Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Ace Combat Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War My rationale for redirecting rather than deleting is the relatively extensive edit history for this article, >50 edits going back to July 2006. Both Delete and Redirect were options expressed among the opinions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Error: I've just found that I incorrectly closed this. The target should be Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War and not Ace Combat. Correcting momentarily. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A World With No Boundaries

A World With No Boundaries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization from Ace Combat. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not consider combining it with the article about the game Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War where it is from? Wildhartlivie 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources could possibly be found. Bearian 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War. No apparent real-world notability. 17Drew 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A Subject With No Notability. There isn't any out-of-universe context, either (WP:WAF). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WAF/WP:FICT. Optionally replace with redirect to Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kinematics, because any content that's not already in that article is, at best, OR with definite CoI.. DS 14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derivatives of position

95% of this article is a hoax and the 5% of real physics it contains can already be found at Kinematics. It appears the author had way to much time to lose... Tomj 23:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Whether or not the information contained within is accurate or not, this article is a blatant violation of WP:OR. The References section is dominated by articles written by a Steve Mann. Checking author Glogger's page, he signs his paragraph "Steve." Hmm... Following a link to his personal website we find he is, in fact, Steve Mann. While I rather like the information contained in this article, I think it needs a lot of work to remove the OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFlav (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I think it's clear that the author had a conflict of interest. Having studied physics on a college level, I know enough to say that most of the article is nonsense, and the fraction of worthwhile material is probably covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City Rats (film)

City Rats (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines" -- and this one isn't. Accounting4Taste 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--

Wikipedia has a section for films that are in production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_films and there is a strong case for including this film due to the numbers of well known British actors appearing in it as well as the musicians scoring the music. Many of these actors appear in the current trend of British Gangster films and as per the notability guidelines:

The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

This will be the first leading role played by well known British actor Tamer Hassan as well as Ray Panthaki, both of whom have only played minor roles in a number of British films and this is indeed a film that should also be placed on their individual wikipedia pages.

This page is to be updated with further crew members (some of whom appear to be of note, as per the notability guidelines) once those listed on IMDB have been verified.

Jameslenton 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It may help you to refer to the material at WP:Notable, which gives a definition of "notable" that may help you in this discussion ("General notability guideline"). Essentially, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so that's what would do the most good; adding sources to the article and noting those additions here would be helpful. Accounting4Taste 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm still getting used to the comments sections of Wikipedia. I had a look at WP:Notable before posting this page and felt that it was notable due to the following section:

WP:NotableThe film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

I've tried to clarify this on the page itself, let me know if it's not quite right still please.

Jameslenton 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; Generally, the "major part of his/her career" is taken to mean that the actor won major awards, critical acclaim, fame, for the role. Just being their first movie role doesn't guarantee it will be a major part of the actor's career. The film could get bad reviews and make no money. It would be better to try and find significant coverage in secondary sources about this film. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any. Masaruemoto 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Don't see how this meets WP:MOVIE, and it's always a bad sign for an article to be telling you why it is notable. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• This certainly isn't his first film role, and whether is makes money or not doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia is about? If the addition of the references isn't enough, then I agree it should be deleted until the film comes out. Let me know what you think.Jameslenton 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The notability of this film is hard to determine until external reviews have appeared, ideally after it's been released. In addition the bulk of the article is a plot summary that fails WP:OR. Pedro :  Chat  15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pedro's comments above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:BLP is also valid for suspected terrorists and the like, and the lack of third party sources about this person (or at least such sources which use his name) is a very vald concern. Fram 10:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah Gulam Rasoul

Abdullah Gulam Rasoul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this concern. The allegations against him, and his testimony on his behalf is about him. The nominator, and this respondent, are perfectly free to regard the allegations against the captive, and his tetimony on his behalf, as not worthy of their notice. But should they be decideing for everyone else that the allegatins and testimony is not worthy of anyone else's notice?
  • Respondent above asserts that the captive would only merits coverage for "one event".
  • The most recently released Summary of Evidence memo states that he was captured with two Casio F91W watches. This is the same model that Ahmed Ressam the Millinium bomber was carrying Ahmed Ressam was carrying two so he could use them to as the timers for timebombs at LAX airport. The DoD was widely criticized for using possession of a watch as a justification for holding a captive for years in in Guantanamo. Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is the first captive I have come across who was accused of carrying two of these watches.
  • He was alleged to have injured by ordnance in the 1990s. Why isn't this considered a separate event?
  • Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is one of the captives who explicitly testified his own Koran was treated with disrespect by a guard. We don't have to believe this testimony to regard it as meriting coverage. There were world-wide riots over the allegations of Koran abuse. People were killed in these riots. They attracted world-wide media coverage. Some commentators stated that the allegations were all third person, that one of those complaining were complainabout somethin they saw with their own eyes. Well Abdullah Gulam Rasoul testified he saw it with his own eyes. And that merits coverage.
  • Abdullah Gulam Rasoul is alleged to have been posted to the Kuli Urdu barracks. Why isn't this considered a separate event? Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep -- nominator has used the same text to nominate two other articles for deletion. The same response I offered there applies here. I tried my best to understand the nominator's interpretation of {{blp}} elsewhere. I am quite frustrated that nominator won't acknowledge that his demand that we prove the truth of the assertions in the sources we cite is contrary to WP:VER, which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Cheers! Geo Swan 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks  01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I disputed that I have ever engaged in POV-pushing on this wikipedian's talk page. This wikipedian is an administrator, and should be trying to set an example. He should know better than to engage in baseless name-calling. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Some administrators agree with this interpretation of {{blp}}. And several administrators disagree. My own reading of WP:VER and WP:NPOV is that they do not require that the allegations we report be true, only that they are verifiable. I think this was a very wise decision on the part of those who drafted those policies, because there will be endless debate over what is true, while resolving what is verifiable is much less contentious. Further, if we were to take a stand on what was true, as the nominator and this respondent suggest, we would have to abandon neutrality. That is not our role.
  • The nominator knew there was a controversy over this interpretation of {{blp}}. I think it was regrettable he chose to proceed with further {{afd}} under this justification until after the controversy over this interpretation was resolved. Geo Swan 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Subject has been held, without charge, for five years.
    • Subject has been stripped of the traditional principle of the presumption of innocence.
    • Subject has had the information from three of these controversial administrative procedures made public.
    • Subject is being held, in part, because he was present at the riot at Qali-Jangi prison in Mazari Sharif
    • I'm new to this WP:BLP1E argument. Can you explain why these should be interpreted as a "single event"?
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Because they're all about one thing: his detention in Guantanamo. There is no other biographical information about this person, or the other two articles up for deletion. They are, in essence, only about a single event in this person's life, which fails WP:BLP1E. At best, some of this information would be relevant in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article, but there's not enough biographical information to have a neutral article about these people as individuals. -- Kesh 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Any article which is not about the person, but about an event they were involved in, is not a biographical article and thus fails WP:BLP1E. All three of the currently nominated articles are exactly in this vein. If other articles about detainees are similar, yes, they should also be deleted. If those other articles have neutral biographical information, with a sub-section on the person's detention, that would be more proper. I can't speak in detail without knowing which other articles you're referring to, though. -- Kesh 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete BLP1E is pretty clear and this appears to be yet another case of it. Notability is something that is established over a period of time, not whipped up in a very small and short lived media storm.--Crossmr 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure five years of arbitration, administrative reviews, newspaper stories and criminal charges make these people noteworthy over a period of time, not a "short-lived media storm". I mean hell, go delete Chris Crocker for that nonsense, not Guantanamo detainees alleged to be among the worst terrorists in the world. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. All of the coverage is about the detainees plural. There's no substantial or neutral coverage of individuals (aside from primary sources whose neutrality is disputed). --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...that's not true at all. There are media stories about pretty much every detainee held. As they're repatriated, charged, or their lawyers approach tthe media. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Where then are the sources on Abdullah Gulam Rasoul? • Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If I google him and eliminate all sites that fail WP:RS, I am left with nothing at all. In fact, of those five hits, four are of no use to us. Three are Wikipedia mirrors, and Spock.com is not reliable for anything at all. An all-dates Google News search has nothing. Even the "Did you mean?" suggestion from Google News has nothing. That is all dates--full archive. Do you know of any other sources that are not primary sources (e.g., US Government)?

All we have is this list of names, and nothing else. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to revisit this by Geo Swan. I am still in favour of deletion because this article is only a negatively-slanted summary of what has happened to the subject since his detention and does not contain any substantial details about his life or, indeed, why he should be considered notable beyond the one event. We may have (justified) opposition to Guantanamo Bay, but we can't hang up our problems with it on a coatrack like this. I also incorporate by reference Kesh's excellent comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them. DGG (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral. DGG (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I read comments here that are obviously sincere. I would really appreciate it if those who say this article is insufficiently referencd to explain their reasoning. I don't understand this concern. The wikipolicies only say that primary sources must be used with care. And I used them with care.
  • The comment above praises the quality of the nominator's research. Nominator also nominatee Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh at the same time. That nomination is a word for word copy of this nomination, right down to complaining about Zahid Al-Sheikh situation as a Guantanamo captive. The trouble is that Zahid Al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive, and the article about him never said he was a Guantanamo captive.
  • Nominator is on record as saying that he thinks the DoD is doing a good job running Guantanamo. We live in free countries. Nominator is perfectly free to believe whatever he wants. He is perfectly free to say whatever he wants -- elsewhere. He would not be free to say -- "ignore the captive's tesimony. The DoD is doing a good job!", in articles about the captives. He would be perfectly free to quote Mitt Romney saying the DoD is doing a good job. Atrtibuting quotes is not a violation of POV.
  • Similarly, the nominator would be out of bounds arguing we should delete articles simply because he does not believe the captive's testimony. Our readers are entitle to read material here that is written from a neutral point of view, and complies with the wikipedia's other core policies, which I believe this does, and make up their own minds as to whether they are going to believe the DoD is doing a good job. I am not a mind reader. I am not suggesting the nominator consciously chose to suppress this material simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But other people have made clear that this is exactly the reason they don't want the wikipedia to cover this material. Geo Swan 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The secondary sources do not even mention Rasoul by name. Obviously the situation is notable but there is no notability to Rasoul that I can see; he is as un-notable (or notable, if you prefer) as the people that died in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge (we had the names at one point but I see that they are gone now). Say what you will about the situation but that does not imply notability for the victims (or the "suspects") --Justanother 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources in the captions don't particularly reference the captive. That is because some other wikipedians complained about the text in the captions be referenced. Other wikipedians challenged that the captives were chained to a ringbolt in the floor. So I provided that reference User:Butseriouslyfolks complained about an earlier wording of this caption, that stated that most of the Tribunals went unattended by the Press. So I repalced that passages with a passage that referenced a DoD official stating that only 37 of the Tribunas were attended by the Press. I would really appreciate an explanation as to how the use of these references is grounds for deletion.
  • The various policies do not proscribe using Primary sources. They merely state they should be used with care. I used them with care. Geo Swan 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean simply that the secondary sources used in the article do not mention Rasoul by name (unless I missed the mention). It almost seems that these Gitmo articles are based on "expected notability" or "supposed notability", i.e "these guys, as individuals, would be notable if someone were to write a story on them". WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Justanother 12:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The transcripts don't explicitly identify him by name. But they do mention him epxlicitly identify him -- by his ID number. Each page of the transcripts is identified by his ID number. So, except for the references in the captions, which I explained above, all the references do explicitly identify him. I hope this helps you. Geo Swan 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This individual is not notable in his own right. He is not different from any of the other Gitmo detainees, in fact, much of the article isn't about him, but about the Combatant status review tribunals as a whole. Fails WP:N. --Raoulduke47 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this argument. Just because they all ended up in Gauntanamo doesn't mean the captives are indistinguishable. They each faced an unique set of allegations. And they each provided unique testimony on their onw behalf. In his case he face three different unique sets of allegations
  • If, in your opinion, the article contains extra material, how does that become grounds for deletion? Surely that is a concern that you should address on the talk page, or in an edit summary, when you delete the material you consider redundant or out of place? Geo Swan 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of who is distinguishable, it's a question of who is notable, per WP:N. And Abdullah Gulam Rasoul never did anything to make himself notable. He is just another Taliban footsoldier, like there were thousands of others, he wasn't a famous Taliban leader, or a prominent member of any islamist organization. All he did was to get captured by US forces, and sent to Guantanamo.

Also, removing "extra material" would not help at all, because it is the fundamental nature of the article that is flawed. The central theme is not Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, the person, about whom very little is known, or presents any interest. It is, in fact, about the Guantanamo detention system, and the combatant status review tribunals. This is, IMO, the only aspect that is worthy of study. If you were to rename the article to "the case of Abdullah Gulam Rasoul", then you could argue over the possible notable legal aspects of his review. As it stands, this article is not acceptable. --Raoulduke47 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As Raoulduke47 says above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable, third-party sources appear, such as coverage in a news article, book, or journal article. --Delirium 08:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge reduced content to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and redirect. References are unusual and do not necessarily fail WP:N, and so keep is not unreasonable. However, much of the content is either not about the subject or is not clearly referenced, leaving little clearly verified informtion about the subject. No good reason to delete instead of merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, reliable third party sources have been added. Fram 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zahid Al-Sheikh

Zahid Al-Sheikh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Revised, see below. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep -- nominator has used the same text to nominate two other articles for deletion. The same response I offered there applies here. I tried my best to understand the nominator's interpretation of {{blp}} elsewhere. I am quite frustrated that nominator won't acknowledge that his demand that we prove the truth of the assertions in the sources we cite is contrary to WP:VER, which states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Cheers! Geo Swan 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks  01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dispute that I am POV-pushing. Geo Swan 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether the author has been POV-pushing or not is absolutely irrelevant to an AfD. You are not asked to condone the current version of the article, , only that one should exist. Please rewrite POV articles, do not try to have them deleted. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the author has created these articles to POV push, rather than because the subjects are notable. -- But|seriously|folks  08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment is there a source for 'worst of the worst'? That might be notable if it can be verified. (Asking as I didn't see it in the article). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Who said the captives are "the worst of the worst"?
• RumsfeldLinda D. Kozaryn (January 28, 2002). U.S. Gains Custody of More Detainees. American Forces Press Service. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Jeff Sessions (Thursday, June 16, 2005). Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions: THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTANAMO. United States Senate. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Mike Crapo (Monday, June 27, 2005). NO PRISONER ABUSE AT GUANTANAMO, WORK KEEPING AMERICANS SAFER FROM TERRORISM: Senator one of five conducting inspections at detention site in Cuba. United States Senate. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Mike Crapo (Monday, June 27, 2005). Guantanamo Congressional Record Statement: Transcript of remarks on the floor of the Senate - June 27, 2005. United States Senate. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Jim Bunning (Wednesday, July 11, 2007). Floor Speech On Iraq And The War On Terror: United States Senate, Washington, DC Wednesday, July 11, 2007. United States Senate. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Suzanne Struglinski (August 03, 2005). Porter tours Guantanamo Bay, says guards fighting terrorism. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Ari Fleischer (January 23, 2002). Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer. Whitehouse. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• DoD News Briefing - ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. McChrystal. Department of Defense (March 31, 2003). Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
• Cheers! Geo Swan 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

