting it will be imrpoved. It is still in progress but now i think you can understand what we gst theorists are doing, and if not well ill comply and never put it again, thanks for your kindness(and i dont get offended by all the pseudo-science comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esenzia (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
• Debate moved to talk page. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Almost at the level of speedying. The article is poorly sourced and the topic is highly pseudoscientific. It is highly unlikely that proper sources (per WP:RS and the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision) could be found. If there are such sources, they will most likely only cover the material enough to warrant a short mention in another article. --Philosophus ^T 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not rise to the standards of fringe notability. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

well, i was looking at you guys, you seem all physicists, i woudl suggest an improvement for wikipedia: that when something is deleted, it should be deleted and judged by people of the sciences involved. In this case by philosophers (you philosophus consider yourself in your web a defender of Einstein not a philospher), biologists and system theorists. Otherwise i feel like in the initial redirection to Grand Unification Theory a certain arrogance which tends to go with ignorance on the subject you are judging (-: 'the more ignorant the western man is about Asian cultures, the most he despises the chinese man' Andre Guide 0-: i got the letters though from the people i asked to (isss president, troncale and sancho)giving me permission to load wikipedia with articles of their webs so now i can use all their copyrighted material of all the webs mentioned (emails provided if required)... im gonna put it all there this night. Tomorrow it will die away, a perfect mandala, like those beautiful wheels of sand of the navajo reserves that soon disappear. But because for us, system scientists, time is cyclical and quantic, not lineal and continuous, Leibniz not Newton is the master... and each collective mind has its own rhythms, this i can say: GST will beat Grand Unification, life will win over abstraction. Now i will pour the sounds that the wind will erase...

• Delete - it sounds like nonsense to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is at least close to Patent nonsense. Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. One of my objections, as I tried to explain to you, is that "unification" of biology and physics is redundant for some aspects of biology, and impossible for others. If all you seek to do is tie common themes together, this is philosophy. And I do not oppose the inclusion of philosphy on wikipedia, but there is no evidence that your philosophy is in any way notable. I also hold little regard for theories whose theorists can't decide if it's a philosophy or a science. And further, the only reason I am supporting making a redirect to Grand unification theory is that I feel this is a reasonable search term to be used by someone looking for that theory. Someguy1221 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. It's pretty clear that WP:SNOW applies. andy 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• interesting, my best comments disappear from this page aftr i put them, since im obviously the one accused in this witchhunting trial on system sciences i hoped that at least the rules of a fair debate would exist in this place and you would keep my arguments... in any case i would apply to most of this comments without any depth the old witgenstein motto: shut up if you have nothing relevant to say.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been deleted, they have been moved to the talk page, since that is the proper place for further discussion, especially on the merits of the topic rather than the notability and verifiability of the topic. The theory could be the best ever made, but that is completely irrelevant to the nomination. --Philosophus ^T 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1 - Maybe im just an old fashioned european scientist but here we do not insult with all those crackpot kind of words, we debate with arguments and that is what i did on those pages. And nobody counter-argument any of them. So If you dont leave here my comments or counter-argument them but put THEM in some hidden room, obviously you are leaving only the people against the article and this is not even a trial, BUT A prejudgment at best where the defender is put in other corner room to shut him up instead of being answered in a cilvized way.

2 -i didnt wrote the previosu one, pj, i only added some final coments, thats why they look different pj, the guy who wrote that one, focused on the Generatrix equation, E<=>T, the best expression to date of the 'fundamtnal feed-back dynamic cycle, the unit of the fractal universe (which can be perceived as a fixed particle obviously by errors of human perception).

i thought to be easier to focus on the network systems, which are better known, but they are all parts of GST, as networks of En and info are merely complex systems made by the iteration of that fractal unit.

3. In my poor english notability means that is notable, that has merit. And i am the one to explain why, not only because i wrote this version, but also because i form part of a european collective a la partaki (a french collective name used by 35 mathematicfians who developped fractal/chaos theory in the post-war)... trying to explain the fundamental topics of our science. We purchased long ago www.unificationtheory.com which layed dormant but in the past 5 years there have been huge advances on the formalism of the Unification Equation made by european scientists, and so we thought now that there is such formalism to place the stuff in the english-speaking world web. We are doing it in www.unification.com, starting this year and since there were no entries and there are still not entries on the 2 terms we use for that: 'General Systems' or 'Unification Theory' (only a historic introduction without 'meat', that is real theory) i thought icould try to fill up that gap... Respect to verifability, i put links to webs, books and articles in previous pages and quotes from bertalanffy, etc.(isss, www.unificationtheory, sancho's stuff, the guy who advanced the best formalism for this science, and was in the process as per that hidden talk page of putting more, just got the ok from hammond, last isss president, sancho and troncale, the best in the field... to use material from all their webs.... And i dont care if that is recent work. Any encyclopedia has recent work, addendas in the brtannica, year by year, daily news here... im not a wikipedian and im not english speaking and so im sure i made mistakes but i dont see any interest in collaborate anymore, because you are not being fair. I only see the obvious desire to connect this name with grand unification theories. As i said (in the hidden talk page), both terms are difrerent, as i qoted, bertalanffy coined this one. As i insinuated accuracy is at least the minumum a encylipedia should have. Anyway is difficult to enjoy working in this kind of agresive millieu. Im not gonna requote and counter-argument your pseudo-science bullshit comments. All the arguments are in that talk page. I take notice though of the valid comments, and there are some. So hopefully someone will repost in the future with better english, better quotes, less discoursive style and more to the point,a small treatise on the Unification Theory of General Systems . That was fair advice. The notability/verifability thing has no been fair. You cant expect to google troncale, for example and get the same kind of hits than for a scientist with hundred of years of tradition. The last generation of GST masters (not the previous one, i see you have bertalanffy, capra, and many american guys here, but those are old-dated they hvent formalized, they are the philosophers, all sciences start as a philosophy, then you need the newton with the formalis, then the formalism unfolds itself, etc.), is being born as most relevant scientists of the XX C. i must say - here in eurpe...because unlike Feynmann they do ask why and they doubt. We use far less wordws like 'true science', we are not 'believers' we are inquirers (-;, But we dont speak english, what can i say, maybe that is the reason, all european languages have the subjunctive probability verb, and the I is hidden, the collective is prefered. As chomsky says, the genetic language precedes the culture which precdes the science... Fundamentalism on truths is a no-no. cest la vie, au revoir, auf widerssen hasta la vista ciao svoboda

'The rapture of life, that is what is all truly about'

Campbell, the power of the myth.

A few comments that I hope will be helpful for you: it would be much easier for us if you used ~~~~ to sign your comments. Additionally, : indents paragraphs (so :: indents twice, and so on) and * at the beginning of a paragraph or line makes a bullet point, so that you can format your comments. It would be much easier for us if you would write shorter comments, since many of us are overworked here and don't have time to read lengthy comments with the care that should be given to them. While there are those of us who would enjoy debating the merits of the theory with you, there are quite simply too many theories to do this. New theories like this are added to Wikipedia every day, and in most cases, the supporters want a debate. This tends to make us rather cynical as well, since most of the supporters tend to devolve into ranting and insulting (most of the content of my user page consists of insults that were thrown at me) rather than discussing what should be discussed here: the compliance with the policies of Wikipedia. You should read these, especially WP:NOR, WP:V, and the guidelines WP:RS and WP:N - we have very specific definitions of words like "notability", and somewhat unique views on what should be included. As I mentioned, the merits of a theory play no part in whether it should be included per policy - look at Time Cube, for example, which is about as absurd as a theory can get (Archimedes Plutonium is another good example). New, as of yet unknown, research belongs in journals, not Wikipedia. We only include things which have been published widely and are relatively well known, so that everything we say can be verified. We make no judgements on the validity of theories; that is for other people. By the way, I apologize about the crackpot-like insults - I would never actually say that sort of thing as myself, but here I've changed my language and attitude in order to remain hidden (there are those of us who have received death threats and other harassment), and sometimes I get carried away. But as I said, you seem to be looking for a debate about merit, and we don't do that sort of thing here, which is why your comments have been moved; the assumption is that most of us are not capable of debating merit. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Amazingly this article version looks rather different than the previously deleted one (are there two fringe theories by this name?), so CSD G4 doesn't apply. After deletion a disambih should be created, pointing to the topics in physics and artificial intelligence respectively. To the anom editor: I can't fully exclude the possibility, that there is something worth including in all this, but you just didn't get the message across in this attempt. Do some reading in Wikipedia, both articles and policies, starting with WP:5P. Ask at the Philosophy Portal for suggestions. --Pjacobi 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing your comments - I had meant to copy them and move the long response, but ended up accidentally moving yours as well. --Philosophus ^T 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's no evidence in the article that this theory is notable or that its content can be verified using reliable sources. In other words, it needs good references. The article seems to have been shortened drastically since it was nominated; the original version was incoherent and too long; the current version seems not to have much content. Cardamon 10:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

LAST COMMENT/QUESTION uhm philosophus thanks for your letter. i start to agree more with you guys. truth is i havent done my homework to conform to wikipedia style and its, i guess, needed burocratic elements and i should have, plus i work on memory so i cant remember exactly the books of the quotes... i need to do reserarch... (im also overloaded with work) i thought others would do it as a work in progress, but there are few gst experts worldwide so i guess few wikipedians could collaborate on this... hopefully when we recruit in tokyo people with english as first language for this divulgation project (www.unificationtheory) i will try again. and buff if you even receive death threats, thats really intense! no wonder the cut-throat style:-o. so the question is if we repost this in the future in a much better version? is that possible? is a 3rd reposition allowed a debate or is automatically eliminated?(the first article though was different and most of it, not mine, (pj, i explained differences in talk) so might it be a 2nd reposition... My aim is present the GST formalism mixing troncale's, sancho's and isss material, within all the policies of wikipedia including formatting, but i have no time now to become a better wikipedian. Respect to novelty,those guys have 20 years since their first copyrights but our science i think unjustly is not yet standard and fully accepted so in a way is relatively new - as it could be considered genetics 40 years after mendel whenit wa discovered And since we start with paradimgs that are different to classic science (as per talk: cyclical, quantic time, duality, linguistic method, non-non-euclidean geometry, paradoxical logic, organicism, etc.) we expect as per the debates in the 49 cancun congress to remain what you might call a 'fringe science' (not seudo=science) for a decade. I doubt then that gst will look more notable. But if youlook the references at isss the main insitution of our science, those people are the most notable of our science today, troncale leads the gst conferences, sancho has given the most brilliant ones the last 3 years, the president of the institution gives the ok. Now GST (unificatin theory) is different from 'systems theory', the american version, whih is praactical, computer models of economics and cybernetics. GSt is more 'philosophical', more like the origianl intention of Bertalanffy (the quote that originated the name is in talk: 'a unification theory of all sciences'), and so typically more interesting to the idealist german school of science to which all germans belong since Hegel (including Einstein, self-confessed socialist:-):-( ;-O A comment on that would be appreciated.Since if it is impossible or against your policies we wont do that hard work. Otherwise you will get an article similar to the ones you have for relativity or any other standard scientific theory sometime in summer. And sorry for the length, this promise is my last comment, dont want you to keep further busy with this theme. I think the issue is: should gst unification in its most advanced version be here? or not?It is not though a time cube bullshit, that was funny (-: I see general system sciences like physics in the XVII c. a very promising, starting science... now in its formalist phase... which i think is different from pseudo-science (a guy who comes out with a 'world on a turtle' or a time in a cube... cyclical time is as old as human thought itself, the year cycle of the sun, the minute cycle of the clock, the month cycle of the moon. the cesium cycle we use for the second... i havent seen cubic trajectories in time of lately (-: The closest thing might be cubism with his attempt to express the 4th dimension of time, through multiple perspectives... maybe he is fan of picasso (-;