CommentThose seem to be comments about the detainees in general. There's no mention of any one person in particular. Comments about the detainees in general would suggest there's probably more point to merging this into one article. (Also, would you mind not making your comments small. It can be hard to read.) Thanks. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question - is the one event this person is supposedly notable for notable in and of itself? If so, is there a reason we can't stop wasting time and just merge and redirect to said event? RFerreira 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have found some additional references -- including the 9-11 Commission's report. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a mystery here:
  • Stifle's preceding comment that justified deletion based on "one event", is date-stamped over half-an-hour after I added half a dozen additional referenences. I think we can all agree that no one can reasonably assert WP:BLP1E when the subject
  • Played a role in resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
  • Allegedly played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
  • Allegedly played a role in planning Operation Bojinka;
  • And directed non-governmental organizations that aid refugees;
  • I am going to assume good faith, and assumme Stifle started their comment earlier today, and got diverted, and didn't think to check the currect state of the article when he or she finally got around to making the submission.
  • I am going to question using WP:NPOV as a justification for deletion. The various deletion documents used to be pretty clear that the recommended action if a wikipedian had a concern that an article did not comply with WP:NPOV was to rais their concern on the article's talk page -- not deletion.
  • FWIW, in general, I would encourage people who are going to participate in the deletion fora to go for quality participation, not quantity. I would encourage people to not just read other people's comments, but to actually take a look at the article in question for themselves. Geo Swan 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I should explain that I participate in a reasonably large amount of AFDs and tend to open up a lot of articles at a time in several tabs, then go through them and comment on the AFD. Sometimes I get called away to do something else, leaving the tabs open. It's likely, as Geo Swan suggests (I don't remember all of this myself as I have been preoccupied with several other concerns this week), that I was reading the earlier version. Thanks to Geo Swan for calling my attention back to the debate on my talk page, and keep the new version with a warning to trim for POV. The article should be about the person concerned and should not be aimed at publicizing a cause, raising awareness, or opposing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, irrespective of how reprehensible we may think it is. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. This particular person undoubtedly he, for he is either of of the significant leaders, or very close to them. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them.DGG (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC) striking, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutrality.DGG (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I think this is the most cogent statement I've seen in this series of AfDs stating how BLP applies to this article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) striking see below, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I know the various deletion guidelines suggest adding articles you comment on to your watchlist. I pointed out, on the {{afd}}, that I did more research, and found additional references.
  • When User:Stifle left a comment, half an hour after I added the additional references, I left a second, more detailed note. I keep multipe windows open. I told Stifle I could understand how he might have missed
  • Zahid al-Sheikh is not a Guantanamo captive.
    • Zahid al-Sheikh fought in Afghanistna in the 1980s.
    • Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of playing a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
    • Zahid al-Sheikh is suspected of helping to plan Operation Bojinka, in 1995.
    • Zahid al-Sheikh became a director of various NGOs that aid refugees, from 1991 through 2001.
  • Stating the obvious, this is four events, not one event. Geo Swan 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per GeoSwan's NPOV additions. Clearly this isn't a coatrack now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - Okay, I missed Geo Swan's earlier update on this article. My apologies. That said, the new version is much better. I'm still not totally convinced it passes WP:BLP, but it's no longer a WP:BLP1E issue. It can probably be improved even more from this point, so I'll abstain and just call my !vote Neutral for now. -- Kesh 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Reading the article I find nothing in it that convinces me of the notability of the subject, most of the references appear from glancing at the references list to refer to persons other than the subject. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per GeoSwan's additions.--Aldux 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems well referenced. POV arguments for delete are being abused. POV is a case for re-write, not delete. --SmokeyJoe 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Since there are no reliable independent sources about this person, WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NOTE. Fram 10:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fahed Nasser Mohamed

Fahed Nasser Mohamed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. The article basically details why this person is held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, after he was captured overseas. There are no reliable sources about him as a person, beyond transcript records from the United States Government. Delete as non-notable, and for possible BLP concerns as well: the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something.

We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• speedy keep -- I have had some recent interactions with nominator, and have been quite frustrated by the nominators attempts to explain their interpretations of policy.
  • I have pointed that WP:VER states that the goal of the wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth".
  • I have tried my best to understand the nominator's concern that official DoD documents are not reliable sources about what the DoD has to say about a captive.
  • I am not the only one who has pointed out to the nominator that, if we followed their interpretation of {{blp}}, we would not be able to cover any allegations leveled against anyone. I dispute that {{blp}} requires protecting the subjects of articles from the mention of any allegations. I dispute that material that is neutrally written, and cites verifiable, authoritative sources is not a violation of {{blp}}.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please specify which of the four speedy keep prerequisites this meets. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • My mistake. I checked WP:SK. This nomination does not satisfy any of the four criteria Stifle mentions. My apologies. Geo Swan 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation, as the article is not about the person, but the circumstances of his incarceration and accusations against him. An article about those imprisoned in Guantanamo in general would be appropriate, but there's nothing here about this person, just the situation he's in. -- Kesh 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kesh, and because author has been using this and related articles for POV pushing. -- But|seriously|folks  01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I dispute that I am POV-pushing. Geo Swan 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for issues with WP:BLP1E. We can't create a biography that's potentially inflammatory when the only sources available are non-neutral. Per WP:COATRACK, it would be better to place any non-redundant content into an article on the detainees. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, he is notable as he is hailed as "the worst of the worst" being imprisoned at Gitmo, and he appeared before an administrative review board to determine his 'guilt' - no different than having a wiki article about a murderer who has already stood trial. Sure, the DOD ignored protocol and the legal rights of these detainees, but should we say we never allow a wiki article about a man "who was only ever convicted in China!" or something similarly ludicrous? I highly doubt a Gitmo detainee is worried about BLP concerns, even if he were aware of this article, he would probably be glad to know that his story did exist somewhere - the article does not state that he is or is not a terrorist, it states that he is a detainee of the US military, who accuse him of being a terrorist. Welcome to reality, that's verifiable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP1E deals with individuals only notable for one event. Unless some other information about his life apart from his detention can be found, we cannot create a neutral biographical article, just an article about his detention. While that may be a verifiable event, it does not deserve a full article, and does not satisfy WP:BLP as a biographical article on the person. -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - On a related note, would it be possible to condense these three AfDs into a single one, as they all revolve around the same issue? -- Kesh 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do they deal with any specific issue between the three of them, that the rest of the Guantanamo articles do not? It seems to just be three completely random Guantanamo detainees nominated every few weeks, in a hope to slowly leave random holes in our coverage. Every now and then, one gets "deleted" while another gets "kept", depending on the opinion of the closing admin. I wouldn't be surprised if these three didn't all receive equal treatment - it's odd. But ultimately, is this an AFD because these three men are somehow different from the rest of the Gitmo detainees who have articles, or is this an AfD that will see 300 articles deleted? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COATRACK. Can't see how this person is notable beyond one event, and the article seems to be in use for other reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Geo Swan asked me to revisit and clarify my opinion here, and I am happy to do so. I still believe this article should be deleted as it contains little or no information about the subject, only about what has happened to him since he ended up in Guantanam Bay. To Sherurcij: there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia and each of these AFDs will be decided on its own arguments. I also would incorporate Kesh's comment below. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern. A sufficiently knowledgable search could probably find articles discussing him , and each of the others, in the appropriate non-english sources. I disagree BLP is relevant--the article presents his testimony also, and the intelligent reader can judge for himself. Furthermore, this is not prjudicial--in general these people and their supporters are not hiding from attention, but seeking it. It is trying to delete these articles that is most likely to be prejudicial to their interests. If do no harm applies, it speaks towards keeping them.DGG (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be a POV reason to keep the article: supporting their defense. BLP is relevant as their incarceration is the only subject of these articles. We have no other information on their lives at all. That's the definition of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was certainly not the intention of my argument--some of these people are quite likely dangerous criminals, and some are not. Basic experience with the world suggests that neither accusation nor defense can be implicitly believed. Looking at the article, though, the notability is four-fold: the alleged participation if the Afghan war, their incarceration, their trial, and the international attention to it. The article is neutral--it either supports the defense or the prosecution, and the information it provides is not being interpreted for the reader. If you see it as defending him, that is your own personal conclusion from the information, not WP's . Frankly, I do not know whether to believe him or not, and it is not my role to do so nor my decision about what should happen to him. the information is neutral-- it can be either supporting their defense or the prosecution depending on the way the reader understands it. We are an encyclopedia, not advocacy one way or the other. We record the facts as reported in RSs. What he may have done and why is disputable; what his prosecutors say he has done is documented authoritatively, a is what his view is of what he was doing. A POV article would present one side of it--this does not. That is not a BLO violation. that you personally see it as supporting him is not a reason why it is unreliable--your support is your own personal position as you express it here--the article says nothing of the kind. Once a case has attained the international attention this has, it is notable. Looking at the discussion, half the people think the article is oriented to support him, half against--the definition of neutral writing. DGG (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are not separate events in the context of the article. There is no actual biographical information on this person, because no reliable sources exist to document it. Where was he born? Did he do anything before becoming a soldier? Does he have a family? None of that is available to us, so the only information we have is reports that he was a soldier and was arrested & detained by the US government. That's it. It places undue weight on a single aspect of his life, which creates a POV and violates WP:BLP1E. You keep talking about the international attention to the case, and I agree: an article about the case is appropriate. But this article is a WP:COATRACK for the case, disguising itself as an article about the person. That is why this constitutes a BLP violation. A new article about the case itself would be appropriate, and if someone wanted to userfy a copy of this article to create a base for a new article about the case, that would be fine. But this article is not appropriate as it currently stands. -- Kesh 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the case", do you mean the US Gov't case against him, or against the detainees as a group?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 18:00, October 25, 2007

If his case really is notable enough on its own, then yes, an article on his case would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think the general case against the detainees as a group would be more appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:15, October 25, 2007

• Comment Agreed. Lawrence Cohen has done a reasonably thorough search above, and we can't find other neutral references. And I'm not sure that being in a detainment camp implies that people are seeking attention. (Some innocent people have been released, and there's no guarantee all the remaining ones are guilty). But regardless, we can't say that it's okay to have a BLP violation because it might become (against current evidence) a NPOV article in the future. If need be, the article can be recreated when neutral information becomes available. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Apart from anything else, the article seems to have copied content and images straight out of another article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain what you are talking about? If you are concerned about a copyright ivolation I assure you your concern is misplaced. If you are concerned that there are passages in this article that also occur in other articles I question whether this is a valid justification for deletion. The articles about the elements in hte periodic table will have common elements too, because those articles, while unique, share aspects in common. Geo Swan 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus below is that the coverage at Bush family is adequate. Eluchil404 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Bush

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

The article was nominated for deletion once before (link), but it closed as "no consensus", and I'd like to see whether the community can find some agreement this time around, now that some time has passed. The article, as it currently exists, is sourced only to genealogy websites of uncertain provenance, which fail WP:RS. I'm not able to locate any reliable sources with which to replace them (meaning that it fails WP:BIO), and I don't believe that any are available, with good reason: The subject of the article lived a wholly unremarkable life (worked as a blacksmith, got married, had kids, fought in the army, died), and he's only listed here at all because his great-great-great-great-great grandson happened to grow up into an important person. I reject the idea that we should have an article for the previous seven generations' worth of relatives for every biographical subject in Wikipedia, particularly when the information within them would be purely speculative. For these reasons, I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep hard to argue with nom. on the rules but given the prominence of the family and the interest in Bush-related and more generally presidential (and candidate) genealogy, a page for him is appropriate and useful. JJL 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This person lacks references to show he was in any way notable other than as the ancestor of a president of the U.S. Notability does not percolate back to ancestors, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy website like Ancestry.com. Edison 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've worked on the article in the past, but it's clear he has no inherent historical notability. We already have Bush family, anyway. Not even a likely search term, so no redirect is necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I fully accept all the arguments for deletion, as expressed above, however his descendants are noteworthy and I find it informative that such a life could be the root from which those values later espoused by those descendants sprang. It's also a wonderful corrective to the Whiggish great man theories of history. Apart from that, as a Briton, I find all the lesser explored avenues of early US history totally fascinating albeit that they may appear trivial to others who know the progress of that history far better than I. In addition, I have often heard it said that the Bush family were of Germanic stock and were, in reality, Busch. This article would seem to give the lie to such a claim Jatrius 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability on his own. Mention in one of his relatives' page if you wish. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Bush family. JJL says the information in the article may be useful. That may be true, so keep the information; just don't keep the article. By himself he's not notable. JFlav 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bush family already contains any potentially notable and verifiable information about Timothy Bush. JFlav 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person, wiki should have an article on him. THE KING 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since I don't understand, can you please explain why you consider him to be notable? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • From the article, 'Through his son Timothy Bush, Jr., who was also a blacksmith, descended two American Presidents: George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.' As JFlav says, a merge into the Bush family article would be acceptable if we decide that a full article is unnecessary. THE KING 23:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Really, Bush family already mentions Timothy Bush, and any possibly interesting information about him. I change my recommendation. JFlav 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there is nothing to distinguish this individual other than the tenuous relationship to Bush. Furthermore, verifiability is policy, and there is no reliable sources to provide any verification. -- Whpq 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. In the same way as notability cannot be inherited, it cannot work back up the chain either. Nuttah68 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because if George Bush (current president, and ex president) didn't exist, no one would want to know about him anyway. No actual contribution to knowledge in the article. kippi3000 10:00, 26 October 2007 (GMT)

• Delete Not notable of his own accord. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:A3. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finster Skywalker

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

No claim of notability (or claim of anything) in article; 0 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just silly -- no such actor won any award as described therein; I can't find any evidence of a person with this name. Certainly doesn't meet WP:Verifiability and probably could have been speedied as nonsense, but thanks for cranking up the mechanism to get rid of this once and for all. BTW, he apparently won the Tony award for best performance at the age of three. <sigh>Accounting4Taste 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much info in the article anyway. Probably WP:HOAX. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. GlassCobra 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax and warn article creator accordingly. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per COI and non-notability.. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth 3,000 Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened

Ruth 3,000 Years of Sleeping Prophecy Awakened (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article about a self-published book with no assertion of notability, written by the book's author. Amazon number is below 2,000,000. I originally tagged it as db-spam/contested, but reconsidered, and have moved it here. Acroterion _(talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:COI, etc. Non-notable, no sources, clearly autobiographical. GlassCobra 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because self-publishing (via Xulon Press, a "Christian self-publisher") does not confer any notability and there are no sources (I found no third-party comments in a brief search). Accounting4Taste 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. COI, non notable. No prejudice to recreation if the subject of the article does become notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. JJL 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a writer trying to promote their own book...Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, non-notable article. No assertion of notability is present in the article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable, self-published book. No ghits [1] that discuss the book in a non-trivial way. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:COI. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miguel Tevez

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

Notability of the individual in question has not been asserted. If anything, he is most notable for being the brother of a notable person, and having allegedly signed for his brother's club. If and/or when Tevez makes an appearance for a professional club, the article should be recreated, but at the minute he does not meet Wikipedia's stringent notability criteria. - PeeJay 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: distinctly non-trivial coverage in at least three reliable independent sources, including The Sun [2], the Daily Mail [3] and the Lancashire Evening Post [4] means he meets the notability criteria, independent of whether or not he's played a professional match. --Pak21 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; No assertion of notability except by being brother to a notable footballer. Notability is not inherited. The information could be incorporated in the Carlos Tévez article instead. Sebisthlm 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "currently on the books of English Premiership Champions Manchester United", "considered one of his country's top young talents." What is an assertion of notability if they're not it? --Pak21 11:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no official confirmation from Manchester United or Boca Juniors that Miguel Tevez has actually moved to England, and a short story by The Sun is not a valid substitute in my opinion, given The Sun's reputation for exaggerating stories. As for him being considered "one of his country's top young talents", that is a matter of opinion and cannot be backed up by any official source. - PeeJay 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. It may contain references from reliable sources, but, for example, if there was an article by the Guardian on my grandmother's foot, would that make it notable? No, it wouldn't. And keeping him because he's "currently on the books of English Premiership Champions Manchester United" is just preferential treatment towards the big clubs. And why does him being "considered one of his country's top young talents" even matter? Mattythewhite 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with Carlos Tevez: currently fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Mention at Carlos Tevez and redirect there. Consensus is that non- or minorly-notable relatives of notable people are mentioned in the notable person's article (only). Stifle (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - mostly peacock terms, weasel words and tabloid gossip. Nothing verifiable or substantial. Qwghlm 12:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources about Tevez from more than one news story are provided. Tribal is a long way from a RS. Nuttah68 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete he has not played in a fully professional league (not for Boca or for Man U), therefore fails WP:BIO, if we allowed articles about kids out of all the major football team acadamies, we would end up with categories full of 9 failed footballers for every professional. Recreate the article when he has played a professional game, not before. King of the North East (T/C) 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Won't be notable until he regularly features in 1st team. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable --- unless can be proven otherwise. Did this guy win the world cup or give his salary to AIDS research or something like that? Mindraker 10:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alesia Glidewell

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

Suggesting deletion because this article fails WP:BIO due to a lack of non-trivial third party sources about the subject. According to IMDb she has done voice acting for three games. The other two links in the article are just résumés. Burntsauce 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete highly nn. JJL 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability. Garth 187 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and make the Portal page reference to Glidewell just be a link to IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

76.102.100.52 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep she has been a host on various television shows, and lots of commercials. Take a look at the resumes, she is relatively popular. 24.69.23.36 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable yet. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete; the article has been transwiki'd. krimpet⟲ 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet slang phrases

List of Internet slang phrases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suggesting deletion because this is an improper content fork -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide, as explicitly stated in official WP:NOT policy. Burntsauce 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (Or DLT) per WP:NOT and WP:POVFORK. STORMTRACKER 94 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think that I'm missing something... from which article is this a content and/or POV fork? --Iamunknown 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  This is an improper content fork of the Internet slang article, sorry I thought that much was obvious. Burntsauce 22:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  No, that's fine. I must be dense.  ;) I disagree that it is an improper content fork, as lists are regularly forked. I am, however, undecided on whether it fails WP:NOT (if so, it would be improper whether or not it were a fork).

  Looking at WP:NOT, however, it does say that the prohibition on "lists of definitions" is currently disputed, and I don't that this article qualifies as a slang usage guide (as it doesn't teach anyone how to use l33t sp43k, but rather lists definitions of Internet slang). Anyways, don't know yet. But thanks for pointing that out to me.  :) --Iamunknown 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:IAR or transwiki to wiktionary. I am aware that this list breaches a few guidelines, but as a disambiguation editor, I'd point out how often you have to link some abbrevation or acronym on a dab page somewhere, and this list used to be my perfect dumping ground. It is much less painful to direct over-eager editors to the right wikipage instead of removing the internet abbrevations from dab pages every other day. I as a non-chatter (would) also find this list WP:USEFUL. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When I use popups to disambiguate, one of the options is a Wikitonary link, like wikt:LOL. Would that be an acceptable alternative? --NE2 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete not a fork, but WP:USEFUL. JJL 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete collection of dicdefs. Most of these are probably over at Wikitionary already, although if any important examples are missing they could be transwikied first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete It certainly violates WP:NOT policy as a list of slang definitions, but I find it useful as well. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is on wiktionary in some form [5]. Perhaps we can do a soft redirect, assuming the Wiktionary list is valid? Bfigura ^(talk) 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• I dunno, guys, whenever I need a cool new phrase to start saying online, this page is totally where I go....okay, not really. Delete GlassCobra 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear WP:NOT. Xihr 04:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• One thing that should be noted is that this page is not a "clear" violation of WP:NOT; the relevant bullet point of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" ("Lists of such definitions") is currently disputed. --Iamunknown 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as this violates the spirit if not the letter of WP:NOT, I think it is consensually agreed that we should not be hosting specialized slang lexicons. RFerreira 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I read this page a while back for its content, and I found it useful. I know that's an "argument to avoid", but I don't think we should delete pages just because they are lists instead of articles. It's really a shame that, after all the work that's been done to find a reference for every single phrase, it's all going to be thrown away over what, to me, are relatively insignificant concerns. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you find it WP:USEFUL you will be happy to know that the transwiki process is complete for this page. You can always refer back to Wiktionary if you need to look up the definition of an internet slang phrase. There is no reason to harbor this non-encyclopedic list any longer. Burntsauce 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep the page is heavily sourced, and for all those citing WP:NOT: there isn't a current consensus that lists of dicdefs are unencyclopedic. So I don't think that should be used as a deletion reason until consensus develops Bfigura ^(talk) 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Changing mind to delete, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per WP:LC points 2, 3, 4 and 6. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki listings belong in wiktionary.jonathon 23:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Shalom, it is a shame to see the deletionist go crazy and delete good articles like this which have had so much work put into them. No good reason for deletion. What happened to the good old days, WP:IAR? THE KING 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  Just a few simple points to be made. Deletionists aren't going "crazy". This is not an article. It is a list, a list of dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions belong in a dictionary, and this list of definitions has already been migrated to Wiktionary. There is no valid reason to "ignore all rules" in this case, as the content has not been lost. If WP:YOULIKEIT, nothing is preventing you from visiting Wiktionary and referring to it over there. Burntsauce 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As per Shalom. Emc² • contact me 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, "Wikipedia articles are not slang guides". Some seriously weak keep arguments here, especially considering this violates policy. Crazysuit 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Belongs on urban dictionary dot com, not on Wikipedia. Mindraker 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Since this has been transwikied, and is a borderline case of WP:NOT. Saying borderline here as it's partly a slang guide (bad), and partly sourced glossary (possibly ok, per discussion over at WP:NOT). --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is a toughie for me. Usually, List of ____ sends up the deletionist red flag. However, I can't help but feel a bit of that argument I hate. There are loads of internet acronym dictionaries out there, so there is no huge speciality to this content. However, if I was curious about some, I would come to WP to check for a list before somewhere else. So as much as I hate using this, it's useful. I even just linked tl;dr, which is how I noticed this was up for deletion. I notice DICDEF being cited here. That really doesn't apply, as that means we dont have articles on every word with just a definition. I'm going to go away from my usual tendencies, and say to keep this article. As a side note, it will be extremely (and bitterly) ironic if the WP:NOT arguments work here, but they don't when there's a huge, raving fan base of editors defending the article. i ^said 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, just checking, you're all aware WP:USEFUL is one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, right? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 16:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes. But as it says there, something like WP:USEFUL "should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments" and in my opinion this is a case where its sufficiently WP:USEFUL (and relevant to a computer-medium encyclopedia, where I just had to look up CMIIW via Google a few minutes ago as it was used on another talk page) that it might over-ride the basic bias against using the argument/reason. An encyclopedia lists its own internally-used abbrieviations not because tehy're encyclopedic but because they are necessary, and understanding computer-ese is oftentimes necessary to navigate discussions here. Still, I continue to (weakly) favor deletion for just this reason: Utility is insufficient justification for keeping it. JJL 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep thisis the subject area where WP had the greatest strength from the beginning, and is still the mostreliable source of information. Even as an exception, this page should be kept. DGG (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 1) The part of WP:NOT prohibiting "lists of defintions" is disputed, because there exist dozens of glossaries which are properly encyclopedic. 2) This is not a guide on how words, idioms, etc. should be used, but a document which describes how they are used; this is a difference which distinguishes a violation of WP:NOT from an encylopedic article. 3) The existence of anything similar on Wiktionary should not have any bearing on this article. Just like categories and lists can complement each other, so too can glossaries on Wikipedia and definitions on Wiktionary complement each other. Redundancy is not always bad. 4) "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'." DHowell 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or soft redirect - as previously stated by Burntsauce, the article is useful whether it is here, or at Wiktionary. The article has been transwiki'd already, so a soft redirect could be used to redirect to Wiktionary, preserving the page's history. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. As long as editors continue to use these ridiculous initials in discussions on talk pages, I find the list useful in order to translate various imho, afaik, fwiw, etc. comments. Maybe move it from the main article space to the WP space. — DIEGO ^talk 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The list can already be accessed on Wiktionary. The list is just as helpful there as here, only Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 'Nuff said †Bloodpack† 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. i ^{(soon to be Soleil)} 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki per Pseudo daoist - although the article actually seems to be a mix of computing and network terminology, slang, "leet" and mms speak. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It has already been transwikied. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 14:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as collection of dictionary definitions, and a fairly indiscriminate one at that. Yes, it's useful, but it'll be just as useful with the content moved to Wiktionary. A link to the Wiktionary list should be placed prominently on the Internet slang article, and this page redirected there. I don't think this list is even particularly helpful as a navigation aid between the related articles, since we already have Cat:Internet slang for that purpose. Terraxos 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not indiscriminate at all. Internet slang → List of Internet slang phrases. Most internet slang phrases will not have their own articles, so the list is very helpful. Tim Q. Wells 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete how this managed to make it to a third nomination I will never know. WP:NOT a dictionary, trivia guide, lolcats archive... etc...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge / Transwiki - Currently the section of WP:NOT that would cover this article is under dispute. Also it is not not a fork but a spinoff of the main article. Given the length of the main article and the lack of sources / citations there, I think that merging a trimmed down (and cited) subset from this list may be the best solution, and link or redirect to the wiktionary for the rest. PaleAqua 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a lot of listcruft/dictdefcruft out there, and this article is just the tip of the iceberg. Unless we change the policy, deletion is called for. Jack^(Lumber) 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have the article Internet slang and then a list of internet slang (phrases), so this is not an inappropriate content fork. WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a slang guide, but this list happens to be on slang words and is a more appropriate content-fork than many other lists on Wikipedia. If it does violate WP:NOT then we should keep it per IAR. There are many similar lists that I doubt would be deleted: [6]. This is also an extremely useful list. There are many redirects to it, where if a reader is uncertain of a certain slang phrase, he/she can search for it on Wikipedia and be directed to this list right to the entry of the phrase. See IIRC for example. It would be a great loss to Wikipedia to lose this list. Tim Q. Wells 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont 09:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola V276

Motorola V276 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Prod was deleted without comment by User:Monnitewars, an account that was recently banned for sockpuppetry. Mikeblas 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PRODUCT. STORMTRACKER 94 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Per above, non notable product. And a sidenote, Mikeblas, I am glad somebody is finally tackling these stupid cell-phone articles. - Rjd0060 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and WP:PRODUCT. The article is written like a sales catalogue. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there seems to be plenty of other articles about types of phones. I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but there would probably have been more AFDs like this before if there was a consensus to get rid of them. Perhaps we should try merging them. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There have been plenty of prods an AfDs on phones. You're voting Keep, then, not only because of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but because you're not paying attention? -- Mikeblas 13:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Is the nominator joking? What harm is this article doing? THE KING 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please consider WP:HARMLESS and its relevance to your contribution. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not joking. Product-cruft is a serious threat to Wikipedia's credibility. -- Mikeblas 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing inherently notable about this specific phone. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. Congratulations to Richard Arthur Norton for what, in context, seemed a very humorous comment. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snake Plissken

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

Non notable character, star of only two films. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain how? Per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And per this there are reliable secondary sources. Smashville 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notabilty is inherited from the main article, second the character is very notable. Ridernyc 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Can you give some examples of notability? He was in two films. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Are we going to start deleting notable characters based on how many/few works they were in? Can we delete Atticus Finch, since he only appeared in one book/film? Smashville 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

can you give us a reason why "star of two films" has anything to do with notabilty, if anything the fact that he was in more then one proves he was notable. Ridernyc 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very notable from two very well known films, as well as an upcoming remake of film. It is a well written article and since an upcoming film is in the works as well as the fact that both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. are very well known and Escape from New York is considered to have developed a cult following now, particularly around Snake Plissken. I think notability is established. How is the Rick Deckard notable, when hes been in only ONE film, or Donald Darko from Donnie Darko? Seems notable enough for me. Kevin 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep "Only two films" is not a valid reason to delete. The first one would have been enough, never mind the game, comics, etc. Colonel Warden 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable fictional character. But rename--he doesn't like to be called 'Snake'. JJL 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep Heh, who you kidding? WP:SNOW Artw 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Number of films is a terrible indicator of notability, and this character is generally considered notable as the central character in a well-known film series. --Canley 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, this character has sufficient notability -- I suggest that the reference from the episode of American Dad bears that out. The character is not tied to Kurt Russell but crosses platforms, which makes it memetic. Accounting4Taste 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. For real? This is being nominated? Smashville 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very notable character of two well known films. The number of films that he has starred in is not a good indicator of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• I thought he was dead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of notable characters that appear in only one movie, such as Rhett Butler, Rick Blaine, and Captain Queeg, so saying a character appears in only two movies is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 04:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The movies themselves are quite known, but the basis for my keep is the fact that this character is notable enought to actually have references in other notable media, for example Solid Snake's name. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pretty much per everyone else. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm still trying to figure out what the WP:POINT of this was. RFerreira 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tia Ling