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added by User:Serpent's Choice. diff. PeaceNT 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan Theatre Source

This organization is not notable. The article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of free advertising a small unknown theater company. It is a vanity article.KindSould 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on condition that the article is better sourced to establish notability. Over 11000 non-wiki Google hits and the author is an established Wikipedia editor so I doubt the vanity part. If no examples of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source can be found I'll change it to delete. Let's give this one a chance. MartinDK 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an "illegal" theatre company, an underground non-union, amateur operation which is conducting business under the "cover" of a cafe. This organization is a fire trap, which is in violation of NYC's Building Department and Fire Codes. Google hits mean nothing. The organization is neither notable, nor is it a legitimate professional theater. KindSould 10:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

At 55 seats, it is hardly a theatre at all. KindSould 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said it needs to be referenced according to WP:N and WP:RS. Otherwise it should be deleted. My problem here is your tone of language and the fact that you are accusing an established editor of creating a vanity article. Such accusations are uncivil unless you have any proof. Also, calling it a fire trap and "non-union" needs to sourced as well in accordance with WP:RS as it is by itself no reason for deletion. Google hits are not entirely irrelevant. Finally, small theaters are not always non-notable. This all boils down to whether reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage can be found. Personal opinions and acccusations that you have not provided any sources for yourself are not reasons for deletion. MartinDK 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I only found out about Manhattan Theater Source when I was visiting New York. It is an interesting place and very note worthy. The owners of the theatre have nothing to do with the article. The article exists because it is part of a larger off-off Broadway project. I agree that the article should be expanded on. The accusation that this is a vanity article is 100% unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miskatonic (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I appologize for my misuse of the term vanity article. I did not fully understand the meaning of the term. I was not trying to imply that the article was created by the owners of the theater. Merely, that the article appeared to be a form of advertising for the organization. I, too, have been to this theater, and I do not share your enthusiasm for it. The production I saw was an entirely non-union cast. Frankly, I was stunned to find a Wikipedia article on it. Plain and simply, it is not a professional theater. If Wikipedia is to keep such articles, then every community theater in the country warrants its own article. They, too, will have numerous Google hits. That's the nature of producing and advertising plays. It does not make the theater notable within the industry. KindSould 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All the actors and staff I saw at MTS were very professional. It may not be a Broadway but it is a professional theater. A lot of the people that I saw at MTS I have actually seen in other productions, Shows like Law and Order and even films. There actually was an Off-Off Broadway section/project of the Wikipedia that MTS belongs to. If anything the Off-Off Broadway page is one huge ad. Miskatonic 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs more sources. --Phoenix (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably well established off-off venue. I added a couple of references to reviews that addressed the venue. The company website indicates it had a mention in the New York Times in 2003, but I was unable to locate that. However, I am having difficulty reconciling the nominator's comments with available information. The venue certainly appears to be a legitimate professional theatre and has in fact hosted Equity Showcase productions (that is, productions with union actors), although it does not do so exclusively. In an effort to assume good faith, perhaps the nominator has reliable sources that I was unable to locate? Serpent's Choice 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Reliable sources for what? The fact that it is not-notable? I think you've got that backwards. It is not my responsibility to show that it is not notable. The article should demonstrate why it is notable. There are well over 100 Off-Off Broadway Theatres in NYC, why is this venue notable? Why should there be an article on this theatre as opposed to the others? Has it won any awards? Have any of the plays it originally produced been published? How many of its productions moved up the ladder to Off Broadway Theatres? These are legitimate criteria for notability of an Off-Off Broadway theatre. Is it even a member of the Alliance of Resident Theatres of New York? That might give it some legitimacy.

There also seems to be some confusion about Equity Showcases here. A showcase contract is awarded to a Non-Union theatre so that union actors can appear on a one production basis, under very tight restrictions. (Including no pay, other than transportation reimbursement.) It's a waiver of sorts. Showcases are mixed casts of Union & Non-Union Actors. An occassional Union Showcase does not make the theatre professional. Most legit Off-Off Broadway theatres run full Equity small theatre contract runs in addition to occassional showcases. This theatre appears to be running a majority of non-union productions, with an occassional showcase. The fact that has been mentioned in the NY Times only once, proves that it is not notable. The Times, as a matter of policy, does not review amateur productions. Please, note that my use of the would "amateur" is not meant to be derogatory. This the legitimate theatre term for non-union productions. When a company, such as this, applies for rights to a play - it goes through amateur leasing. I see nothing notable about this venue. If this article is kept then all Off-Off Broadway theatres should be entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Likewise, all community theatres should recieve their own articles. (as long as they have enough google hits, right?) KindSould 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment When you make claims like the theatre being a "fire trap" then you need to provide reliable sources. Also, like I said, that is in no way a reason for deletion nor is the fact that this is a small theatre. The only criteria that applies here is that it must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by a reliable source. Please read WP:N. Notability requirements are not as strict as you think they are, there is no requirement that a theatre must have a certain number of seats etc. As for the other theatres they too could have articles here if they meet WP:N og in other words if they have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. If not, then they don't belong here. It's really not that complicated and arguments like "if x stays then y and z must exist too so we better delete x" or "this place is a fire trap and non-union" are not relevant here. As for Google hits no they don't assert notability but when I get 11000 hits that do not appear to be simply links to blogs etc. then I am not simply going to say that no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources exists. MartinDK 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have further updated the article to include additional sources, including an award-winning ten-minute play debuted at the Source as well as the premiere of the first play by a national best-selling author. There has actually been quite a bit of coverage of this venue and its productions. On the other hand, there is no coverage in reliable sources that supports claims that this is "illegal", a "fire trap", or "in violation of [the] ... Fire Code", all of which would require appropriate sources to be considered here. Serpent's Choice 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and continue improving with additional references and sources supporting notabilityNYTheaterHistorian 09:19, 7 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. Dakota 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLUDD

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

Notability issues have been raised for this page, which is about a character in Super Mario Sunshine. Orphic 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. One game that is considered low on the totem pole when it comes to popularity within Mario platformers, and a couple unimportant cameos in other games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Violation of WP:IINFO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as mostly OR and excessive detail. "FLUDD's gender is unknown. As it is a machine, it may not even have one. Many see it as a female as it possesses a metallic feminine voice common among fictional machines". It scarcely qualifies as a character, it's more about Mario Sunshine's game mechanics (which is where it should be and probably already is). QuagmireDog 06:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Make a characters section in Super Mario Sunshine or whatever it's called and merge the information into a subheading about FLUDD. —A • D ^Torque 08:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All information is extrapolation from the work of fiction, so it either offers no analysis and fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7, or the analysis was made by Wikipedians and fails WP:NOR. Jay32183 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Professor_E._Gadd#FLUDD. I must say I'm glade that the process is finally being applied. --Bobby D. DS. 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Oh dear lord, this causes a spike in the cruft-o-meter. Non-notable by itself, doesn't need it's own page. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:30, 8 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. Sr13 (T|C) 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Boyle (actor)

Liam Boyle (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy Delete This is a non-notable actor with no verifiable secondary sources Tasktoday 09:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom, not verifiable. --Phoenix (talk) 16:23, 5 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 as original author blanked the page and redirected it. --NMChico24 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Socialist Republics

List of Socialist Republics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, pov, original research. Prod removed by author with no edit summary. NMChico24 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The sources are in the articles for the countries. If there is question about one. it can be discussed. A good list with appropriate subdivisions and stated criteria. Didn't check all the unfamiliar ones, but it seems well done.DGG 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're not looking at the correct article. The author redirected it to a different one. --NMChico24 21:47, 5 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 --Selket ^Talk 14:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Drummond

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

Delete This actress is non-notable and there are no reliable sources to verify the information in the article Happylabel 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing showing notability. Small roles in established series are not automatic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 6 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. Krimpet (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged secret agents

List of alleged secret agents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP minefield. Might as well be 'list of traitors and spies' almost nothing referenced. May even be speedy-deletable under WP:BLP. -Doc^g 10:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clean and rename The title of the article is misleading. The list does contain quite a number of confirmed secret agents with whom there would be no WP:BLP problems. Markus Wolf for example has never denied his past. The word alleged needs to go and the list be cut down to those where reliable sufficient sources do exist. As long as something is verifiable there is nothing wrong with keeping it. If no support can be gathered for that proposal then delete and start over using only verifiable information.Delete as mostly unsourced listcruft though a number of those mentioned are in fact confirmed former spies. MartinDK 10:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But why go the the bother. All of these will have their own article which will be cited. Why not simply have a category to navigate them (which we already will have). The article on secret agents can link to the category that enables people to find it. But if someone is willing to do as you suggest I've no objections. My one difficulty is that people will say 'hey that's a good idea, keep and do that' - but no-one will. --Doc^g 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I do agree with you on that and changed my !vote MartinDK 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a laundry list per nominator, almost entirely unsourced. --Phoenix (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly indiscriminate list that includes CIA Station Chiefs, Convicted Spies, and the host of The Gong Show --Work permit 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this article isn't deleted, I'm going to add myself to it. After all, it's a list of allegations ;) Jtrainor 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Having a list with an inclusion criteria like this serves no purpose. Alleged by whom? Are we going to include people claimed to be secret agents by Iran and Russia? WP:BLP minefield indeed. Pax:Vobiscum 14:56, 6 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 CSD A7 and speedy close as a speedy delete nom doesn't belong here. Sr13 (T|C) 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Griffiths