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above, article gives no reasons for notability. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, etc. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 8 movies does not make for an actress (working or otherwise)) in the adult entertainment industry. And is a far cry from being"notable' in that industry.jonathon 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Her IMBD score is in the 300,000s... well above what might be considered a note-worthy actress.TGreenburgPR 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just being yet another porn star is not notable. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Armenian women

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

This article is extremely unencyclopedic, pov and borderline nonsense. Don't think this is a topic that requies an article. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as totally un-encyclopedic. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's OR. -- Mikeblas 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:POV. STORMTRACKER 94 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Normally, I'd cry rescue, but it appears to be too much of a mess to fix. Bearian 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not important at all. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. VartanM 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything said above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No way of salvaging this. --Folantin 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Snowball delete, nothing there from which to base a legitimate article. ◄Zahakiel► 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westside Church

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

The article has no secondary sources to show notability. Alksub 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Borderline WP:SPAM article about a non-notable church. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not www.westsidechurch.com.au. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything significant here. Whists I have no idea what figures for Australian churches are, 300 members is barely above one standard deviations above the norm in the US. No third party sources.jonathon 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a contested PROD. Comments about the PROD notice can be found here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable due to lack of coverage. Sole reference is a directory listing. Nuttah68 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I've spent ages on this to try and make it perfect. I'll add more to it in the future. I've provided a reference even though I don't think an article must have an INTERNET article available on the web for it to be considered notable enough. I've put a lot of work into it and believe I tried to make it as fair and balanced as possible with no promotion or propoganda within it whatsoever. Don't be mean guys, Spillon 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "delete" is quite simple. I don't see any difference between it, and most of the churches I've been in, or read articles about. What is so special about your church that it should have an article in Wikipedia? jonathon 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is nothing sourced to merge. Eluchil404 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Szass Tam

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

Article for a non-notable fictional character which has remained unreferenced for a very long time. Prod removed without comment or discussion. Mikeblas 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not knowledgeable about this game, but I suggest cruft-y information like this is better aggregated into larger articles; this one seems to merit about a sentence as part of a larger piece. Accounting4Taste 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Accounting. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into an appropriate Forgotten Realms-related article. BOZ 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The content available is not worth merging, as it is completely unreferenced. -- Mikeblas 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Might be worth a sentence in an appropriate Forgotten Realms-related article, but might not be. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard staffing

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

Unreferenced article about a drinking game. Possibly WP:MADEUP. Contested prod. Alksub 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. A Google search gives back nothing to speak of. GlassCobra 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My Google search similarly revealed nothing. I agree, WP:MADEUP; Wikipedia is not for stuff your frat made up one slow Saturday night. Accounting4Taste 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds...fun (retarded), interesting (pointless), and totally notable (not). Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely WP:MADEUP — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it sounds like it's WP:MADEUP. No refs found here either. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ananda Tandavam

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

Fails WP:NF, asserts no notability, and has no references. Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NF and WP:N. If the project enters production and notability criteria is met, the article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, can be created again if / when released and attracts reviews granting notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Adam Freeman

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

Non notable shopping channel presenter. The claim that In 1996, 236,000 people voted for him as TV HITS "Face of the Year" is nonsense, considering he was 16 at the time, and didn't appear on TV until he was 21 (this exagerrated claim appears to originate from Freeman himself in his online resume). A lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources confirms the lack of notability, and he fails WP:BIO. Crazysuit 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable minor TV personality. NawlinWiki 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bjewiki 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; No notability. Masaruemoto 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable minor tv face. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srishti Dynasty

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

NN dynasty and the article says about a Brahmin family(priest family) not of a king. I think this can be a hoax. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Unverifiable. Masaruemoto 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Needs sources that can be verified.jonathon 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butte Irish

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

Beyond the fact that this article is poorly written and formatted, it doesn't appear to be notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Moderate Keep Google gives back just under a thousand hits. If it can be properly referenced and formatted, I'd say let's keep it. GlassCobra 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see nothing really notable here. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-professional, second tier, junior hockey team with no references. Eluchil404 03:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seemingly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\^talk 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pistol Packin' Possum

Pistol Packin' Possum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. Article on a film that doesn't exist except as a poster in a film. SeizureDog 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, WP:N, WP:FICT. No notability either within the film or outside it. Otto4711 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Subject is WP:NN, trivial, and fictional. --Evb-wiki 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:FICT, WP:NN Bjewiki 21:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article doesn't even deserve a merge into the roger rabbit article. Tivial. Junk. Cruft. non notable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

*Why does an AFD, with comments spanning its full five-day timespan and unanimous consensus in favor of deletion, need to be relisted? Otto4711 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, the relist comment was initially below several of the delete comments. Otto4711 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN. A1octopus 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RG² 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Rutstein

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

WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:RS. Page reads like an autobiography, or either written by associate, complete with OR analysis and acclaim of the subject. Subject of the article has managed to draw attention to himself and google hits (not that hard when you are a self-described Search engine optimization wizard), but not enough RS to legitimize the article which is also based on the subject's own websites/psuedo-blogs. Page reads like an advertisement, and another way for the subject to draw attention to himself and his business. Subject has not contributed much to main subject except rehash material already widely available elsewhere. Creator of article, seems himself very familiar in SEO and loads the talk page with additional 'discussion' that would obviously not pass on the main page. Shuki 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More: After browsing through several of the links on google, it's unclear who this subject

really is, and if WP is merely being used to create or strengthen one version of this person. --Shuki 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The guy's notable enough, but all the advertising bits need to be trimmed, and it needs some proper sources. GlassCobra 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, then Merge contents to Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. Seems to be nothing more than a violation of WP:COI (the former WP:VANITY) by User Conspiracy Nutjob (talk · contribs). IZAK 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I've improved the article pretty significantly, I think. Any thoughts? GlassCobra 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Better, some WP:BLP violating material was removed along with the COI material and the assertion of notability is clear. Independent sourcing is now a single news source, two articles. Is this a reliable and independent source? I have no clue for this area. GRBerry 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What makes Rutstein a truly notable person? IZAK 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Right now there's a source on Rutstein's slander lawsuit that seems to give him substantial coverage, but right now the evidence that he was famous for other things seems to be rather thin. There are sources on the video, but saying the video made him well-known in Israel is different from saying he was casually mentioned. Because of the slander lawsuit coverage he may well be independently notable, but I find myself wary of overpromotion and looking for a second independent source that gives him substantial coverage. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. Rami R 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The guy is severely interfering in Israel government's plan to whitewash this controversy. If you read his home page you will see some of the details. David may actually pull off the seemingly impossible which is to have the Israeli government tell the truth. Public opinion has changed dramatically here. His 4 hebrew web sites yigalamir.com, shimonperes.net, yitzhakrabin.co.il, yitchakrabin.com are all at the top of google. This discussion and these words are not allowed on the hebrew wiki. Apparently the government has people there in high places. What Rutstein has accomplished and trying to succeed at is almost unbelievable. Conspiracy Nutjob (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • commentAdding WP:BLP1E and WP:V CN, your reason is still OR and speculation. Rutstein has not accomplished the things you claim and you have not provided any sources crediting him with these 'accomplishments'. You also seem to be basing the article on what might happen. --Shuki 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1.Rutstein caused Peres to loose the primary.http://www.shimonperes.net/davidpage/davidpagefiles/David_kneset.htm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3161933,00.html.. A politician tends to lose election when the owner of shimonperes.net gets front page headline by invited shimon peres to sue/arrest after calling shimon a killer in the most graphic manner 2. Rutstein sued Peres for slander yet owns shimonperes.net (number 4 in google for "shimon peres" in hebrew) and is has pictures, cartoons, etc. calling peres a killer. 3. Rutstein's web sites and bringing videos public were the impetus for changing public opinion regarding Rabin murder conspiracy. 4. There is a tremendous feeling among israelis that "the leaders are all corrupt", Rutstein exposing Rabin murder has caused this. I could bring you the poll numbers but I am sure that you know what I talking about. 5. The plan of the Israeli government is to free Yigal Amir within a specific number of years. Rutstein is interfering with their plan. (this point may seem controversial, but I am sure that after analyzing the stuff online you will come to the same conclusion) 6. To create front page headlines in bbc, cnn, etc. is hard .. but Rutstein's actions have gotten us 75% there. Conspiracy Nutjob 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

here is a hebrew language article that mentions his web site.. last week in the haaretz.co.il, the marker and print newspaper(haaretz is the country's 3rd largest news group) http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=911943&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

• commentHere is an article in today's nrg.co.il (israel's second largest news source) with a picture of david on the front page of the site http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/649/928.html ... the article has a picture of david with his phone number there as well.. this guy is not hard to reach..to get this material to the top of the israeli media is not an easy task.

here is the israeli national news writing an article that quotes david exclusively,, and makes links to all his web sites, etc http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123871 Conspiracy Nutjob 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment This is getting hysterical, actually sad. CN, you seem to not even be reading the comments here or care about WP standards either. And now your lies are more exposed. It is a known fact that Barry Chamish broke the story about the inconsistancies of the official version, about 12 years ago. Rutstein appeared out of nowhere only a couple of years ago, as if created for one purpose only see WP:BLP1E. The rest of your claims about Rutstein are fantasy or merely your own speculation about the future. Rutstein is not contributing anything substantial to any 'cause' because his actions are seen as those of a lone whacko frankly doing damage to all sides of the controversy. --Shuki 10:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment There were four books written on the subject. Plus Chamish was giving lectures to small groups for years. He moved out of the country over a year ago. These books and activities did not make such a dent in the israeli governments plans. Rutstein's web site, videos, etc are making the israeli government make mistakes. Check out today's israelinsider.com, http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12273.htm , article on the "new, improved" rabin murder video released by ynetnews.com.. and then you will understand what I am talking about. Conspiracy Nutjob 10:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• • CN, you're still keep reiterating your own feelings and analysis. It's like your using the old 'repeat something many times and people will believe it' technique. You know, that's similar to how SEO operates into improving page links on Google; increase the embedded links, open multiple websites linked to each other. Anyway, the link you posted does not mention Rutstein and your claims that the government is reacting or rather has changed any policy because of Rutstein is ludicrous. You've yet to post anything from ANY source substantiating your personal claims to the importance of Rutstein. Getting mentioned in the media does not mean someone is notable. --Shuki 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment to Shuki, Actually, the repeat something often is the israeli government technique (as if you have not noticed). The article above by IsraelInsider has the link to israelnationalnews.com article of last week that has links to Rutstein's sites and quotes Rutstein. As well, the Israelinsider article has link to kempler video that Rutstein made public and posted everywhere (including Google video, which the article links to). The fraud video by Israeli government and Ynet that israelinsider deciphered was made public because rutstein's web sites are all at the top of google and the general public is is finally being the fraud via the internet... This was Rutstein's goal 2 years ago and it is happening.

As well, the israelinsider mentions the incitement and blaming of Shimon Peres. The author is actually talking about Shimonperes.net which is rutstein's web site. It seems that the israeli government has not gotten wind of this debate on wiki. If they did they would be sending their troops here. Shuki, take it easy, Rutstein is notable and continues affecting the history of the state of Isreal. Thank You.

We are debating this in english, but the real stuff is in hebrew. But the government has loyal agents in place on the hebrew wiki... So the main wiki exposing is happening on english wiki. Conspiracy Nutjob 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• • So now you're saying that you're using the English WP in order to push a WP:POINT? We aren't debating anything other than David Cohen who has been renamed Rutstein, (why?) and whether he has contibuted anything to the advancement of anything besides, alledgedly, republishing one video clip aka, Kempler video. (I wonder how he got it? Perhaps, he's an agent himself?) Until now, you still have not provided anything showing that Cohen/Rutstein is credited with anything. --Shuki 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment' Very cute, "Exposing" can be interpreted as just telling the news and information, which is what wiki is for. It seems that you read all of Rutstein's stuff. The first major interview with rutstein was by ynet http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3089701,00.html

(israel's largest news company) and rutstein gave his name as cohen because rutstein was afraid. Afterwards, the fear factor subsided. Now rutstein claims that there is nothing to be afraid of. Rutstein also made public the miriam oren video http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/114729, sued peres to cause his to loose election... and has used high ranking web sites in google to change public opinion and endanger government plan of lying to public and freeing convicted assassin. Not bad. Conspiracy Nutjob 08:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• • You still have not posted a reference attributing Peres losing the primaries to Rutstein as you claim. You have not posted any reference to back up your claims that Rutstein, who is unknown in Israel, has changed anything. Chamish wrote a book that sold tens of thousands of copies in different languages and was invited to parlour meetings around the country by different sectors of Israeli society. Rutstein posted a video on the internet? I think that many more people have posted many more videos than that on youtube, but it does not warrant a WP article on each one. It seems you are still unclear on the what wikipedia is about. This wiki is not for dissemenating personal news and information. It is a virtual (online) encyclopedia with specific standards of what can be posted, what is relevant, and how to post it. WP does not like when people exploit it to push their opinions and propaganda. I put up a 'welcome' on your talk page several days ago. It would be productive if you would read the guidelines of what WP is about. --Shuki 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • rebuttal to Shuki: Peres was leading by 30 points in the Labor primary. Matan Vilnai, who was polling in 3rd place pulled out and supported Peres. The Ynet (Israel's biggest news group) article hit the news 10 days before the vote in which Rutstein calls Peres a killer, posts bloody pictures of Peres, owns shimonperes.net, etc. and suddenly Peres looses a 30 point lead. Of course the story got picked up throughout the print media and TV. By the way, the story was also printed in the labor party newspaper. here is one of the links to the hebrew articles that rutstein appeared in the labor party. http://www.shimonperes.net/davidpage/davidpagefiles/peres_loses.htm which has the explanation in english. People don't tend to vote for a guy who is being blamed for the murder of a former PM. The guy who was making the most noise, Rutstein, on the subject was all over the place blaming Peres. Imagine, leading a political race by 30 points with 10 days to go, the #3 guy pulls out to support you, and you loose. Pretty hard to do, and that is what happened.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14988 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/10/africa/web.1110mideast.php Regarding posting video on internet, We are talking about the Kempler film and the Miriam Oren eyewitness film, This is not like posting a video of a family picnic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conspiracy Nutjob (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • You still have not posted anything showing that Rutstein has made a dent in anything. The sole facts remain that Rutstein;
      • allegedly, posted two movies on the internet,
      • has some personal websites/blogs,
      • has walked around the streets with a sign promoting his website,
      • and has gotten interviewed in the media a couple of times (so have many others, does not make us all notable enough for WP).