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

Speedy Delete Non-verifiable information require this non-notable person to be deleted Soulsarea 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Waterloo Road (TV series). MartinDK 11:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Waterloo Road (TV series), so per Soulsarea]].The Sunshine Man 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, There is nothing showing notability, verifiable or otherwise. Small roles even in established series do not establish notability.Brickocean 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The actress performed a small number of roles, both of them aren't essential to the plot. Hence the article isn't notable. Had she appeared in many different series, then it may be another story.--Kylohk 21:53, 7 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. BLP issues appear to have been resolved by the inclusion of sources. No consensus to merge, and no other side issues have consensus support. On a side-note, WP:CLS has some info about advantages and dis-ads of categories, lists, etc. --Chaser - T 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged contactees

List of alleged contactees (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We already have a category Category:Contactees. That's as it should be, because what goes in the category is decided by each article so categorrised. A list like this is a problem as it is unreferenced and thus a potential WP:BLP nightmare. Best to delete this and leave the category. -Doc^g 10:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - "alleged" =/= reliable sources. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a word most usually forced by skeptics, we can rename it List of contactees if you so desire but I bet you that there will be a dispute over it by skeptics who believe that the name would imply that contactees were real. - perfectblue 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this article list alleged UFO contactees based on their own articles, so I am not sure why this is a bad article, its a great place for those interested to get a list of alleged contactees (note i created this article on) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unneccessary. The same information can be obtained by the Category:Contactees. And your article doesn't have any citation to defend inclusion, whereas people are added to the category by categorising the articles themselves, which doubtless are cited.--Doc^g 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

for a list, lacking citations is a taggable offence, not grounds for Afd. If it concerns you so much you may go to the individual articles and tag and simply cut and past the citations over. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• the citation is in their own articles, i just go back and list them here for easier access (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person, which this is, need referenced in the article itself. Otherwise it would be too easy to add someone to the list without any citations and it not to be spotted. Still, I'm not hearing how this helps us when we have a category?--Doc^g 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"BLP prohibits that. All negative assertions about a living person", being a contactee is not a "negative assertions" for most contactees, your statement is bias. Allegedly being in touch with aliens isn't like allegedly being ritually abused, its like allegedly kissing a supermodel for most of these people. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article really helps clarify and make it easy access for those interested, and I feel adds to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you've said that. Now tell me how?--Doc^g 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• it provides a quick access for those looking for a list of alleged contactees, especially for those new to wikipedia, those not familiar with contactees, those who just want to expand their own data bank on contactees, etc... it is just a great method of listing contactees for the general public to view and have quick and useful access to (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for which we have already got: Category:Contactees.--Doc^g 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• And what if they do not get listed in that category? They maybe listed here, its a great place also for others to view who may not consider first looking for the Category:Contactees, how will they know to look at this category if they are unfamiliar with wikipedia? how will they know to search for a list of contactees if they dont even know the names and know nothing about categories? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If the find any article in the category, then they'll see the category. Much more likely to find that than type the name of the list into 'search'. Category is also much more likely to be kept up to date.--Doc^g 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• reference addition completed, also note that some may not know to look first at the Contactee category, this article provides a place for everyone (even those new to wikipedia) a place to find a list of Contactees plus references (which is not possible via category only) especially if they do not know of any alleged contactees and are looking for an article to look at or through to get some idea (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Not very big at present, but could be monumentally expanded into a much more concise resource. It brings together desperate people people with a unique commonality together and provides a central resource for accessing them. The very description of a classic list. - perfectblue 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; Article will compliment Category:Contactees. Article can give a broad overview of the category. A list like this is needs references to be in line with WP:BLP though, which should not be too hard. J. D. Redding 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to List of Contactees, or List of Self-Proclaimed Contactees. A contactee is by definition a person who alleges to be in regular contact with extraterrestrials. You don't want invite WP:BLP violation by allowing editors to add names of people who are alleged by others to be in contact with extraterrestrials. --Work permit 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I couldn't agree more. We really need to keep this list for people whom say that they were contacted, and to keep out the people who are the subject of allegations from other people which would be much more likely to violate Bio regs - perfectblue 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename--this is really generic--I was expecting to see fallout from Venona (smile). Those who do not want to known as being in the group do not publicize their experiences.DGG 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but put the list in at least 2 columns to keep the page length small. ;) -Eep² 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I strongly agree with Doc. The page is redundant as it duplicates information that should be on just the contactee page. The list should be merged back into Contactee where it was before. Sean Donovan 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all the information, Merge the articles in question to avoid data rendundancy. --Chr.K. 08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if kept then "purported" is better than "alleged" but the sum total of objective evidence supporting these purported contacts is a big fat zero. Do we have list of delusional individuals? Guy (Help!) 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems ok, if they're notable Bulldog123 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. >Radiant< 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, potential WP:BLP issues and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A category would be far preferable in this instance. -- Kesh 05:59, 10 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 I know it is irregular to close my on nomination. But I think I've got a consensus here and many of the entries breech BLP. I could clean-out the offending ones and wait for this to conclude, but WP:SNOW is saying otherwise -Doc^g 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged e-mail spammers

List of alleged e-mail spammers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another WP:BLP disaster. Some are referenced - some of the references are not really reliable sources and much is unreferenced. We have a perfectly good categor Category:E-mail spammers and we can have a few cited examples on an article about e-mail spam (which no doubt we have). But this is just list cruft. Lists of people who are alleged? Let's not. -Doc^g 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - it's even in the article title. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete another WP:BLP nightmare Hut 8.5 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Unsourced, and with a title containing the word "alleged', it really got off on the wrong foot. --Phoenix (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is spam, its all unverified and it contains "alleged" etc so meaning its even more unreliable.The Sunshine Man 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I must say I've found this useful once or twice, but it's a trouble magnet and unnecessary with the category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I completely agree this is a WP:BLP disaster, however some of the sources are pretty reliable. If we allow articles based on allegations with very few sources then we are definately going down a dangerous path indeed. Sweboi 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all such lists need to go Bulldog123 11:43, 7 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 as CSD A7 by Jimfbleak. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annaliesa

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

Prod was removed without discussion or any attempt to rectify problem. Article has no assertion of notability and is most likely from a single-purpose account. The Rambling Man 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No details of her recording career and her website on Myspace does not indicate a notable singer. Sam Blacketer 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nothing of importance here. --Phoenix (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Because of the non-meeting WP:BIO, I too cannot see anything important here and because of the contested PROD, I also cannot see any refs either so it is not a reliable source.The Sunshine Man 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Paul foord 12:59, 6 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 and clean up (left some ideas at the article talk page). Orderinchaos 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoConnect

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

Gcnacc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) = article creator

Looks like this is an Australian ISP. Was nominated for speedy but I have refused on grounds of notability claims on the stock exchanges of two countries. Author has claimed on the talk page to have the necessary non-trivial mentions in independent sources but they have not yet been added to the article. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Delete I'm the one who added the {{db-spam}} tag because, in its present condition, that's what the article is: corporate advertising. Knowing, however, that AfDs can result in article improvement along encyclopedic NPOV lines, with the elimination of the corporate conflict of interest slant, I'm all in favour of the process, whichever way it goes. I'll be more than happy to change my view to "Keep" if the article is sufficiently improved. — Athaenara 11:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added {{primarysources}} to the article, which normally will attract better references. I hope some of the more enthusiastic "keep"ers will find and add them. — Athaenara 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Its listed on two stock exchanges. John Vandenberg 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google News Archive search shows that there are 350 articles on this company so sources certainly exist to allow for improvement. [8] Capitalistroadster 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per previous Australian deletion decisions, companies listed on an exchange are considered notable. Mark the article for cleanup and i'm sure someone will catch it soon. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable company. Not in ASX100. According to www.smh.com.au, it trades at $0.06, there were no sales this week, there were only 15 sales this month so far, and 175 for the year. Assize 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking that up. Could you elaborate on why ASX 100 would be a good way to determine CORP notability in Australia? If it is being traded by the Australian public, even only 15 people per month, why is it not worthy of note for the benefit of those few that come looking ? John Vandenberg 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus at WP:CORP about whether inclusion on a market board makes a company notable, and it is probably comparable to being in the White Pages. Companies list on the board because they want to raise public money, not because they are notable(although personally, I think that ASX100 companies should be notable as by definition they are the top 100 companies in Australia by market value). Putting this aside, there are no secondary sources provided, so therefore it isn't notable, and in any event, the article doesn't demonstrate why the company is any more notable than the thousands of other companies around, so in my humble view, the article should be deleted. Assize 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• I might also add that the Google News items that I looked at it all appear to be rehashing of press releases or stock exchange announcements by the company and wouldn't therefore be allowable as secondary sources.Assize 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside, a forum search for GoConnect on Whirlpool only turns up one single but interesting result[9]. Searching for m-Vision GoConnect brings back a few results from publishers I've not seen before [10][11] and a few I have.[12][13].John Vandenberg 08:08, 8 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. WjBscribe 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged UFO-related government personnel

List of alleged UFO-related government personnel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete utter uncited listcruft. Maybe a category instead, but probably not even that. -Doc^g 11:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - every single person here is has had a UFO-related phenomenon, I have double checked in all their articles, and it happened while they were a government personnel (note that i created the article). The article really helps clarify and make it easy access for those interested, and I feel adds to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If kept, all persons included on the list would need citations per WP:BLP. If we have uncited lists on the basis that there are citations elsewhere, then we end up with problems when people add to it. Further, why can't this be a category.--Doc^g 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Citation has been provided (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Not very big at present, but could be monumentally expanded into a much more concise resource. It brings together desperate people people with a unique commonality together and provides a central resource for accessing them. The very description of a classic list. - perfectblue 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The title vastly exaggerates the facts. If someone says he saw a mysterious light in the sky, that might be put in a list of "People who say they saw UFOs" but the present title implies they went to meetings with them, vacationed on the planet Mongo, etc. Edison 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the accusations involved in regards to some of them (Truman and Eisenhower, to name two) far exceed that.

• these official dealt directly with what they claimed to be UFO-related phenomena, not some random light or planet vacation, it is explained in their articles (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, if and only if, citations are provided for entries; May need a rename though ... J. D. Redding 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "dealt with phenomena" is ambiguous and unreferenced. Edison 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison and Wikipedia:List guideline. --Pjacobi 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which particular aspect of the list GUIDELINE (not a policy, incidentally) are you arguing this list violates, Pj? -Eep² 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTE. -Eep² 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and start getting Sources immediately. Alleged means someone SAID something, right? --Chr.K. 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "alleged". Enough said. Anyone here heard of WP:BLP? WP:OR? In any case, there is not encyclopaedic topic "ufo related government personnel" (and if there were it would probably be encyclopaedic only in the minds of a few delusional individuals) so this fails the indiscriminate test. We do not keep crap about living individuals on the basis that one day it might be sourced, either. Also, define "related". Does anyone working at NORAD get listed, because their job is identifying things which are as yet unidentified? As we all know, to a very close approximation 100% of things that start off as unidentified flying objects rapidly become identified flying objects. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. >Radiant< 15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. This is not a place to keep indiscriminate lists of allegations. -- Kesh 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe merge some worthy stuff into respective article Bulldog123 10:33, 10 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 Consensus is that no article should continue with this name - but the material may be useful. A "list of unfulfilled predictions by Christians" is as POV as "list of promises broken by Bush" - it self-selects only negative instances. I am leaving the history undeleted and redirecting this to Famous predictions - to allow people to merge it. Debate should continue on the talk page to generate a consensus either to complete the merge OR to recreate the article with a new name, or to merge it somewhere else (e.g. 'Christian prophecy' or 'historical predictions by Christians' etc.)-Doc^g 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is so blatantly POV that the whole article needs to go. StAnselm 11:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Would we allow a page on "unfulfilled historical predictions by women"? "unfulfilled historical predictions by black people"? No, this categorisation demonstrates a bias against Christianity. StAnselm 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt the earth, problems with WP:NPOV, and verifiability. Madmedea 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, ridiculously POV. --Phoenix (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure where the NPOV claim occurs except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article even says "It should also be noted that the vast majority of Christians have never believed in these extra-Biblical prophecies.". Practically all of the information is extremely well sourced. The only suggestion I'd have that this article could usefully be expanded to include other religions (List of unfulfilled religious prophecies?). EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "This page attempts to list time-specific historical predictions ...". WP:OR anyone? Stammer 17:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment From WP:OR " Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked:" .. look at those sources! EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is actually "an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it [...] constitute[s] original research".Stammer 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What position is it attempting to synthesise (see WP:SYN)? All I see is a list of predictions, duly sourced. The only possible synthesis that I could see is that all Christian predictions turn out to be untrue, a claim the article does not make. It's similar to the nominators original reason for deletion; would we delete List of war crimes because it doesn't include every war crime ever, and is therefore biased against the countries that it does mention?EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Since the original intention of the article was to function as a list, I would make it absolutely essential that the predictions mentioned are explained in more detail on linked articles. See the criteria I come up with below. --One Salient Oversight 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. StAnselm makes a good point, similar to my article renaming request. I have to side with delete due to WP:NPOV if a proper non-slandering title for this article cannot be found. It would be useful to have a record of failed predictions, but minus the slander please. "article could usefully be expanded to include other religions as 'List of unfulfilled religious prophecies'" would also be acceptable. JLMarais 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I thought that failed predictions should have been deleted back whenever it was nominated. GassyGuy 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a good example of articles that are well sourced but are so POV that it distortes the orginal aim of Wikipedia.Knobbly 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. I created this article originally back in 2004. Check out one of my earlier versions. The original intention of the article was to have a list of failed prophecies made by those within the historical Christian church. These included Elizabeth Barton's failed prediction of the death of Henry VIII and David Berg's obsession with Comet Kohoutek in 1974. The idea was simply to be a list rather than a detailed explanation. Along the way a bunch of editors got together and decided to expand the definition to include "predictions", which is much less of a focus upon the supernatural as was my original intention. I tried to convince these editors otherwise but I lost the vote. I would much prefer to revert the article name and content back to what it was before the renaming. I think it is important to have a list of leaders within the Christian church who, for whatever reason, heard the "voice of God" about the future, then disseminated this message to the church, and was then shown to be unfulfilled. I don't think it is bias to have a record of these sorts of events. Moreover, if you think this article is WP:OR, then why isn't this article one? --One Salient Oversight 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Staying with the mentioned original intent seems acceptable. If so, no biblical prophecies should be mentioned and the article should clearly state that (something like it originally did) to prevent any from being added. The title should definitely be changed. It is slanderous as demonstrated above. JLMarais 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. But the article as it stands does not suit the 'tone' of other articles already dedicated to this topic eg Predictions. If there are valid elements in the article then it should be broken up. For example the section about Baptists put with the Baptist article. Straight up predictions if they exist need to be put in the main predictions article alongside Islamic etc predictions. Knobbly 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The article was originally intended to be a list. It is not about how these predictions were made or whatever. It was just supposed to be a list. --One Salient Oversight 11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and prune. It isn't bias to show that some Christians have made prophecies that have not come true. This is a demonstrable fact. It's happened and it can be sourced and attributed. Prophecies (such as those made by various members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other sects) can be extremely notable, and it makes sense to lump Christian prophecies together since Christianity is one of the main divisions of world religions. I don't see why an article based on One Salient Oversight's original article could be objected to by anyone. --Charlene 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. But wouldn't it make more sense to put predictions from the Jehovah's Witnesses with the Jehovah Witnesses article?Knobbly 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - No it wouldn't. The article is a list, which means that it is summary. The Jehovah's Witness articles already have these failed predictions in them (or they did the last time I looked). Because it is a list, the details will be brief and readers can choose to read more in depth by clicking on the relevant links. --One Salient Oversight 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR (the article tries to create a new synthesis of published material); per WP:NPOV (its bias cannot be cured); and per common sense, because the article undiscriminately mixes all possible churches and sects, all possible ages and countries and is not possible to manage and define clearly. But merge the notable and sourced content where appropriate.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename: "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" is an obvious POV title. It should be renamed to "Unfulfilled predictions (Christianity)" or "Unfulfilled religious predictions" with a section for Christianity. --Yancyfry 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about Unfulfilled predictions with subcategories for race, gender and religion? Knobbly 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - regarding Christianity, we already have Millennialism and in my opinion, we do not need many POV forks but rather one well written article. Regarding other races / genders / religions, this either borders on nonsense or can be done with categories.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the group of editors before discovered, the title of the article is notoriously hard to pin down. I think that whatever the title is, or what the article is about, it should somehow answer YES the following questions, and the criteria of entry must satisfy them:

1. Does the prediction or prophecy occur within the historical Christian church?
2. Is the prediction or prophecy based upon alleged supernatural revelation?
3. Is the prediction or prophecy not directly found in the Bible but sourced from a notable individual or group within the historical Christian church?
4. Did the prediction or prophecy fail to take place?
5. Is the prediction or prophecy explained in more detail on another page in Wikipedia?

--One Salient Oversight 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment The questions cannot be answered because there is nothing like the historical Christian church. There are many churches, some of them historical (in the sense that they have a long tradition) and some rather recent. I think that this is one of the problems with this article - it supposes Christians as one body which is somehow responsible for "its" predictions like a political party for its government. But there is no such body and there was never one, except perhaps for the first ten years after the Good News started its spread through the ancient Roman world.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Your argument is unhelpful Ioannes. We're looking at history here and the "Christian church" is a very broad definition that has been defined time and again. If we took your attitude to this then we'd have to modify or delete most of the Christian articles here on Wikipedia. --One Salient Oversight 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - It is well known to me that the "Christian church" has been defined time and again. The problem is that (almost) no two definitions are identical. The Roman Catholic definition excludes Jehovists and vice versa, for example. Even in the New Testament, the term ekklesia is used in at least three clearly different meanings. - I see that my arguments are unhelpful to you, but I fear that it has nothing to do with their quality.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment - Ioannes, perhaps you need to argue this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and see how far you can go. We're not talking here about personal opinions but historically agreed fact. I personally have a very narrow definition of what it means to be a Christian... one that essentially excludes the majority of "Christians". Despite this I am very supportive of a broad-based definition based on historical research. This broad definition allows the "mapping" of events and denominations over time. I suggest you also look at the Christianity infobox. If you're going to run with this argument of yours then I suggest you also remove the following categories from that infobox: Eastern Christianity, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Syriac Christianity, Eastern Catholic Churches, Western Christianity, Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism, Anabaptist, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Baptist, Methodism, Evangelicalism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Unitarianism, Liberal Christianity, Adventist, Pentecostalism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church. In fact, I also suggest that if you are going to remain true to your argument here that you also place afds on each of the articles I just linked to since, in your opinion, you can't define what Christian is. The Bottom Line - leave it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity to determine the details of what constitutes historical Christianity. --One Salient Oversight 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I also suggest you put an afd on this:
            • Comment One Salient Oversight, you oversighted that we did not started this thread speaking about Christianity (which is somewhat defined, although not without distinctions and controversies), but about the historical Christian church, which does not exist and never existed. Read please your own original questions once again. Because there is no wikiproject "Unfair discussion tricks", I have no place where to send you, but I start to doubt, whether this is really only an oversight from your side.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment --- After a second thought --- Probably the misunderstanding is caused by the formulation; you should perhaps have written "a Christian church" instead of "the Christian church". OK, let it be, I'm going to start the article "Unsuccesful definitions by Australians".--Ioannes Pragensis 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment Check this out: Documents of the Christian Church by Henry Bettenson. This historian calls it "The Christian Church". --One Salient Oversight 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Question - has Ioannes broken WP:NPA here? --One Salient Oversight 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Comment - I never denied that the term "The Christian Church" is often used, even in titles of books. But the problem, I repeat, is that the definitions are quite different and/or unclear. The term is more theological than historical, even if some Church historians use it. Take for example the book you cite: Because the author was a member of the Church of England, he included Luther's 95 Theses. An Orthodox historian would hardly do this in a book titled like this one because in his opinion, Luther was clearly outside of the Christian Church. On the other side, this book does not include citations of Book of Mormon, although some other scholars would say that The Church of Christ is a part of Christianinty. Do you understand the differences? - Regarding your question, I hope that a bit of humour is not a personal attack. By the way, you started to bite with my allegedly "unhelpful" argument.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I agree with Ioannes point, but ecumenism (see this also) is probably the problem. Some people try to keep the distinction between the true church and false churches. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I had problems with this early on in the article's life. However I will point out that it should be defined broadly within the historical Christian church. See my point above to Ioannes for more details. --One Salient Oversight 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename to History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians, the current article title is of course obviously ridiculous at present, but thanks to disastrous results in the last poll concerning its title, that was what the title ended up being. The article was never meant to just be "predictions" about anything, but only about prophecies, and notable ones to boot. I believe the predictions thing came up because it was somehow less offensive supposedly, rather than actually being a more accurate or appropriate title. The article lead already affirms that it is about prophecies anyway, but of course, the lead is much too long to be a title. Homestarmy 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The title is good Homey but I would now prefer List of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians because the article is not meant to be a discussion of the issue, but merely a recounting. --One Salient Oversight 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians is a step back since the word prophecy relates to the Bible. The title therefore implies even more that Christianity is associated with false prophecy. This is exactly the impression the title should not make. List Of Failed Predictions is ideal in terms of this concern. The fact that the coverage would then be lacking is, IMO, a minor concern that can be addressed over time. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I adisagree. "Predictions" could mean anything, like the Pope saying it could rain tomorrow, or the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that the Anglican church will split in ten years. "Prophecy" implies alleged divine communication. It is THAT which this article is focused on. --One Salient Oversight 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Regarding your comment - The title therefore implies even more that Christianity is associated with false prophecy. This is exactly the impression the title should not make. The fact is that unfulfilled prophecy HAS occurred within Christianity and likely WILL keep occurring. We are not arguing about whether unfulfilled prophecy has occurred. But does the fact that is has occurred mean that a title saying that it has occurred make it somehow wrong? You could have an article about child abuse by American politicians but does that somehow negatively associate the two? And if so what would be an alternative? --One Salient Oversight 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The existence of History of Unfulfilled Prophecy by Christians as a redirect link is also a problem. JLMarais 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: The lead of the article is quite clear that the article does not deal with Prophecy in the Bible. To tell you the truth, I don't care much of it's "History of" or "Timeline of", list or article, I think either would work. Prophecy is not related only to the Bible, it can apply to any religion, and of course, in the Bible, there were many accounts of false prophecies, I see absolutly no valid reason to take offense here. (Well, except that it implies that a Christian could be a false prophet, but that's a problem of Wikipedia standards of who is and isn't a Christian, and I don't think that can be solved easily here) Oh, and on the Redirect, there was a small revert war over the article title, it caused several weird redirects to appear, sorry about that. Homestarmy 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although I'd prefer to see this expanded (and renamed, obviously) to include predictions related to other religions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No no no. No other religions. Just those within the Christian church. The problem with the article as it stands was that it was not tightly defined. If you want a list of unfulfilled prophecies within Islam or Hinduism, then create separate ones for them. --One Salient Oversight 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but prune - I tried to tidy up the structure of this article last week, but may not have got it quite right. Unfortunately the boundary between a prophecy and a prediction is not clear. However I would suggest removing prediction by American tele-evangelists about political events, as too ephemeral to mention; similarly older preachers who referred top something once. On the other hand, where something has been consistently preached over a significnat period and then not happened, it is clearly notable and hecne encyclopaedic. The question with a given event (prediction) should be whether it is notable. The articel clearly has significnt notable content and so should remain. If articles are desired on other religions, I would suggest these should be in differnet articles. Peterkingiron 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the person or group is notable and has a Wikipedia article then they should be included, televangelist or not. --One Salient Oversight 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Tidying it up would be good. SmaleDuffin 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep seems to have some notability. tidying up would be the best solution.--Sefringle 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Famous predictions -- Not all of the content here would survive the merge, but the notable predictions would be better suited there than in this article. The current article is leaning heavily towards POV as it currently stands. -- Kesh 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Merging into Famous predictions seems like a good idea. I agree with the POV comment. JLMarais 21:06, 10 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. -Doc^g 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mideast (United States)