Nothing else, no books, no parlour meeting circuit of Israel or other localities, no op-eds, no joining/leading any 'activist' organization, no purchasing of large newspaper advertisements, etc... You still have not posted any reference to anyone (except yourself) attributting any change in Israeli government policy due to Rutsteins actions. You still have not posted anything attributting Peres' loss to Rutstein except your own analysis or fantasy. The two links you just posted were about the elections, not Rutstein. The many other links you posted were also mostly about events, not Rutstein. --Shuki 11:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Web sites that are at the top of google are the equivalent of book sales. In hebrew language "yigal amir" of rutstein is #1 above wikipedia. "rabin murder/assassination" is right after wikipedia, #3. "shimon peres" is #3-5. "yitzhak rabin" is on first page. Just like wikipedia gets tons of hits anytime "yigal amir" is on the news, I would imagine that yigalamir.com at first place in google gets more hits. The technique of incitement, showing the video and court case online at top google positions has changed public opinion and revealed the fraud.Conspiracy Nutjob 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep' Two of the items listed as external links are actually major news articles, from an intent newspaper with an entry in WP. I don't know how unbiased they may be, but they are acceptable sources for the basics of his career and his views Along with the other items mentioned, I think they are sufficient to satisfy BLP. As for the merits of the matter, that is not the concern of WP.DGG (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, after reading the article and the occasional media references on the website of Arutz Sheva. gidonb 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Gidon B is notorious for editing the various "rabin murder conspiracy" information. for items such as rabin assassination video, gidon b is most of the edits and apparently he tried to delete the entry. For the "barry chamish" entry gidon b originally wrote the wiki article as a "hit job" on mr chamish and his subsequent edits are to make chamish look like an idiot.

Gidon B's 'rabin murder conspiracy" edits are numerous and seem to be intended to make fun of the conspiracy. It has been sugested that gidon b is being paid to make edits by the folks who are trying to keep the "conspiracy" under the carpet. I do know that those "whitewashers" are successful in hebrew wiki on keeping the kempler video off wiki. I knew it was a matter of time till they send there troops to the english wiki. Here are some links to the history and you can see that gidon b is not some "regular volunteer." It has been suggested that he is "stephen plaut" who has an article on wiki blasting the conspiracy. And of course, Mr Plaut has a glowing wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kempler_video&limit=500&action=history

history of kempler video edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&limit=500&action=history

rabin murder conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories&limit=500&action=history Conspiracy Nutjob 13:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very proud of WP:NPOVing the above articles for several years now, even when I was quite alone in trying to uphold their Wikipedia standards. I received lots of praise for my edits. Of course the very small but persistent number of POV pushers in favor and against Amir, Chamish, Rabin, Peres and Plaut were not always happy when I NPOVd content that they had just inserted. So be it. I did write something about this on my user page, but that was also a long time ago.

Lately I have been less engaged in this area as the number of NPOV oriented editors who take interest grew and the amount of problems sharply declined. After all, this is not the only subject area I take interest in. Still, I just caught a sockpuppet of a banned user editing several of the articles, causing distress also in the LGBT, Women, Israel, Nazism, and porn related subject areas.

The above allegations by one and the same person are a barrel of laughs. I see them as an occupational hazzard for all Wikipedians who lonely NPOV contested subject areas. I enjoyed deeply changing far more contested articles and subject areas (e.g. Jerusalem and Israel), while receiving praise from all sides of the political spectrum and would happily remove anti-Rutstein content from his page the minute I spot it, if it will be kept. I see this as a matter of ethics.

In summary, I promise my collegues to continue keeping an eye on these articles, knowing their edit history and the interested parties quite well. gidonb 15:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Gidonb sounds very sincere and good, but I have noticed that that is your technique when caught red handed. In your illustrious career on editing Rabin murder conspiracy. Here are some highlights.

1. trying to delete the rabin murder video .. on the rabin murder video page. 2. trying to delete the initial rabin murder video page. 3. deleting all references to the rabin murder video on related topics. 4. writing the initial hit job on barry chamish wiki entry, linking to a "hit site" that makes chamish to be a nazi sympathiser, and trying to delete the link to chamish' home page. 5. There is much more, but one must go through all the edit wars for the last 2-3 years. 6. making links to stephen plaut's "hit job" article on barry chamish and the conspiracy. 7. I would imagine that your sock puppets wrote the stephen plaut entry, but I really don't have time to go through it. 8. Hilariously, gidonb spends hours per day on wiki for years yet is happily married graduate student with 2 children. 9. the easiest way to confirm that gidonb has an agenda, is to look at the Barry Chamish entry before it was edited by anybody else. You can clearly see a "hit job" that is designed to make Chamish look like a bad person. Conspiracy Nutjob 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• CN, You know, I really want to practice WP:BITE, but your WP:SPA is very suspicious and frankly, detrimental to WP. You still haven't read the wikipedia guidelines. I suppose it's because you really don't have time to go through it. If you had, you'd know that you would also understand WP:AGF. You'd also know that you've misused this page in order to continue to promote your opinions, just like you used the talk page of the article to add in stuff that you didn't put in your original edits. Thanks for asking me to check out the history of the Chamish article. In it I found a great quote "It's fascinating that conspiracy theorists see conspiracies everywhere". You know what, I apologize, I let myself get sucked into your tangents here rather than moving the discussion about you to your talk page. You claim gidonb is a university professor as well as a married grad student and you seem to know what has been going on here for the past two-three years. Just maybe, your CN account is a WP:SOCK of your old 'Kempler video' user (admitted David Rutstein himself)? The similarities are striking. --Shuki 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • • • to Shuki, we know that keeping Rutstein, Chamish, Kempler video, etc is very important to the israel establishment to be be seen as bad or not important. I just am a bit suspiceous of any wiki guy who fights tooth and nail to edit this stuff. Rutstein has made a big difference in the history of israel, there have been sourced materials... and we see his influence. It was amazing that Rutstein. kempler film, etc is banned in hebrew wiki but rutstein's web sites have overcome the media blackout. This is big feat. Shuki, does it bother you that gidonb articles and edits seem to be on a mission to discredit rabin conspiracy? If it does not bother you i would be suspect of you. I have not read your edits .. but i can only imagine what they are. Shuki, enjoy the rest of the day, but there is no use argueing with an employee.Conspiracy Nutjob 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at the article again and there is still only one independent source, on the slander lawsuit, which provides Rutstein significant coverage. The other sources are either non-reliable or (like the coverage of the video) primarily focus on another topic and don't mention Rutstein in a way that suggests he's notable. Given the coverage of the slander lawsuit I would not be surprised if there were other sources out there. Could someone please update the sources if there are? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The suit got coverage in the labor political party newspaper and other hebrew media,TV. Which probably helped peres loose the primary. There was coverage in various hebrew language media places. There are 4 big english language media outlets, Jpost, Ynetnews.com, Israelnationalnews.com, and Haaretz.com. These media outlets all have a specific political and ideological bent. There was a general consensus by all 4 newspapers to ignore the issue. Rutstein obviously has gotten israelnationalnews on his side. While the other news outlets have sparingly reported on Rutstein's activities. The amazing things is that Rutstein seems to have overcome a complete media whitewash to overcome and change public opinion. Obviously, the owner of shimonperes.net which appears at the top of google, calling peres a killer, making videos calling him a killer (http://www.shimonperes.net/davidpage/Davidflashfiles/goodfriends2.htm)the sueing peres for slander for $50,000 should be front page news. Rutstein was on TV a bit and sparing news stories. The media will write one story and stop there. That is what is happening and Rutstein is the impetus. BTW, the recent nrg.co.il /maariv article with rutstein's picture shown.. just described rutstein as the "Rabin assassination Conspirator" cuz , in essence, this uncovering the rabin stuff has been from rutstein's web sites. .....Conspiracy Nutjob 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete poorly sourced OR like this should not be kept. Yahel Guhan 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• CN, listen. IZAK, way back at the top, made a decent suggestion. Move the relevant and documented information to Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. If and when it can be proven (the key word here) that Rutstein has contributed anything substantial to the history of Israel as you claim, then there could be a seperate article that would be accepted by all. I want to avoid discussing the Hebrew WP which is literally controlled by a small core of like-thinking users with naturally prevents NPOV. But the problem is not with them and I don't blame them either. If you wanted to make a change their, all you have to do is convince several people of other opinions to start contributing, building credibility and getting to know the rules of editing over there. WP is not a democracy, but rules are rules, even on this wiki. The beauty about the larger wikis is the vast amount of editors here that naturally form a system of checks and balances from all POV. Why have I been so active on this case? Because it's a subject I know much about and I'm wary about previously unknown people trying to create a character ex nihilo. I do believe that one person can make changes, but on WP, you have to prove it if it ain't widely known. --Shuki 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. The first google result for hit "Alexander Nooredin Latifi" is currently this article. That is bad considering Members of the public are reminded that an indictment contains only charges.[7] When the court case closes, if this topic is still considered worthy it can be taken to Deletion review. John Vandenberg 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Nooredin Latifi

Alexander Nooredin Latifi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Purported biography. Subject's name returns 13 ghits, none of which are independent from the allegations against him. Recommend delete as a non-notable, BLP violation Sethacus 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Axion Corporation. The article should include a bit more about the company, as that's what important, not the person. GlassCobra 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per GlassCobra. We would need an article on the company, not the CEO, as that is what the reference is about. Neil ☎ 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Cummins (filmmaker)

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

A well put together, although lacking in citations, vanity article (imo) about a filmaker, created by User:Poppix who shares the name of Cummins' production company Poppix Production. Conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion but notability is. Mr Cummins has had a varied career in the movie world but I cannot see that he has done anything of significant or important that makes him worthy of an encyclopedic article. I cannot see that he has won any awards for his work, for example, or that he has been the subject of published, third-party sources. I am therefore nominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. He did direct a film about a mutant poodle though. Malcolmxl5 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The guy's notable enough, though the unencyclopedic bits should be trimmed out. Needs some independent sources, too. GlassCobra 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; Unless significant coverage in reliable sources about this person are added to the article. I can't find any. Masaruemoto 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. JoshuaZ 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal

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

Neutrality is in debate. Should redirect to Liberalism. Mac OS X 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Nomination appears to have been withdrawn judging from comments at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• No wonder; the text is from Conservapedia. The article is a POV fork. Delete and redirect to Liberal (disambiguation). --Alksub 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I hunted through the history to see if this replaced a better version. Apparently not. delete and redirect per Alksub. Artw 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears to have been blanked and redirected for now, which seems appropriate, however I htink we should go ahead and delete the history and talk anyhow. Artw 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Liberalism I see no reason for deletion of the history. CO 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, in light of Alksub's discovery, I figured the stolen material should be removed imediately, so I redirected it to "Liberal (disambiguation)" instead of "Liberalism" because I wasn't aware of the former page at the time I suggested redirection. I originally suggested "Liberalism" as per "Conservative" redirecting to "Conservativism," but I think "Liberal (disambiguation)" is better. In fact, I think we can move "Liberal (disambiguation)" to "Liberal," But that's another discussion, sort of. Mac OS X 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep npov is a reason for a rewrite, not cause for deletion or redirection. This is a more in depth article compared to the conceptual article at Liberalism, if you disagree with the sourced claims made feel free to change them, but don't delete a page just because you disagree with its content Conservativechuck 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore some editors should read the notice that they place on a page before blindly redirecting,it clearly states "but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed". Redirecting does both of those —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservativechuck (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • I checked the history, and you're the one who stole the information from Conservapedia in the first place. To keep the article would require fresh new, unstolen and unbiased information. If you think you're capable of anything original and unbiased, feel free to re-create the article so I can put the AfD on top of it again. Otherwise, it's remaining a redirect. Mac OS X 00:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have chosen to take the article to AfD. The notice on top clearly states that the article is not to be blanked or the notice removed until the end of the AfD. You persisting in recreating the redirect violates both of those guidelines. The information is not stolen as rights are retained on the conservapedia project and it is available in the public domain, there is no policy against copying copyright free information, that is what jump started this project in the first place. You have no reason to keep recreating the redirect, so please stop doing so. Conservativechuck 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'd add to that Conservapedia material simply isn' very good. That it has a particular POV is a given, but in addition to that it's overly focused on a specific and somewhat American-centric usage of the term, which - as you can see from the disambig page - has a whole bunch of meaning. I'd argue that the disambig page should replace this page in the "Liberal" namespace, and political liberalism of the kind refered to in the current "Liberal" page should be dealt with under the existing liberalism article. Possibly some of the points from this article should be made there and you might want to have a look at that, but I;m guessing it's a project unlikely tobear much fruit. Artw 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move the Liberal disambiguation page to here given that there are many notable things called Liberal. 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs)
  • I just went ahead and requested just that. Hopefully an admin will get there soon and fix this once and for all. Mac OS X 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David S. Bowen

David S. Bowen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Both the musician and his band Beneath the Shadows fail WP:MUSIC. Alksub 20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Article offers no reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instan-t

Instan-t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No external sources to establish notability. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Alksub 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't really find any information on it, outside of company's website. Bjewiki 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruggacrick

Completely unreferenced. Google find nothing to support the existence of this game. Completely non-notable, possible hoax. IrishGuy ^talk 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MADEUP. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Storm Testament

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

I've tried to cut this down a bit, as it might be notable. It's been speedied twice under non-notability and no context. If deleted, it needs to be salted! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability and little context. Why on earth did speedy get declined twice? --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment It didn't get speedied twice! It got re-created twice, but I can't DB-repost without an AfD behind me :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and would have also thought speediable as A1 and A7: not even enough context to know whether it's a character who doesn't assert notability relative to a book or movie or whatever (that also isn't obviously notable). DMacks 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A1 and A7. GlassCobra 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for both failing to assert notability and present any context Bfigura ^(talk) 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Why on earth was this non-article created?jonathon 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as having no context. Be sure to catch The storm testament as well Nuttah68 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to School District 70 Alberni. --Tikiwont 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A W Neill Middle School