Mideast (United States) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be original research- the first line even says that it "is a new, yet still widely unknown geographical term." A quick Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources that support the existence of this region, or even provide a definition. Also, the only pages that link to the article are the Mideast disambig page, and Steel Valley (Ohio-Pennsylvania), which was created by the same user that created this page. Confiteordeo 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- By it's own admission, the page is about a neologism. --Hnsampat 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research thus far. --Phoenix (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and wait - I have tagged the article more appropriately. I was able to find one reference to the term: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/browse-title?bottom=2027.42%2F46166 --Remi 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The linked paper doesn't talk about the region described by the article in question- it uses the term "Mideastern United States" to refer to New York City, Connecticut, and Delaware. To me, that seems to reinforce the OR claim about the article's content. Confiteordeo 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, there are some entities that use the term to describe regional breakdowns (e.g. an NCAA region, sales territories, etc.) but I can't find anything that really defines it as a region. I believe the term is, in fact, generally avoided because it generally means the Middle East. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and wait This is an article about the geography of the Mideast United states area and some parts of Canada. If someone can find some references they should cite them in the article. Yes Mideast does get confused with "Middle east" reffering to the Arab lands. Possibly the name could be changed to "Mideastern (United States)". I'm not sure what this line is about "however, this portion of the Eastern Interior is usually considered too flat of land" What is that supposed to mean?Googler1117 15:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- It's obvious that this article is about "the geography of the Mideast United states," but how does that prove that this term isn't original research? If it isn't used anywhere else, there are no references that support it, and there's no common definition of what makes up the "region," that's exactly what it is, and it should not be on Wikipedia. Confiteordeo 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 'Mideast is a new, yet still widely unknown geographical term' is how the article opens. While that may be true, it clearly says not notable. The Mideast dab page can cover this for now. When there is more then one source we can reconsider the need for this article. Vegaswikian 23:09, 8 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. Most of these articles were utterly lacking in sources. In the few cases where they were provided, it was to the groups own websites etc. As such it appears more sensible to make fresh mentions of notable sections in relevant articles (especially as there are two possible targets- the schools they relate to and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps) rather than merge content that can easily be recreated. If any of these articles did in fact contain content that cannot be readily reproduced (though that did not appear to be the case), I will undelete it on request to merge to the appropriate article. WjBscribe 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CA-782nd AFJROTC

CA-782nd AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

These articles relate to individual sections of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, which, in itself meets WP:ORG notability criteria. The individual branches clearly do not as they lack reliable secondary sources establishing their notability. I think therefore their articles should be deleted and/or information merged into the articles of the high school's which they relate to. Some discussion has already taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FL-802nd AFJROTC Madmedea 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fl-802 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Flour Bluff NJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

MA-20001st AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NC-20051 AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NC-939th AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NC-943rd AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Northmont NJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NY-962nd AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OH-031st AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OH-081st AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OH-091st AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OH-771st AFJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pearl River Central NJROTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

N.B. - It may help to read the section of the WP:ORG policy that refers to chapters/branches of non-commercial organisations: WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations before commenting as this sets down some very clear guidlines. Madmedea 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article names, merge content. These groups are too minor to ever get the kind of 3rd-party coverage needed to write NPOV articles. -Will Beback · † · 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some Any Nationally ranked units that have references should be allowed but all others should be deleted because there is no good references.--Joebengo 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some or Merge echoing Joebengo and Will Beback. Keep any notable chapters that have verifiable references even if they are not nationally ranked. For example, chapters that have a verifiable and notable history but are currently run-of-the-mill fall into this category. Merging notable, verifiable content per Will is also acceptable. Other than as part of a "list of," does non-notable chapter content need to be in Wikipedia? I doubt it. Dfpc 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Only Northmont and Pearl River seem to make a statement about national ranking. DGG 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Flour Bluff was ranked 1st nationally 11 out of the past 12 years also.--Joebengo 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all unless they have unusual notability outside of JROTC. These are effectively similar to Boy Scout troops. I don't see that we should be listing subsections of an organization without good resaon, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, per WP:ORG. Notability doesn't have a trickle-down effect, per se. JROTC is clearly notable; that being said, individual chapters (which number in the thousands) appear non-notable outside of the scope of their parent organization. In the case of Flour Bluff (as mentioned above), being ranked 1st in JROTC may warrant a mention in the JROTC article, but is hardly an assertion of external notability. It's not as if we're talking about military units; ultimately, we're talking about high school clubs. To extend what Dhartung says, that's as if saying the largest and most active Boy Scout troop (or FFA chapter, MEChA chapter, pick an example which makes sense) meets WP:ORG, simply because it is the largest and most active subgroup of an organization that meets WP:ORG. Also, finding WP:RS is difficult regardless: just like any other subgroup, JROTC groups will be talked about in school/local papers, the school website, and by the parent JROTC organization, and likely do not meet the "multiple, non-trivial" threshold. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, merge a few notable details. We don't need coverage of the group that won the national championships, just a list of the natl champions on the main JROTC page. These are non-notable high school clubs. Calliopejen1 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I came here to close this, but I was frankly clueless about how to do so given at least three "merge and delete" votes, including the nominator's. We can't do that due to attribution concerns and the GFDL (our license for use and contribution). If you can clarify whether you want merger or deletion, that might help the closer.--Chaser - T 17:05, 12 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 to Forrest Gump. WjBscribe 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Curran

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

This article is pure plot summary and offers nothing that isn't already in the Forrest Gump article. I had previously suggested that this article be merged into Forrest Gump, but the fact is that any relevant information is already there in that article. Hnsampat 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect if all notable (and non-copyright vio re level of detail) is in the main article just redirec it. Madmedea 15:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and speedy close, there's no real issue here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 6 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. -Doc^g 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic comic book characters

List of Catholic comic book characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Even for a list of fictional things, this is weak. Catholicism is hardly mentioned (if at all) on these character's pages; why do we need them on a list? There are no sources aside from an external link to a fansite. Nydas^(Talk) 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Violation of WP:IINFO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How? --Remi 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IINFO states That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What's next? Hindu superheroes, or Agnostic fairy-tale characters? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IINFO and, in most cases, WP:OR. Just because a fictional character is born in Caracas or New Orleans does not mean that he or she is Roman Catholic. --Charlene 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Charlene Bulldog123 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - religion is important in real life. It may not be important to each character, but ti's important enought for a list. - Peregrine Fisher 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics is important in real life. Does that mean we can have articles about the economies of fictional countries?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :)! Remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Peregrine. Matthew 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Happy to change to keep if it can be sourced and is known to be reiable. I can see in fandom how religious affiliations could be of interest, outside of fandom though even in theology circles I can imagine it could make for interesting reference. Russeasby 00:06, 10 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. -Doc^g 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Beale

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

This article was deleted through an AfD that closed two days early. DRV found that this was significantly unfair to the article's proponent, and so ordered a relisting. The DRV contains the arguments of the article's author in favor of the content's retention. Please allow this listing to remain for the full five days until 10 May 2007. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article was created a month ago, and user NBeale has been the primary contributor. It has had a {{LikeResume}} tag on it since the beginning, and there hasn't been any sign of improvement. The article is essentially asserting "notability by proxy", ie, notability by weak association with notable individuals:
  1. The most reliable source in the article is apparently a series of emails NBeale published on his website, in which he initiates a debate with someone notable.
  2. He also cites amorphous "collaborations" with notable individuals; and
  3. he wrote a book and dedicated it to a notable individual.