A W Neill Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

School with no claim to notability other who it's named after. Ridernyc 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete middle schools are not notable at all and generaly not advised to be in wikipedia ForeverDEAD 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  Says who, exactly? We've been merging these ever since I've been here. Merge and redirect to School District 70 Alberni per WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• What is the HURRY?This article is just a stub - started four days ago. This article needs to be developed in a collaborative method. It relates to its namesake A W Neill - former Indian agents and politician - by todays standards some may consider be a racist. A W Neill Middle School's now teaches the aboriginal population that formerly went to Alberni Indian Residential School (part of major lawsuits) - with all this background A W Neill is a model of racial harmony with major emphasis of teaching Aboriginal History and Culture which Alberni Indian Residential School tried to stamp out. By Wikipedia standard all this has to be presented in a neutral point of view. So let it grow. Bobanni 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to School District 70 Alberni per established precedent. TerriersFan 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: With School District 70 Alberni and delete the page. - Rjd0060 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge but keep as a search term. - Peregrine Fisher 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per discussion below. I've created a redirect as indicated below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Korda

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

Ken Korda is a fictional character on The Adam and Joe Show. However, this page makes it appear is if Ken is a real person. Even if it were edited (and it would be a massive edit given that all of the text presupposes that Ken exists) the fact remains that such a character is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Tompagenet 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)This AFD was listed improperly. It is listed properly now. GlassCobra 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In the current revision, I don't see any sources that establish notability. When I googled, I didn't find any either. Unless such sources are found, I don't think Ken Korda deserves his own article. — Ksero 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to The Adam and Joe Show#Ken Korda. Notable character, but not enough for an entire article, and entirely in universe, so nothing worth merging. Masaruemoto 03:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The small listing on The Adam and Joe Show page, and perhaps another added to Adam Buxton's page since the character has appeared a few times beyond The Adam and Joe Show is perfectly sufficient.Alberon 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Tikiwont 10:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Pacific International School

American Pacific International School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

School with no claims to notability. Ridernyc 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Autobiographical article that fails NPOV. No sources to speak of. GlassCobra 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Keep Wow, looks a lot better! Very impressive revisions. GlassCobra 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In the current revision, I don't see any sources that establish notability. When I googled, I only found [8], which really only mentions the article's subject in passing. Unless sufficient sources are found, I advocate deletion. — Ksero 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ksero. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) See below.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Article clearly needs a complete re-write, but alone the uniqueness of the school, being an American boarding school in Asia, and its coverage - doing pre-school, primary, secondary, and higher education suggests notability. Several sites I found have dedicated sections for the school which provide information which could be put into a encyclopedic article: [9], [10], [11], [12], as well as the schools own website: [13]. I also found a podcast interview [14]. Camaron1 | Chris 15:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - 48 hours (time this AFD should have left) is not long enough to completely re-write a article, and I am generally against tight time limits for article improvements. It should be looked at what the article will be in the long-run, not just what it is this moment. At the end of the day - if the article is deleted, it will just be re-created with concerns addressed in the long-run; the article is tagged and assessed for easy improvement, so I honestly do not see the point of deleting potentially good articles. I will bring it up at WikiProject Schools to try and get it some attention. Camaron1 | Chris 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article doesn't have to be fixed in the sense of becoming a decent article, just fixed by showing notability -- which it doesn't at the moment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have removed copyvio and reduced the article to stub, which is a start. Now the article simply needs to be expanded and references added for notability, which is the next stage. Camaron1 | Chris 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have expanded the article and added references, it has been established there is plenty of internet coverage of the school and plenty that can be added, the problem there are limits to what information I can find in English and online; I am continuing to look for awards and alumni, as I doubt there would not be any for a school of that type/size. Camaron1 | Chris 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I still don't think the notability threshold has been met, but I'll strike my delete vote and instead council patience while you or someone else fixes up the article. If no one does fix it up I'll go back to my delete vote. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: No assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Quite apart from the general question, there seems to be enough indication of notability for this one, even in the stubbified article. Funny--last week almost everyone commenting on high schools thought they were notable as a matter of course--this week obviously not--I know consensus can change but i didnt realise it changed as fast as that--or is this an indication of an unstable system, making decisions by the chance of who happens to show up each time. The citizen jury system, carried to its absurdity by letting people select what juries they're going to be on. DGG (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - major, notable school now fully sourced. TerriersFan 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • finding it mentioned on sites that do nothing but list 100's if not 1000's of schools is far from notable. Ridernyc 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for further improving it, the article is now fully referenced with multiple sources used, and even if it wasn't I would have still said to keep it per WP:POTENTIAL - which this article clearly has. Camaron1 | Chris 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The school is notable for being an all-through boarding school taking children as young as six, and is also one of a few schools in Thailand offering an American curriculum. Thanks to the work of TerriersFan the article is now well referenced. There is clearly scope for further expansion. Dahliarose 11:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This well-sourced article demonstrates notability. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Thurston

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

Contested prod restored, article does not appear to me to assert sufficient notability per WP:BIO. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Tamarind is nationally respected lithograph producer, artist has several legitimate outlets. Profwallace 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article on DWI advocate, UNM verifiable as is Tamarind Lithopgraphy Firefoxx1 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that both Profwallace and Firefoxx1 have no other edits or contributions outside of this AfD discussion. Accounting4Taste 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:RS.--Sethacus 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In the current revision, I don't see any sources that establish notability. Unless such sources are found, I advocate deletion. — Ksero 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in this article asserts notability and everything I found on Google was his artwork for sale on eBay; this article may be a form of spam meant to add verisimilitude to an eBay narrative. (I'm curious about how one can be head of "paint production" for a clothing manufacturer, but not that curious.) He also doesn't meet WP:BAND, BTW. Accounting4Taste 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Freshacconci | Talk 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Artist search at Tamarind produced nothing. Modernist 12:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri Collegiate Mathematics Competition

Missouri Collegiate Mathematics Competition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While the Mathematical Association of America is notable, its regional chapters are not; cf. WP:ORG. Nor are events organized by the local sections - it seems that each sections holds a similar event. No independent sources have been given, the article cites only the organization's web pages. Also, via Google, I found only coverage by the sponsoring university and participants. A merger to the main organization's article does not seem appropriate per this discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not seeing any third-party sources listed, much less an explanation of notability. --Gwern (contribs) 17:40 15 October 2007 (GMT)
• Keep. Thirty-three colleges for an event like this is substantial. The MAA is the predominant organization for this kind of activity. Perhaps Wikipedia would be somehow overwhelmed if we keep future articles such as this. But that's hard to imagine. Additionally, Wikipedia is far overwhelmed by articles on other kinds of activities. Note I am not making a "other crap exists" argument. Rather I am making a "many other articles of a similar ilk has been deemed keep-able so maybe there is some kind of prejudice here against this type of acitivity" argument. As the creator of the article commented on the talk page:

As far as notability goes, just have a look at the articles on college football games on Wikipedia like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Coal_Bowl and you'll see that this collegiate competition, although not physical and not for-profit, should still be allowed an article. Synesthetic 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Horoball 04:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comparing this mathematics competition with football matches does not lead very far, I think. Rather, the criterion in WP:N (both for football and mathematics) is: Has the subject been covered in independent sources? That would include the mainstream press, for example, but would exclude publications by the MAA and participating universities. I'm not aware of such independent coverage however. --B. Wolterding 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The arguments above are in fact 'other crap exists' arguments. What we need are multiple independent reliable sources for this. There seem to be none.Obina 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I tried to look for sources, and I did find [15]. It's a good source, but it's only one source. If another reliable source is found, I think the article's subject is notable. — Ksero 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's an independent source. It's a student newspaper at the University of Missouri (one of the participants). --B. Wolterding 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Mathematical Association of America. As to the football analogy of the author, that seems to be a tu quoque. Whether that bowl game is notable or not, this article doesn't seem to be. JFlav 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warhawk ranking and awards system

Warhawk ranking and awards system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Aagin, prod removed four days in. Pagrashtak 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reliable sources that establish notability. I intended to say that this should be merged into the Warhawk article, but I think everything that deserved to be moved into Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) is already there. — Ksero 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Its all game guide material and cruft. Delete it fast. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as borderline game-guide material and (WP:NOT) and for placing undue weight on a minor aspect of the game. All that needs to be said can be summed up in prose within a couple of sentences.Someone another 07:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it needs to be removed. If this was going to be added in, it could be incorporated in the main add. businessman332211 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DO not delete! Wikipedia is not a football guide either, but the article should explain that different scores ie touchdown, fieldgoal, get different points. That would hardly constitute a " how to guide" on football. How is it that it constitutes the same here?. If this is going to be deleted so does info on basketball scores, baseball rules sections etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.9.161 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puget Park

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

A small neighborhood park hardly seems to be notable. Goochelaar 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable local park. No sources. We should also give the same treatment to Puget Gardens Park so I have added a WP:PROD tag to that.Obina 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I also live in Tacoma and I've always wondered why this is an article. I do, however, think we need a Tacoma Metro Parks page. --Liface 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article doesn't say why it is significant. Mill Ends Park and Green Lake (Seattle) at least say why they are significant.jonathon 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Parcell

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

Does not appear notable to me. AFD instead of A7 speedy in case I'm missing something here. TexasAndroid 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete No assertion that he's anything different than any other railway managing director.--Sethacus 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't appear to be anything notable here. Bjewiki 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fail WP:N and WP:BIO. Toot-toot. --Sc straker 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does one sentence constitute an article?? TGreenburgPR 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strange article - does not appear to be what it purports to be.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Law Review (2nd nomination)

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

This was nom'ed yesterday, but I speedy closed it because the IP who added it to the log did not provide a response to a note on their talkpage asking for a reason for deletion. They have provided a reason now, so, the following nom is a direct quote from User:217.43.201.174 on my talkpage.

It doesn't cite its sources, there is no evidence to indicate that the Lord Chief Justice is its patron, there are no citations, until recently the organisation's web-site said it was "shut down due to unpaid IT and development fees," and it's quite clear from the edit history that there's been an edit war in recent weeks between one of its operators and its detractors (read: "we hope all has been worked out"). Also, it hasn't issued in over a year. I personally ordered a subscription in May 2005 and I have received no journals since. It is essentially non-existent. Its inclusion in Wikipedia is therefore misleading and the article should be scrapped on the grounds of bias and/or notability.

After reading the nom, I say delete it clearly doesn't exist and does not have any sources to back up its assertion of notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Surprisingly to me, after searching, it seems this does not exist and/or there are no sources. Nothing to redirect to. Obina 20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided and prepared to be convinced. There are sources that appear to show that the journal exists (or intended to), such as [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Apart from the first one, Brunel University, none of these are particularly in depth and even the first is a press release. However, it does appear a number of respected institutions and their staff are putting their names to this. What is policy on journals and notability? Nuttah68 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd say that it goes under the general notability guidelines at WP:N - in this case, it may barely pass (the last one mentions it a couple of times), but multiple sources are generally preferred to prove notability, of which there does not seem to be many - most mentions of the journal are referencing its moot court competition, not the journal itself. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the one basic rule for a journal is that it must at least actually exist and have an ISSN. It is has been planned far enough to meet WP:CRYSTAL, that would probably do as well. But something must be published or planned to be published. I simply can not find it in any library catalog or OCLC. I can find "City of London law review : journal of the Mansfield Law Club, City of London Polytechnic. 1974-1984" but that is clearly a different publication. I'd be glad to say keep if someone can show real existence. Nor has anything been heard of Andrew de Beaulac, the ed. in chief, since the 2005 press release. No reason not to write a new article if anyone ever finds out n some reliable place what happened to it. Personally, I tend to think the eminent legal sponsors got hoodwinked by some plausible students. DGG (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur with the above. Some serious claims are being made here, for example, that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is its patron. This would seem to grant the alleged journal some credibility. If they can't be backed up, the article should go. Also, one would think that if the journal had any active staff (particularly those named in the article) they would have chimed in on this by now, especially given the fairly recent edit war which took place about a month back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casmat42 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lala (website)

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

Non-notable website, no independent sources, no claims of notability Corvus cornix 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article cites [22], which I find a reliable source, as well as [23], which I don't want to pay to check out. Even if the Enquirer story doesn't establish notability, I found [24] and [25] after googling. — Ksero 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by Ksero. -- Whpq 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment has this site caused major legal issues, like Napster.com? If not, what makes this website notable? What distinguishes this from an advertisement or a "search wikipedia for websites on where to get music"-article? Mindraker 10:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply - The site has the potential to induce copyright violations (and I suspect many users of the site are doing exactly that). In any case, they meet notability through coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes both have articles specifically about the company. -- Whpq 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Unfortunately, the "potential" argument doesn't work, due to WP:CRYSTAL (it "might" happen in the future...) If it -is- notable due to past or current media coverage, then you need to cite these sources. My vote: Weak keep, improve by citing sources in the media Mindraker 12:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Keep, I cited some of the sources that Ksero had found. Mindraker 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Littlemoss High School

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

Non-notable school. PKT 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn - see below. TerriersFan 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this school. TJ Spyke 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Droylsden per WP:OUTCOMES. There seems to be at least one notable alumnus who has attended, if this can possibly be expanded with better reliable sources I could be persuaded to keep. Burntsauce 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (change of !vote) in light of recent changes made to the article. Burntsauce 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep General consensus on notability per WP:OUTCOMES for such schools, along with the inclusion of a notable alumnus, with reliable source provided. Article would benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn 05:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Upgrading vote based on the expansion and additional sources added to the article. The usual kudos to TerriersFan for making the effort to improve articles when most people just stand by and do absolutely nothing. Alansohn 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES with improvements, but no real opposition to a suitable merge and redirect either. RFerreira 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I normally support articles about high schools but there is very little to salvage in this one. I support the merge-and-redirect idea. PKT 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Keep Very good work by TerriersFan has made this an article well worth keeping. I would withdraw the nomination if I knew how to do it! PKT 01:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete or alternatively merge non-notable and non-salvageable article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Consensus has shown that high schools are notable as indicated by WP:OUTCOMES and the nom has given no reason why this one should be singled out for deletion. --Oakshade 00:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - another high school with plenty of sources available to make expansion easy which I have started to do. This is a controversial, newsworthy school with the required multiple sources to meet WP:N. It also has had an unusually full parliamentary mention. TerriersFan 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems to meet the guidlines of other school articles on notability Arthurrh 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: This one isn't being "singled out for deletion". There are several schools nominated AfD or PROD every day, as they should be. This is a non-notable school, regardless of what prior statistics say. CCC you know! - Rjd0060 04:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• High schools are not being deleted per Consensus, regardless if users try to prod or AfD them every day (which, they are not by the way). There is no indication that WP:CCC is occurring. Do you have a specific reason why you think this particular high school is non-notable? Don't like the sources? Have you noticed even the nominator changed their mind to keep due to the article improvements? --Oakshade 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Almost all high school articles are now being kept--the exceptions are almost exclusively copyright violations or one-sentence articles giving inadequate information even about existence or location. Articles on junior high schools and elementary schools are indeed being merged or deleted frequently. that does seem to be the present consensus.Maybe now we can concentrate on improving these articles instead of trying to remove them. Perhaps a few may have no elements of notability even if ta thorough search were to be made, but it isnt worth the work to argue them and delete them. I changed my mind on this--I usedto be mroe restrictive, but the arguments to make the necessary distinctions were not productive when so many of the schools did turn out to be notable. Just as this one didDGG (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Well done. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A high school article which is well referenced and establishes notability through alumni and awards . I do not see how deletion is needed. Camaron1 | Chris 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• KeepSchool is notable. Article has references. LordHarris 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for merging. Merge/redirect is clearly preferred, but which/where to be worked out by editors in the usual venue, as no consensus is apparent here. GRBerry 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Dixon (fictional character)