  The original creator of the article, User:Chiinners, has made 6 edits, all to his user page and to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 17:13Z

• Comment well this debate was published in Prospect there are also publications in the HBR, Sunday Times, The Times, co-authored books, patent etc.. The article has improved today (6 May) and cites better, and even the old article was independently rated Start Class which is in the top 25% of rated bios. Chiinners has explained his position on the article's talk page and may well feel somewhat bitten. I'm sure I'd vote Keep on an article like this about someone else, though as the subject I have a COI NBeale 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. Being rated "start class" tells us nothing about the notability, verifiability or importance of the article and its subject, and these are the subjects of discussion here. A "start class" article is merely one which meets certain basic criteria for content and layout, and it means it's a bit better than a stub. Details at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. Apart from the statistical sleight-of-hand in the claim that this means it is "in the top 25% of rated bios", this is completely irrelevant. Snalwibma 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone said something about this. The only other option for rating an article lower than "Start" is "stub", and this article is too long and too wikified to be a stub. Start is almost the bottom rung on the assessment scale, so I do not see the fast that it has been rated so low a persuasive argument to "keep". I do think asking the user who rated the article to participate in this conversation could be helpful. [just noticed that user voted delete in both AfDs]'-Andrew c 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search reveals a blog, a few mentions on friends' blogs, a minor book, and this wikipedia article. The claim that Nicholas Beale is a "social philosopher" is not borne out by the article or the sources. He seems in fact to be a businessman who writes a blog and expresses some strong opinions, not least by POV-pushing on wikipedia. Non-notable. Gnusmas 17:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete first thing I noticed is the lead was very poor (one sentence) and didn't explain his notability, but read almost like a personal add (listing his interests). So I continued reading to see where the notability was explained. While all of the places he worked were listed, and other trivia, I failed to find any reliable, independent secondary source that covered the subject in depth, nor multiple independent sources establishing notability. Reading through the special circumsatnces on WP:BIO, Beale seems to fail all of them. The closest two are The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. and The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Neither are established in the current article. If one of these conditions are met, and all the trivia information removed, I would have to support this article, but as of now, the article does not meet WP:BIO and I have doubts about the ability to meet those guidelines. There was talk on the talk page that Beale suggested that he may meet the criteria based on originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, but it seems like a WP:COI for the subject to be arguing for inclusion on his own behalf. If you are that notable, you shouldn't need to make the arguments for yourself. -Andrew c 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search shows that there are not many well-established secondary sources. Most of the information is extracted from the blog. Sr13 (T|C) 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -Very weak Keep I think he is notable, and has the references to prove it. It is quite hard to tell from the article, which is written in an outrageously spammy style, and contrives to mention each publication twice: once in the references and once in the list of publications. He list as a publication an IEEE standard on which he was undoubtedly one of a considerable working or review group--as with all standards. He gives no exact refs to some of the publications so it is hard to tell if he is significantly mentioned. He links to eminent people who have influenced him or with whom he has been on conference programs. No wonder it was quickly closed. At the Deletion Review I supported relisting. I accept Andrew c's challenge to see if the article can be rescued. I've just performed a first round of trimming, and will do another later today. For the record, I had never heard of the man before the deletion review. That is not a reason for deleting, of course, but perhaps I can be objective about it. DGG 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC). I've just done what I think is enough, eliminated the double references, and abbreviate the intermediary stages of his career. Query: he went to Trinity college--did he receive a degree? On the basis of the article as revised, i changed by !vote from "Weak Keep" to "Very Week Keep". DGG 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If he is notable, explain it in the lead section. Right now, the article doesn't assert any notability. Anyone can list famous people that have influenced their thinking; that doesn't make them notable. Two questions for you (or anyone else):
    1. What is the most notable thing about Nicholas Beale?
    2. What part of WP:BIO does Nicholas Beale satisfy in order to keep the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 21:57Z
    • I'll try to explain this a bit in the article tomorrow evening, but I think the 2 most "notable" things are: (a) Initiating (in 1997) the serious consideration of the ethical and spiritual implications of the Internet and (b) Helping improve communication, trust and understanding between UK Investors, Industrialists and Innovators which has made a contribution to London becoming the world's leading financial centre. Also FWIW Debrett's People of Today and Prospect are not blogs, nor is the record of 43 citations of my patent! NBeale 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What reliable sources assert your claims in (a) and (b)? As I already explained, Debrett's is obviously not a be-all-end-all for notability; there are several sources which list "famous people", but we don't automatically accept everyone from those sources as being truly famous, as in the case of Find-A-Grave's Famous People list that's used in WP:MEA; the list serves as a starting point, and we weed out the ones that are most likely not notable/verifiable enough for Wikipedia. As for patents, obviously if Wikipedia considered every patent owner notable, we would have ten times as many articles as we have now. My company has several patents that are utilized by dozens of other companies, and all branches of the military, but it's not notable for an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 23:00Z
      • I too have initiated serious consideration of many things, with some of my findings published in leading journals, and I like to think I have helped improve communication, trust and understanding in one or two minor spheres, but I don't consider myself notable enough for a wikipedia article. And if I did I would most certainly leave it for others to judge, and not constantly badger other editors about it and plead my case. Gnusmas 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per 0918, Gnusmas and Andrew c. -Duribald 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I missed the first nomination but the subsequent debate hit my watchlist radar. I am highly aware that the subject, as an editor on Wikipedia, and I are no doubt diametrically opposed on some subjects though I feel that ultimately our goals for humanity do converge. The map I present though has Proverbs 16:18 engraved on it but since when were aphorisms Wikipedia guidelines ?. The standards we set for articles are proportionate to the interest in the subject; low traffic or interest articles can gather the lint of primary sourced quotes, marginal secondary cites, original research and synthesis which in high traffic articles would be erased in an instant. Unfortunately the subject as an editor has set a high standard for us to follow and this article fails to establish the notability. The book Cybernauts Awake!, stinks of Christian apologetics and is copyright the Church of England. Manufactured by a committee we are uncertain of the role of each person in the making of the book. The web site [14] introduces what has to be the weirdest set of links I have ever seen in my 10 years on the Internet (they are all mailto:'s). So in the end though it superficially looks like there should be a claim to notability in the end we are unable to verify that from reliable sources. Ttiotsw 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew c - fails WP:BIO. Sophia 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep. Mildly notable but not provably. At present the article still contains claims which are not verified, and are even in doubt. It is critical that we do not leave our readers misinformed, but removing them all would remove all evidence of notability. As an example of one of my concerns, the mentioned IEEE 802 paper was, according to IEEE, put out by the 802.5 WG, which doesnt list Beale, and Beale site:ieee802.org doesnt help either. As our efforts to source these statements have failed, our readers efforts will also, and so they will assume the information is correct. John Vandenberg 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• The combination of the subjects technical publications (which have now been verified), and having read the "Debrett's People of Today" entry (a rival to Who's Who (UK)), notability and verifiability are no longer a problem. John Vandenberg 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the standard, the site lists only the editors of the subgroups, not all the members. Still looking. DGG 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort you have put into this. I've posted the refs for this in the article's talk page - I should be able to scan the relevant sections of the documents and post them on the web if that would be helpful. NBeale 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment. I'm waiting to see what DGG will make of this. My view is simple, Wikipedia should be written for our readers, and WP:BIO is all about whether there is enough material about the person to write something interesting for our readers, and this has nothing to do with how important the subject is, or how big is his real contribution. The question is how much encyclopaedic and neutral material can we gather about the subject to write something interesting. I personally think his views are rather interesting, and might be of interest to our readers. I mean: "the scientific and philosophical arguments for the existence of God are almost overwhelming" -- that's an overwhelming opinion! --Merzul 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I also am waiting to see what emerges before I make a final decision. But when someone has to work as hard as NBeale is doing to provide evidence of his own notability, and has to devote so much energy to ensuring that other wikipedia editors find all that he can dig up, it smacks of desperation, and also suggests that he really isn't that notable. If he met the criteria of WP:BIO it would not be necessary for him to do all this lobbying. And if he walked away and left others to draw their own conclusions, it would surely help his cause. Actually, that's the trouble - the cause of Nicholas Beale the article and that of NBeale the wikipedia editor are inextricably bound together, and this inevitably prompts thoughts of hidden agendas, impure motives and dirty dealings. Snalwibma 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this again, let the AFD run the whole five days so we can finally put it to rest, and watch out for the single-purpose-accounts that always seem to crowd around this guy's blog.[15] He's written some things, but many authors do not meet WP:N. There's exactly zero non-trivial third-party coverages of him, so we have nothing but User:NBeale's own primary sources to write an article from. This glaring lack of WP:N means the article will always fundamentally fail WP:V, and that is an unacceptable policy violation. ··coelacan 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual correctionFor listing of 3rd-party sources see the article's talk page. NBeale 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious and speedy delete. Previous deletion was proper, DRV was based on bureuacracy and requests for a {{shrubbery}}. >Radiant< 08:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - obvious bias as creator of original article, which in retrospect I did a particularly poor job of writing and researching. I still maintain that the subject's published books and industrial achievements are significant (albeit in a particularly specific discipline) and that recognition of his ideas from prestigious and objective journals/magazines constitutes notability, although this may well be personal prejudice ... in any event, verifiability seems to be a major issue, and I'll see what I can do. Although Brian0918 will no doubt take the opportunity to repeatedly assert "This user is a sock/meatpuppet" about which I admit I'm still somewhat bitter ... Chiinners 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you were offended, but please read WP:MEAT carefully and calmly, and think about it. You were unfortunate in creating an article on a controversial Wikipedia editor, who has a history of friends showing up in various obscure debates. Your contribution history at the time was minimal, so describing you as a meatpuppet in the context of debates related to NBeale was technically accurate. It is perhaps needlessly offensive, and I hope it won't be repeated; but nagging about Brian's behaviour is equally unnecessary. Now, if you want the article to stay, then please edit it to be less of a promotional piece, and more of an encyclopaedia article; then some people might vote keep. Of course, there's no guarantee, but my guess is that it would do a lot better than currently, because I see some new names here who have voted delete. --Merzul 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Abstain What seems to be lacking is any details of the impact of his contribution on the world of business. Not to suggest that writing a book is not an accomplishment; however, did the information in the book have notable impact. Were there any consequences to his efforts? Darwin wrote a book "Origin of Species”; however, it was the impact of his book that makes him worthy of encyclopedic recognition. Did NBeal’s work have an impact? I see nothing in the article expanding upon the effects his efforts in the world of business or any other area. The closest validation of the significance of his contributions seems to come from brief "quotes" which are on a marketing page for the book. Such "catch phrases" are commonly used to promote the sales of books and in-and-of them self do not denote any importance to the work. Has NBeal had an impact on the world of business? If so it needs to be detailed in the article. Has he had an impact on the world in philosophy and religion; if so it needs to be detailed in the article? Hosting websites and publishing books are irrelevant unless you can establish some type of notable influence; at least within the field of claimed expertise. Such an entry as it stands now detracts from the credibility of Wikipedia; it should never be used as a marketing tool, either for book promotion or self promotion. --Random Replicator 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Debretts has answered the question "Did NBeal's work have an impact"; the impact is already able to be seen through the veil of the promotional phraseology currently on the article. The talk page has much more material to demonstrate this, and Google Scholar demonstrate the technical contributions Beale to society. So far, I've been researching and fact checking; I will get on with revising the article if time is given for me to do so (the five days is nearly up). John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Debrett's People of Today: It contains biographical details of approximately 28,000 people from the entire spectrum of British society. The key being 28,000.

If the publications you list are relevant then perhaps they should be discussed within the entry ... here are the ones you listed from Google ... good luck.

Doc.1: “This paper explains the importance of standard fibre-optic LANs, and gives an overview of the state of development of the main emerging fibre-optic LAN standards.”

Doc 2: This paper describes a notation for the formal specification of software packages. The main influences are the guarded commands of Dijkstra and the Algebraic Semantics of Guttag.

Doc 3: A data transmission system comprising a plurality of reconfiguring devices, each device having a plurality of input and output data links, a selected number of the devices being connected to a ring whereby for each reconfiguring device, data is received on one data input link and transferred to one data output link such that data may be passed between all the reconfiguring devices along the ring, each said configuring device including means for detecting the presence of a fault in the ring, said means in different devices cooperating to attempt to cause data to be transmitted around a sub-ring when a fault is detected, the sub-ring being constituted at least partially by one or more of the previously unused data links to enable a number of the devices to continue to communicate; and means for merging for detecting that a new reconfiguring device is connected to at least one pair of previously unused data input and output links and for reconfiguring the ring to include the new device. One sentence … wow!

Publications in specialty journals, even with sentences as impressive as that one, do not denote notability. No doubt he is very smart … but his sphere of influence is not significant enough. --Random Replicator 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to the question Some key facts about impact are on the Articles Talk Page. BTW a patent has to be written like that, and FWIW it is cited by 46 others: the average is about 10 and the median I think 1. NBeale 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional research has lead me to abstain: I have attempted to search of precedence for “notability” in the field of consulting (one of the categories shared by this entry) by visiting other Wikipedia articles on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Consultants It was discouraging. The majority of the biographies had not a thread of notability (in my opinion) and contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. No doubt none of the entries, including this would ever be considered for Britannica or for that matter even Encarta On-line. However, this is Wikipedia, where the significance of the information does not have to be balanced against the cost of publication. There does seem to be an element of self-promotion by his adamant defense of this entry, which albeit strange, is not relevant to the decision making process. Notable people can self-promote and in fact usually do so. I retract my objection on the grounds that I am unqualified to pass judgment on what are the minimum standards for notability in an encyclopedia of this type. My apologies for wasting your time; I am obviously too much of a newbie to engage in this level of decision making. --Random Replicator 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently borderline notable, but only appears so because of the extraordinary lengths the subject of the article has gone to in his attempts to persuade us of his own notability. Given this much promotional effort, almost anyone could be shown to be worth a wikipedia article. The insistent lobbying by the subject also raises serious issues of conflict of interest, and his efforts, far from confirming the value of the article, tip the balance firmly in favour of DELETE. Snalwibma 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I used to work with Nicholas, and I have been thinking alot about him this week, as it was in his company that I met the former CEO of BP plc, John Browne, at a meeting Nick had convened with him, the then Chairman of X Plc Lord XX, Sir XX (former Chairman of XX plc and now XX), and the Vice Chancellors of XX and XX Universities. These people were there because he had brought them together and were listening to him. Others I could mention who have worked with Nick on his ideas would include the then Chairman of XX, Lord XX, Sir XX (current Chairman of XX) and Paul Myners. I could go on. The difficulty of proving the notability of someone like Nicholas is that his work is by nature highly confidential - indeed, I think he may be pretty uncomfortable with my mentioning clients by name. The fact remains that he is an opinion former for UK business leaders and others. When his most recent book was published, the Sunday Times saw fit to publish a long extract. Had he been less discreet, I am sure they would have serialised the whole thing. Nick is notable, even if his web presence alone may not be sufficient to prove it. Laura H S 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Names blanked for the record, they are living people: they were supplied NBeale 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In other words, we have only his (and your) word for it, and you are arguing that he is notable precisely because it is impossible to establish notability from verifiable sources! I also note that the nominator at the top of this page makes much the same point as you - that any notability depends largely on name-dropping. Snalwibma 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Q Why are HBR, Amazon.com, The Sunday Times, Debretts, Google Patents, Google Scholar, the National Library of China, Prospect etc.. not verifiable sources? NBeale 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A - oh, they are, but that's not what Laura is saying - she is arguing precisely that the less verifiable it is the more important it is. My comment was a response to what struck me as laughable nonsense. I just loved the blatant name-dropping, and the implication that certain people move in such exalted circles that we mere mortals should know our places and accept any old drivel that is dished out on the basis of an appeal to authority! Snalwibma 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry Snalwibma, not at all what I meant to imply. All I was saying was that the people mentioned are notable authorities, and in their opinion Nicholas is notable, although you may not find much on the web to prove it. I admit it saddens me that you consider my view to be "laughable nonsense". It was intended to be a helpful contribution. Laura H S 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I must thank you, Laura H S, for your comment earlier above with this, "Had he been less discreet", as the irony of that will not be lost on the rest of us who have had to wade through Beale's not inconsiderable contributions. The problem really is that there does seem to be an almost religious fervour on his part to keep his article in Wikipedia and that is worrying as it feels like Astroturfing. Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, note that the book "Cybernauts Awake" (ISBN 0715165860) is an offical publication of The Archbishops' Council, and has been mentioned in a significant way by New Statesman, BBC, Computer Weekly, The Register, and SlashDot, and that is only the online resources that are still freely available from 1999ish. Google News Archives shows others that are archived, and NBeales website lists others that are no longer available. The book is in many OCLC member libraries[16]. The full text of the book can be found at [17]; see table of contents on the left. John Vandenberg 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  Note also (having cast myself as the Evil One, I will continue in this vein!) that in relation to Cybernauts Awake, Beale seems to have been only one of seven people in the working party responsible for this slim (94-page) book, and that his name is not associated with it in the sources you mention. Snalwibma 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  There are, more reliable sources that quoted Beale for their coverage of the book. Scanning the list of the working parties members, all excepting perhaps the secretaries appear to be quite notable as eminent scholars; the Church of England didnt select these people in order to write a novel -- a work of this sort recieves immediate critical review by all media outlets. John Vandenberg 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Cybernauts Awake though is ultimately self-published (The publisher Church House Publishing being in-house) and represents what the CoE view is. I question if it has been that critically reviewed but in the end who asserts the moral rights as the author to the work is the committee and not Beale. The quotes seem trivially pithy and the allusion to fame again seems to be through association. The "God and science" in Prospect 30 seem to be repackaging of the Beale/Howson emails (http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/mainemails.html) and the Times bit (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article573566.ece) is "Adapted from Constructive Engagement — Directors and Investors in Action, by Nicholas Beale" i.e. a friendly plug. The Harvard Business Review Article article (reprint) is 2 pages and it's description is "When a crisis forces outside directors to navigate major changes, investors and directors must adopt new roles. The case of Royal Dutch/Shell provides useful lessons." which our readers will remember from The Times article and Constructive Engagement...etc etc etc. The rest is co-author stuff which unfortunately any critical review can't really point us in the right direction on notability (it can only tell us that the book/article was notable not the co-authors). Ttiotsw 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious and speedy delete per Radiant. --Mais oui! 07:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Facts or.. On the one hand we have the judgements of the Editors of Debretts, the Harvard Business Review, the Sunday Times, Prospect, the Court of the WCIT, the IEEE Standards Board, and the top management of several major financial institutions[18], etc.. who consider the subject or his work to be of unusual significance. On the other hand many WP Editors don't like the subject's views or edits on Wikipedia. And the result is .... NBeale 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I invite NBeale to withdraw that unwarranted personal attack on the motives of his fellow-editors. Snalwibma 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Interestingly I will quote NBeale who said "it's ludicrous to list everything he has ever published! Stick to real peer-reviewed please" in the edit summary for [19] on the Victor J. Stenger article where NBeale removed 35 or so references to stuff that Stenger had written. The deletions range from small 1/2 page fluff to chapters in books. It looks like the standard that NBeale has set for others is rather high. The question is should we apply the same hurdle to his own efforts and thus little of what NBeale has written would match the criteria of "real peer-reviewed" that he himself has set ?. Ttiotsw 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed ... from a section headed "Singly authored articles in peer reviewed or similar publications". Ah well. It's already clear enough that many people here don't like NBeale's edits on WikiPedia. FWIW I'm not making a personal attack on anyone, and I apologise to anyone who took it that way, just an observation about the arguments used. NBeale 06:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are free to revert that if you think NBeale's logic was incorrect. Looking at that specific example, I read NBeale's logic to be: "Stenger has lots of quality research output, so the bio need only focus on those". OTOH, this article has been nominated for deletion for not having enough notability, so the article is being used as a scratch pad to assert that. No doubt the less important parts of this bio will be trimmed by some equality random person, and there edit message will probably look similar. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Given that I have had repeated skirmishes with NBeale over the past six months or so, I've elected to Abstain in the vote here. However, given that said user is by some margin the strongest proponent for this article, I'm finding my patience becoming increasingly frayed. Surely common sense (or a fear of appearing vain) dictates that one should steer clear of discussions of one's own notability? And, anyway, any judgement here on notability does not stand for all time; it can be reviewed in the future. Who knows, maybe Nicholas Beale will find "overwhelming scientific arguments for God's existence" next week? --Plumbago 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just got a personal comment on my talk page from NBeale basically asking me to reconsider and change my vote (of course in nicer terms). But it just really, really gives me a bad taste when the subject of the article is contacting me personally for the sake of keeping his article on wikipedia. I've never encountered an AfD where the main advocate has gone through such lengths to make sure that he has an article on himself on wikipedia. I mean, can I still rationally judge the quality and notability of the article when things have become personal? Well, the question of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources is subjective, and it is still not explicit in the article why Nicholas is notable, and it still reads like a resume, and has unencyclopedic information. So not all of my concerns have been met. I'm not sure if others agree (I've seen some comments that may be sympathetic to this), but I would make me feel more comfortable if NBeale withdrew from advocating on behalf of himself to avoid WP:COI.-Andrew c 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• here is the request to re-evaluate the article due to significant change. I agree that NBeale should refrain from advocacy, but we should be attentive to any relevant information and evidence he adds to the talk page. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete mainly self-publicity from a mainly non-noteable person. The extent to which he has to work on his own article and fight to keep it, makes that clear. A bit sad.Merkinsmum 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I would like to point out that Wikipedians with a bio are entitled to participate in discussions about the article, and it is very likely they will be disruptive but the rest of us should AGF. Angela Beesley nominated her article for deletion, yet also accused a latter nominator of trolling. WP:COI is a guideline on how notable Wikipedians should operate, but these are real people so comments made by other Wikipedians can hit home too hard and result in strange human outbursts. Academics are regularily found to have written there own bio on Wikipedia, so that shouldnt shock us into an immediate delete mode. Instead we should be thankful for the contributions, evaluate them fairly, and clean them up. Please bear in mind that the subject clearly meets the WP:N criterion (and the same can be found in WP:BIO), by way of Debretts and Prospect (and others). The coverage was significant, and the sources are reliable and independent of the subject. John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am in agreement with Vandenberg. Publications, patents, citings/reviews by business & financial awards/newspapers...Seems to fit withing WP:BIO guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaugb (talk • contribs)