Ben Dixon (fictional character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is about a minor(?) Robotech character, and is written in an in-universe manner. Withdraw nomination per Quasirandom's suggestion. Clarityfiend 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, unless there is no viable merge target (which given the, uh, complicated nature of all things Robotech/Macross, is entirely possible), in which case redirect. --Gwern (contribs) 22:44 22 October 2007 (GMT)

I see what you mean about no viable merge target: there's a category for characters, rather than a list of characters article, and most of the character articles are very brief. Someone with time and energy could fruitfully merge most (if not all) of them and create a viable subpage to Robotech, but until then ... oy. —Quasirandom 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we do subpages these days; they seem to be deprecated. The usual thing seems to be a "List of...". --Gwern (contribs) 01:03 23 October 2007 (GMT)

Exactly. Unless the character has notablity outside the work of fiction, which as far as I can tell, none of these do. —Quasirandom 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What I would like to see is, rather than delete this single character of all the ones in the category, that they all be tagged as merge into List of Robotech characters and the relevant WikiProject notified. If nothing is done in, say, a couple months, then conclude the articles aren't important enough to bother with and then mass AfD the whole lot of them. —Quasirandom 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should probably make this an explicit rather than implicit request: is the nominator willing to withdraw the AfD to allow this proposal to happen? I'm willing to tag-n-notify, but not if this article is going to be deleted anyway. —Quasirandom 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Tag away. Clarityfiend 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged everything in the category for merging and notified the project. Let's see if someone cares enough to save them. If that doesn't work, I'd support a mass deletion of all but Macross operators, which actually aserts out-of-universe notability (though without citations yet). Until then, keep. —Quasirandom 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mandyam Tamil

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

A hoax article. Google search on Mandyam Tamil yields only results related to this Wikipedia article and other mirror sites. ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is pretty specialized, and I have different results in my search patterns. Has anyone tried to contact anyone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian languages? Yngvarr 11:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

* Delete No sources. Unverifiable content. jonathon 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep Article needs a rewrite with sources listed below.jonathon 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this is not a hoax. The Enthnologue report for the Tamil language lists "Mandyam Brahmin" as a dialect. This website indicates the existence of both a Mandyam people and language. The well-sourced (featured) articles on the Tamil language and Tamil people both mention the dialect as well. Absolutely not a WP:HOAX, highly unlikely the conent is unverifiable. shoeofdeath 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reasons as ShoeOfDeath. mike40033 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tamil-Kannada languages. Natalie 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada-Tamil

Kannada-Tamil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete hoax article, there is no slang or dialect of Kannada called as Kannada-Tamil. Kannada-Tamil on Google search gives zero results on anything related to a slang. ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a hoax since it is found in the following references on this page. Wiki Raja 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the reference provided for Sankethi or Kannada-Tamil, since it is against the sentence which talks of Sankethi? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Expert Needed The Ehtnologue report for the Tamil language that Shoeofdeath cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandyam Tamil specifically uses the phrase "Tamil-Kannada" as part of the language family for Tamil. Doing a little clicking through, this page shows "Tamil Kannada" as the primary branch (containing 28 of 34) of Southern Dravidian languages. Prior to September 11, 2007, Tamil-Kannada was a stub essentially identical to this one. At that point, it was turned into a redirect to Sankethi language. Someone with some actual expertise needs to sort this out. It seems highly unlikely that the appropriate content for Kannada-Tamil and Tamil-Kannada is different, so one of them is wrong, but I have no clue which. This needs a linguist to sort out. GRBerry 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The more complete Tamil-Kannada languages article also exists. I'm no expert on this but from what I can see it appears that Sankethi is a dialect within the Tamil-Kannada subgroup. Based on this I would say that both Kannada-Tamil and Tamil-Kannada should be redirected to Tamil-Kannada languages, for now at least. Agreement with GRBerry above that someone with some better knowledge of the area and/or access to the references listed on this page should verify if this is correct. shoeofdeath 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've went ahead and redirected Tamil-Kannada already. shoeofdeath 23:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• So, to clarify, my opinion is that this article should redirect to Tamil-Kannada languages. shoeofdeath 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per shoeofdeath. Bearian 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've looked at the sources referenced on both pages (same authors) and found that there is no difference between Kannada-Tamil and Tamil-Kannada (the latter term being used more often). The sentence about this being "also known as Shanketi" appears to be an error. This really just needs to be redirected (I think this is pretty uncontroversial, this AfD can probably be closed now). shoeofdeath 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense and attack page. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kacper waclawski

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

Some sort of dictionary definition, no context. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, it's an attack page. Corvus cornix 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. It's also complete nonsense.--Sethacus 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moot after the redirect. GRBerry 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iggy Vs. the Volcano/A Dip in the Pole

Iggy Vs. the Volcano/A Dip in the Pole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a trivial episode that fails WP:EPISODE's criteria to build a good episode, and it shows no way to improve. By failing that, it fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, as it has no sources to assert and establish notability. It also fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being mostly comprised of plot. TTN 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete—no assertion of notability, no real-world context. Pagrashtak 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why not fix it? Is everyone so lazy that they can't work to improve something? Or how about this: I don't know the difference between in and out of universe perspectives; someone tell me what the differences is, and I'll do my best to arrange the wording so it follows that guideline. Someone please, please, pleeeease give it a try!!! Wilhelmina Will 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page Pagrashtak 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Iggy Arbuckle. No indication that the specific episode is notable. A couple of sentences per episode in the show's article should suffice. Otto4711 19:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  Well... Okay. I'll see what I can do about that. But if TTN tries to stop even that from happening, well, only I know exactly what will happen (peels her glove off and admires her long, razor-sharp nails). Wilhelmina Will 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Not-notable and not likely ever to be. --Jack Merridew 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No! Don't permanently kill my child articles! Let us compromise on this: I'll redirect both of them to the main page, and cut off the links; the way TTN had it. Then you all leave this whole project alone! I'll keep a copy of the articles on my computer, so if there's ever a wikia created in honour of the show, I can post them there. Please don't kill them so they can't be revived! (Cries uncontrollably and runs off.) Wilhelmina Will 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as not passing WP:N. The Wikibooks link is dead. Bearian 12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mango Nightmare

Nonnotable cocktail, no references, WP:NOT a recipe book. Had been prodded but that was contested. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sigh. Non notable drink. Can we speedy this as if it were a rock group that makes no claim to notablity and contains whiskey?Obina 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a drink that doesn't assert (or have, according to google) notability. Too bad we don't have a WikiBooze to transwiki this to. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) See below Bfigura ^(talk) 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks: Bartending. (Didn't know that was there until now) --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was a Snowball Keep--JForget 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treasure Island Scout Reservation

Treasure Island Scout Reservation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are little independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The wording here gives this the the appearance of a reaction to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camp_Minsi. I need to look at the article in depth, as this is one of the few I could see meeting notability. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Treasure Island is the birthplace of the Order of the Arrow, and is the oldest (or possibly second-oldest) continuously operated Scout reservation in the United States. There are citable sources on it, and I can find more if necessary. Coemgenus 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is one of the most notable scouting camps in America. Admittedly, it does need to be expanded a bit and at least mention that the OA was founded there, as is mentioned in other articles, there is no reason to delete this on grounds of notability. Here are some sources found on Google. This appears to be one of a series of bad-faith nominations in reaction to the Camp Minsi deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable as the OA was founded here. This is clearly a bad faith nomination, violating WP:POINT, in reaction to the Camp Minsi deletion, along with a series of other articles this user has nominated. TonyBallioni 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep + close Bad faith nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a great article, yet, but it is notable. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per "Treasure Island is the oldest continually operated Boy Scout Camp in the country and has had continuous Scouting since 1913." and per others' notes about it. That's a notable camp (maybe even the only one) for a very notable organization. DMacks 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep this is the most notable BSA camp of all. Rlevse 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable scout camp. It needs more references, though. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep-of all the ones nominated, this is the only notable one, perhaps one of half a dozen in the United States worth its own article on historical merit and value. Chris 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. --evrik ^(talk) 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Outside of Philmont, this is easily the most notable camp in the US. Smashville 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Extremely notable scout camp, AfD was put up in bad faith. Mike6271 22:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am deeply troubled by many of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate abused their discretion. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep obviously "the oldest continually operated Boy Scout Camp in the country" is notable. Another nonsensical AfD. Dhaluza 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/No consensus to delete Merge proposals can be talked to talk page of article as no consensus is there for deletion--JForget 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Pioneer

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

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While many of the references provided do appear to be trivial (unfortunately, it's hard to check as there are no links), at least two (the last two, specifically) of them do appear to mention the camp in some detail, which barely meets WP:N. However, I don't see that there has been much effort into improving the article, and noting that nominator's contributions of late, I would oppose deletion for now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep None of the sources alone would establish notability (most are beyond trivial, but not substantial), but in the aggregate there is enough coverage to establish the notability of the camp. Aboutmovies 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak Keep: I googled to find some notability, but didn't find anything in the "earthshaking" category. However, there are hundreds of references to people who have attended or worked at the camp, all without incident. I have a feeling it's suffering from little documentation rather than lack of inherent notability. —EncMstr 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. General AfD trend is that camps are generally not notable unless there is something specifically notable about this specific one. Lots of cited details about it don't attest to notability about it. Various camp lore, activities, etc don't make it notable. "Some relative of Washington slept here" notability doesn't cut it for me. Add a few details about the site to whatever Council runs it and redirect to that page. DMacks 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Scouting in Oregon#Cascade_Pacific_Council and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• MergeRlevse 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Oregon#Cascade Pacific Council as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Oregon article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. --evrik ^(talk) 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Article was a bad faith nomination. Mike6271 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most of these camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. Vegaswikian 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Notability seems to be a matter of opinion. What is notable to one may not be notable to another. This article is well researched, written and referenced. Dincher 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment. Others (including myself) have asserted that this article is not worthy—not just slapping on a "delete per nom", but specific concerns to support deletion—so even if the ball got rolling in the wrong way, it's now rolling and there are others who could just as well have pushed it. DMacks 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "...so even if the ball got rolling in the wrong way, it's now rolling and there are others who could just as well have pushed it." This isn't Bush v. Gore, and we don't have to accept decisions made in bad faith. Camp Minsi was an article about a camp in Pennsylvania. The nominator listed seven camps for deletion, six from PA. The nominator was a frequent contributor to the Camp Minsi article. Seems like a prima facie case of not "Acting in Good Faith." We don't have to accept that. --evrik ^(talk) 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, I could just as well ignore the nom we have, and might well have nom'ed it myself. Let's discuss the merits of the article in its own right. If it can stand on its own merits, it doesn't matter how or who got us to this AfD discussion. If it isn't notable, then it is suitable for deletion regardless of who (or why) someone got off his duff to do the nom, and eventually someone might wake up and speak up and say "this looks deletable, let's discuss it". DMacks 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but you wouldn't have nominated it, would you? It shouldn't be here in the first place. Discussion: It is notable on its own, and has had an impact on the lives of many people. It fits in with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and it passes the google test. --evrik ^(talk) 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • If I'd known about it, quite possibly actually. Lots of google hits can support the details but still have it be an article about something not worthy for its own article. According to the primary guideline for notability: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". and However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. Much of the information is not encyclopediac (even though it might be supported by reliable sources). Splitting a long article into parts is only recommended if there's lots of worthy content to add for those parts. DMacks 18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
          • You didn't know about it, and can't accurately say what you would have done if you'd come across it. Do you think about deleting all short articles?. It is notable (here is a relaiabe souce), passes the google test and would not be here if not for a bad faith action by another editor. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (deindent) That source is reliable, but it only supports that this place exists and where it is—doesn't seem more than "merely trivial coverage" primary non-notability item. DMacks 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It passes the google test for notbaility, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidleines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that per one merge proponents comments, the arguement to "incubate" is not a relevant option based on what merges are for. Merges are for: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded." So please vote to delete or keep if that is why you want it merged, otherwise this is simply a stub needing expansion, and we don't delete stubs for being stubs. Aboutmovies 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/No consensus to delete however possible merging can be discussed at the talk page of the article as no consensus for deletion is obvious.--JForget 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Tuckahoe

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

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I have been to this camp, and there really isn't anything that defines it from other camps, and the article does not appear to establish notability. However, the nominator's recent contributions indicate that this may be an attempt to make a WP:POINT based on the recent Camp Minsi deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect. One of several camps owned by one of many scout Councils, with no specific notability, so at best a sentence mentioning it in that council's page. AfD trend is that camps generally are not notable, and there's not even a claim that this one is. Regarding Precious Roy, one could WP:AGF here and see "one was deleted, others look like that deleted one, let's talk about them too." AfD usually gets more attention than PROD in my experience. DMacks 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania and let it incubate. Rlevse 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Pennsylvania article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) --evrik ^(talk) 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Another bad faith nomination by MinsiPatches. Mike6271 22:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most summer camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, They are for notable articles that need more material. Vegaswikian 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 thud default keep. First the nominator is accused of sockpuppetry and second there is no consensus for deletion. Merge possibilities can be discussed in the talk page of the article.--JForget 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goose Pond Scout Reservation