  For the record, Mclaugb has made a total of 13 contributions to wikipedia. Nine of them were minor corrections to four articles. The other four were contributions to AfD debates in which he has supported NBeale's viewpoint. I draw no conclusions from these facts. Snalwibma 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most pathetic afd's I have ever witnessed. Have people really, really got nothing better to do with their time? --Mais oui! 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. In addition to the reasons given above, NB seems to understate his work with John Polkinghorne. He says he manages Polkinghorne's web site but it seems to be more of a collaborative work since NB makes the most significant contribution to the theological questions raised, from what I can see. GoldenMeadows 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Should every webmaster of a notable individual also be considered notable? Every website run by a third party is given regular input by those who are the subject of the website. This is no different here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-12 19:51Z
    • No, but if they had the same minimum level of notability in their own sectors as the subject of this article, and had a significant input in the work of someone who is clearly worthy of an article, then I would say yes.
      • The primary explanation in your Keep is that he is the webmaster for the site of someone notable. Every webmaster has significant control over the content (obviously, since the subjects don't usually have much understanding of how sites should be layed out or structured), so you haven't really shown that anything you claim is actually true. However, this discussion is closed, so any further comments are of no use. I'll unwatch this page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-13 16:51Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As pointed out by many editors below, the fact that a concept does not have mainstream support does not, in itself, demonstrate a lack of notability. Articles with NPOV problems should be fixed, not deleted. --Selket ^Talk 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth pillar of Islam

Sixth pillar of Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is not a main-stream concept. There is no reason to create article using couple of references for something that does not exist. It is against WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. A. L. M. 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems like a notable concept for Shia Islam and 15-20% of the Muslim population is Shia. You're incorrect in saying that this concept does not exist. Obviously, Shites believe in it and it exists for them. I wouldnt nominate Allah for deletion because I dont believe he exists. I would only nominate something e.g. if its not notable enough. Other pillars of Islam have their own articles too, e.g.:
  • Seven Pillars of Islam (Ismaili)
  • Walayah (Ismaili and Druze pillar)
  • Seven Pillars of Islam (Druze)

Some Kharijite groups also support the existence of a sixth pillar. You should bring this up on the Talk page of that article before AfD'ing it. What partly makes it notable is that this is one of the differences between Sunni Islam and other types of Islam.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Do you have any have source which says that Shia consider it as Sixth pillar of Islam ? Or just because you think it is? --- A. L. M. 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: It does not represent Shia main steam concept. If article name could be changed Sixth Pillar of Islam (Kharijites) then we could keep it otherwise it is wrong to present it as general Muslim concept and misguide people. --- A. L. M. 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per name change : I have renamed it to Sixth Pillar of Islam (Kharijites) and now we could keep it. I withdrew my AFD as long as it name remain same. --- A. L. M. 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Keep.Alright I support the rename as its related to the Kharjites only. You're right, my assumption about the Shias was incorrect, sorry. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As the article point out notable Islamic individuals and organizations such as Abd al-Salam Farag and Takfir wal-Hijra consider Jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam. -- Karl Meier 20:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is obvious becoming a dispute among different islamic groups, and it is fortunately not the province of WP to decide theology. If the term is used by a substantial community it is N, and everyone seems to admit as much. The scope of the article and clarification of the meaning are editing questions. DGG 20:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't matter if it is mainstream or not - it is commonly discussed. This is something that Christian apologists often refer to, by the way. StAnselm 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination is self-contradictory saying article is about 'something that does not exist' and 'not a main-stream concept'. Neither is an acceptable reason for deletion. Take a look a blood libel for comparison - just because a particular practice does not exist (and even the nominator later admits Kharjites believe in the Sixth pillar) does not mean it not a suitable subject for an article. Edward321 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment It says Islam in its heading. That implies 1.4 billion people. Which is wrong. --- A. L. M. 09:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment So you are saying the Khajarites are not Muslims? Do they believe they are Muslims? Edward321 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I do not know what is Khajarites. Hence even if they are Muslim they are so less in number that me being a Muslim do not know them. Imposing their believe on all of us is pity. --- A. L. M. 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment This is not imposing the belief on all Muslims, the article specifically says some and mentions those some specifically. Edward321 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Check this [20], I do not feel that good. The title itself "Sixth pillar of Islam" is wrong. This could stay but need to be renamed. --- A. L. M. 14:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep very important pillar of Islam--Sefringle 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the title should not be "Sixth pillar of Islam" as that is not a notable term. It only receives 877 Google hits[[21]]. This article should not really exist, but if it has to it should be under the title of Sixth Pillar of Islam (Kharijites). IP198 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and Googling "Sixth pillar" plus "Islam" yields 13,500 hits [22]. Edward321 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete actually Googling "Sixth pillar" plus "Islam" only shows 697 results [23]. it states that "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 697 already displayed." This shows that the term is not very common. Most of the articles are either blogs or editorials in right wing papers. This article violates Wikipedia:No original research. The first non Wikipedia article in the google search [24] states

• Comment Actually if one follows your google link [25], that yields 13,300 hits, not the 697 you claim. Please do not misrepresent things. Edward321 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Scroll to the bottom and it says

• Comment Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. For contrast "Fifth pillar" + "Islam yields" 726 results [26]. Should we thus conclude the Fifth pillar is non-notable and delete it from Wikipedia? Edward321 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Search about "Five pillars of Islam" [27]. It gives "196,000" returns. You will not find much if you start searching "first pillar" second pillar etc. Because they come together in book instead of each individuals. --- 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I do not see the issue the nom brought up, other people keeping have described my position well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:14, 10 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. -Doc^g 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August Wilhelm Knispel

August Wilhelm Knispel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A biography, full of praise and looking like it was copied from somewhere, of someone who is very notable in the history of Franklin Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey (population 2,990). The extent to which he is notable in general is questionable. I refused a speedy deletion tag and brought it here with no vote. Sam Blacketer 17:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is unsourced, and the man seems to lack notability. I did a quick google search, and found some sources on the man [28] [29] [30] [31] including a NY times article[32]. He appears to be a fine man, but being chairman of the Hunterdon County Solid Waste Advisory Council, or Mayor of Franklin Township is not enough for inclusion to wikipedia. --Work permit 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since the NYT article requires subscription, I copied every sentence mentioning Krispal. They are:

"Farming is our livelihood, our business, said August Knispel, a 52-year-old dairy farmer who was born on the Franklin Township landin largely rural Hunterdon County that he still works. The Constitution avails us the right to go about our business the way we want to." "As Mr. Knispel, the Franklin Township dairy farmer, said: Farmers have certain rights, and they have to be protected if they are going to operate.' and a [Illustration] (photo of August Knispel walking on his farm) (The entire article is 1183 words.) "Newton S. Layton, a Pilesgrove farmer and the Township Clerk.", is mentioned more prominently.DGG 21:16, 5 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. Chaser - T 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essentials of Programming Languages

Essentials of Programming Languages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable book. I originally speedied it but evidently A7 doesn't apply to books so here it is.-- ugen64 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

Courses using this text[33]:

• C311: Introduction to Programming Languages, at Indiana University
• CS 373: Programming Language Structures, Lewis and Clark College
• CS 341: Survey of Programming Languages, Gettysburg College
• CS784: Programming Languages at Wright State University
• CS312 Programming Language Design, Washington & Lee University
• CS380: Organization of Programming Languages, at Seattle University
• B521: Programming Languages, at Indiana University
• Comp311: Principles of Computing and Programming, at Rice University
• COM3351: Principles of Programming Languages, at Northeastern University
• CS722-F: Principles of Programming Languages, at National Technological University
• CS217: Programming Languages, at Carleton College
• CS455: Programming Systems and Languages, at Washington University
• CPSC 311 Definition of Programming Languages, at University of British Columbia
• CPSC 511 Porgramming Languages, at University of British Columbia
• CS330: Concepts of Programming Languages, at Brigham Young University
• Com S342: Principles of Programming Languages, at Iowa State
• CS345: Programming Languages, at the University of Texas
• C311: Programming Languages, at Indiana University South Bend
• CS450: Organization of Programming Languages, University of Hawaii at Hilo
• 20504: Workshop: Essentials of Programming Languages at The Open University of Israel
• CS173: Programming Languages, Brown University
• CS350: Programming Language Concepts, University of Regina
• EECS761 Programming Language Paradigms, University of Kansas

That seems pretty notable to me --MarSch 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Twenty-three out of -- how many? 2,500? -- colleges and universities in North America? That's about the total number of colleges and universities in Washington State alone. Seems pretty unnotable to me. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I was right about to vote delete (though it pained me to vote to delete a scheme book) before MarSch posted. Anywho, per WP:NB, being the text book for courses at multiple universities is sufficient for notability, bookwise. Someguy1221 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. but I hope MarSch can provide the websites if someone bugs him for them. Someguy1221 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• The links to the actual websites are on the bottom of the homepage of the book, also linked above. --MarSch 09:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a textbook, so (surprise surprise) it's used by some schools. If your only references that discuss this are lists of schools using it, it's nothing more than a directory listing. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's a review in ACM Computing Reviews, May 2001, by Max Hailperin. I'm having trouble accessing the whole review right now, but the snippet I can see reads "The first edition of this book [1] has been so influential that the initials EOPL are a widely understood shorthand. It is still the primary representative of one school of thought regarding how programming language principles should be..." which is enough to convince me that this is an important text. This review (and the review of the first edition in the Feb 1, 1994 issue of Computing Reviews, and the review in J. Functional Programming 13:829-831 would likely make adequate secondary sources for a more complete article. —David Eppstein 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I haven't heard of it myself, but if ACM Computing Reviews calls it very influential, that seems sufficiently notable to me. --Delirium 07:06, 8 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 as nominator. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)