Goose Pond Scout Reservation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete camp is clearly not notable, even though it is in a series on nominations that smell of WP:POINT in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi TonyBallioni 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as with others in this AfD series, and a Demerit to nom for failure to bundle them. DMacks 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirectpe DMacks.Rlevse 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Pennsylvania article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most summer camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into the council article. Vegaswikian 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Could you please define the statement, "nothing asserts notability?" You seem to use it a lot. --evrik ^(talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm known for a generous feeling on things like this, but i myself really do not see just what does assert or indicate any particular notability. DGG (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion - default keep. The nominator is suspected of sockpuppetry (see:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MinsiPatches for single-purpose accounts. Since deletion is not preferred any options for merging can be mentionned at the article's page, but it is a default keep for now.--JForget 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trexler Scout Reservation

Trexler Scout Reservation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Minsi Trails Council and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850. DMacks 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850. Rlevse 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Oregon article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Was put up for AfD in bad faith. Mike6271 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most of these camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. When these AfDs are finished, someone needs to address the template that is the likely cause for the creation of these nn articles.Vegaswikian 19:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the encyclopedic content and develop if there is ever anything more to say. Personally, I class these with junior high school articles--some few , probably very few, will be notable, but there can be no general assumption as a class that all of them will be. The material presented here is just the routine details of a scout camp--analogous to the curriculum of a junior high school; they are all slightly different and are named a little differently, but almost none of it is in the least significant. If the WP project really thinks this sort of article appropriate for an encyclopedia, they've got to make a case to the rest of us. Maybe there is a good opportunity for a Scouting Wikia. DGG (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion thus default keep. It's obvious that deletion is not recommended by the discussion, so if necessary please discuss any possible merging in the talk page. See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MinsiPatches as the nominator is accused of sockpuppetry.--JForget 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resica Falls Scout Reservation

Resica Falls Scout Reservation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith - there is nothing wrong with AFD nominating unencyclopaedic articles. This was discussed on the admin board, and consensus was it was fine. Neil ☎ 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Camp Minsi was an article about a camp in Pennsylvania. The nominator listed seven camps for deletion, six from PA. The nominator was a frequent contributor to the Camp Minsi article. Seems like a prima facie case of not "Acting in Good Faith." As for, "there is nothing wrong with AFD nominating unencyclopaedic articles," could you please give us the Wikipedia policy that documents this? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, WP:AFD? Don't try to Wikilwayer, especially if you really suck at it. Neil ☎ 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania Cradle of Liberty Council and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850. DMacks 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850.Rlevse 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Cradle of Liberty Council, although I doubt it will ever be notable for an article of its own. Neil ☎ 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but you never know. If someone is looking for it, the redirect will kick them to the right place. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment As an example of how little people are really thinking about what they are writing, if (God forbid) this article was to be merged, it should go into Cradle of Liberty Council. --evrik ^(talk) 04:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on that point; I did not examine deeply enough to realize it belonged in the council article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article was featured as a DYK. This was a bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Pennsylvania article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument. Neil ☎ 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument. Neil ☎ 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination, do not AfD articles just because you are upset. Mike6271 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  If there is a valid reason to discuss at AFD, which from the above arguments there ovviously is, accusations of "bad faith" is, in itself, equally bad faith. Give a reason to keep the article rather than mudslinging, this isn't a valid argument. Neil ☎ 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CommentScouting in Pennsylvania is a separate issue. Indeed, I had a look at it during the Minsi AfD and was going to propose that it is time for it to split into council articles, but that must be done carefully. I really wish we could have a good article on each camp, but it just is not happening. Most of the articles in question here have existed for for at least a year and still have not shown notability. The Scouting guidelines (old and proposed) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS#Non-national articles is derived from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. Each article must show notability on its own—if it hasn't happened after a year, then it is not likely to ever happen. WikiProject Scouting is not a walled garden and must operate within the broader Wikipedia guidelines. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Notabiltiy is subjective. Theres is also no policy that says how long a stub may exist before it has to expand. I say this subject is notable. Again, it was worthy of a DYK mention. --evrik ^(talk) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most of these camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. When these AfDs are finished, someone needs to address the template that is the likely cause for the creation of these nn articles.Vegaswikian 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no consensus for deletion. Merge options can be discussed in the talk page. --JForget 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Ockanickon

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

A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. It is just a scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is apparently such a thing as a notable scout camp, but this is just... a scout camp. And is not notable MinsiPatches 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn camp. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close Appears to be a bad faith nomination. Shortly after the AfD for Camp Minsi was closed and the article deleted (diff), MinsiPatches (who had argued strongly in favor of keeping the article) started placing prods on similar articles, then went back and changed the prods to AfD nominations (7 total). Precious Roy 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania and let it incubate. If it can be expanded and notability shown then it can be recreated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850. DMacks 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Gadget850. Rlevse 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep bad faith nomination on the part of MinsiPatches in reaction to the deletion of Camp Minsi. Oppose a merge to Scouting in Pennsylvania as it would just clutter up the Scouting in Pennsylvania article. Also, {{stub}} articles are meant to be incubators themselves. Let the article be to grow and expand. It passes the google test for notability, there are independent sources, and is in compliance with our Wikipedia notability guidelines about when an article can be split out. --evrik ^(talk) 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith nomination is reason enough to keep. AFD again when you've got a genuine reason. THE KING 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination by the nominator. Mike6271 22:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am deeply troubled by some of the comments in these discussions. There has been a lot of effort invested in working to improve the quality of the articles found in Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America.

First of all, there is no way that the article Boy Scouts of America could all the information on the local councils. So there is a whole set of articles placed in Category:Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America. This is in keeping with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style.

Many of the state articles themselves, like Scouting in Pennsylvania, are so long as to be unwieldy. Again, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talks about how it is appropriate to split out sections into new articles.

It is far too easy to say, oh that camp, council, article is nn. In truth, many of these articles do need work, but that’s what stub articles are for.

Camp Minsi should have been kept, and the administrator who closed the debate didn't show good judgment. This article should be kept because it has some notability, and because leaving it in place does more good than harm. My 2¢. --evrik ^(talk) 04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above discussions or Delete but do not keep. Nothing in the article asserts notability. As with most of these camps, they lack notability. At best someone can merge anything of significance into a parent article. Stubs are not for articles that don't assert notability, they are for notable articles that need more material. When these AfDs are finished, someone needs to address the template that is the likely cause for the creation of these nn articles. Vegaswikian 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Camps are inherently notable. They serve many individuals and the communities that surround them. Minsi Scouter 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — Minsi Scouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was moot upon becoming a redirect. GRBerry 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck?

The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a trivial episode that fails WP:EPISODE's criteria to build a good episode, and it shows no way to improve. By failing that, it fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, as it has no sources to assert and establish notability. It also fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being mostly comprised of plot. TTN 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete—no assertion of notability, no real-world context. Pagrashtak 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Iggy Arbuckle. No indication that the episode is independently notable. A few sentences in the main article will suffice to cover the subject. Otto4711 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Not-notable and not likely ever to be. (But I love the extra slash.) --Jack Merridew 10:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  (I've moved it to single-slash title) --Jack Merridew 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Mindraker 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Iggy Arbuckle per nomination and User:Otto4711 and because of the probable difficulty of locating multiple authoritative independent sources for citation. Alice.S 05:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't you all say "Unfortunately not notable" instead of "not notable", to soften the blow? Show some pity! (Crying worsens even more) I'm an article's mother, whose children are being sentenced to death, semi-permanently or even permanently, and no one even has heart enough to console me for it! What kind of encyclopedic society is this, anyway! I'm asking you, article's mother to other article's mothers/fathers - (ceasing to cry for a moment) surely you've all created articles at some point, right? (Resumes crying) Wilhelmina Will 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per TTN; a redirect would be acceptable, but what's the point really with such trivial information. Eusebeus 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure Thomjakobsen 15:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Taylor (Scottish fiddler)

John Taylor (Scottish fiddler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A seemingly talented specialist musician (Scottish folk music), but doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. The sources in the article, and the ones I've found from a search, tend to be websites related to the local folk events at which he plays in California and Texas. He has won "the Neil Gow award for Scottish fiddling", but it seems a bit too niche to overcome the lack of quality secondary coverage, and his appearance as an extra in one of Mike Meyers' more forgettable films isn't much help. Thomjakobsen 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - if he's played in the UK, US, and NZ, he would appear to have international notability. He's good enough to be on the same bill as the Tannahill Weavers, as per http://www.stlouis-scottishgames.com/eventscurrent.htm.--SarekOfVulcan 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• His playing in the UK and US has more to do with the fact that he emigrated to work as an engineer in the US, so it's not a reliable indicator of international notability. Secondary coverage would, but I couldn't find anything substantial. Thomjakobsen 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He has released several albums and has won a recognized (if specialized) award. Appears to meet WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #'s 5, 7, 9 and 10. Can't see any reason to delete the article.--Michig 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• #5 refers to albums released on a major label or one of the more important indies — from what I can gather, they're either self-released, or a couple are on tiny labels. #9 talks of major music competitions — the award mentioned here does not appear to be major, a search for "neil gow award" only gives one result. As for #10 — a brief appearance in a film where he happens to be playing his instrument does not count as "performing the music for a notable work", that's more for writing or performing themes, soundtracks etc. And for #7, there's no substantial secondary coverage, let alone coverage that would prove him to be "the most prominent" of his particular style. Thomjakobsen 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, maybe he doesn't quite satisfy any of the criteria other than 7, but he appears to be highly regarded within his genre. Criterion 10 includes "performance in a television show or notable film" - you can't pick and choose which parts of the guidelines you apply. The idea that he just "happened to be playing" in the film is your supposition. It was a $20M-budget, fully distributed hollywood film, which is sufficiently notable to have its own article here, and he performed in it, and was credited for doing so.--Michig 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm basing the claim that he doesn't meet #10 on the fact that he's credited as an acting extra on that movie. He doesn't have any music credits for it, nor does he appear on the soundtrack album. He appears as part of a group of Scottish musicians at the main character's wedding, so was presumably hired for his ability to play in a convincing-looking manner (the actual music would have been dubbed onto the visuals at a later stage, and there's no evidence he had any part in that). So it's a real stretch to apply the music guidelines to such an appearance. And again, "highly regarded within his genre" is not backed up by any substantial secondary coverage as far as I can tell, which is the main reason I've proposed it for deletion. Thomjakobsen 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I accept that although the article clearly asserts notability, the references are not adequate to prove notability. Whether or not his appearance in this film is in itself sufficient is debateable. The San Diego Folk Heritage site states that he "has become one of the most popular and sought-after fiddlers for Scottish Country Dancing, has played throughout the US and Canada, toured in Scotland and New Zealand, and has recorded albums with the dance band Fiddlesticks and Ivory and with pianist Andy Imbrie. As a soloist, he has performed at many Highland Games, music festivals, and concerts, and has played with singer Ed Miller, duo Men of Worth, and Scots music icon Brian McNeill, who produced John's two solo albums After the Dance and The Road Ahead. " This would surely indicate notability? If the article simply needs better refs, I don't believe it should be deleted.--Michig 06:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it's promotional material for one of his concerts, and is very similar to all the other search results for him, so it's debatable how much of that is just a rewording of his own description. Thomjakobsen 11:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Full disclosure: I am not an expert on the folk music or fiddling, but I believe this person meets WP:BIO through the multiple reliable sources about the subject, and the spirit of WP:MUSIC as well. RFerreira 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of any reliable sources is the main problem here. Thomjakobsen 11:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I added two mentions in reasonably large newspapers, a few more can be found in the Google News archive. Gary North's eulogy on him should also be regarded as a good independent source with regard to the notability question. Regard, High on a tree 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dubai Enquirer

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

The article appears to have been created by someone with a conflict of interest. It lacks reliable sources that would verify notability, and I wasn't able to find useful sources using google. The article itself says that its highest accolate was a comment in a blog. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think this page says it all. GlassCobra 01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think this is clearly some kind of advertising. Law & Disorder 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax per the link above. That makes things rather simple. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To its credit, the article itself acknowledges that this newspaper is a parody paper... like The Onion, for example, which is notable. Just want to clarify that I don't think all parody papers should be deleted... but I do think this one should. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The City Circle

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

Non-notable, promotional Inkishush 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious keep Seems notable - 12,000+ google hits, multiple sources in the Guardian. Google news search reveals substantive mentions on NPR, BBC. Moreover, doesn't remotely qualify for CSD as spam or no assertion of notability. If "the City Circle is significant in the development of the British Muslim Identity" doesn't claim notability, I don't know what does. Wikidemo 05:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Wikidemo and NPR/BBC mentions.--SarekOfVulcan 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe a bit of rewriting needed, but clearly notable. --Canley 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owen de la Pole. -- RG² 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howys de la Pole

Howys de la Pole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

redirect to relevant page instead, she is not notable herself Phgao 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence (in the form of valid references) that this person existed at all. . . .LinguisticDemographer 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Owen de la Pole. The passage of the de la Pole holdings to an English family is presumably of note in the history of Wales and the Marches, but the information given here isn't enough to warrant a standalone article. Choess 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• WoW! Don't delete! Glad I stumbled upon this! I am certin that Historian Dr. John Davies mentions Hawise in his History of Wales, in connection to Powys passing from the Mathrafal line, dispite male claimants (who were givin land in England, I believe to uproot the princely family following the Edwardian Conquest). When I am home I will look it up. In my reseach so far, the male line of Mathrafal became Gwenwynwyn then de la Pole, moved to York, then became cheif financiers to the English monarchy, eventually to become Dukes of Suffolk until the mid-15th century, when they forfited their claim there. Ill go home soon and post what Davies says on the subject.Drachenfyre 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete the most of the discussion centered around whether its cruft and if that a valid reason for deletion what was raised and remains unaddressed is notability thru independent sourcing. I recognise that transwiki was suggested but to where, I'm happy to restore for a limited time to a users space thus enable them to tranwiki if the destination can be provided. Gnangarra 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate

List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Having a moderate number of fiction articles is ok as far as it covers the topic. But sometimes it goes into fancruft, then a cut has to be made. Also nominating List of Stargate Command personnel, same problem. If you find more, feel free to add. These two articles were afd before and there was no debate and after almost 2 weeks noone closed the debate so I considered it deletable but I got a complaint so I nominate again in order to get a consensus. Tone 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, the previous AfD discussion did not get any debate because it was not listed properly and the nominator then decided to close the discussion himself and delete the articles. That is why I requested relisting, I have no opinion on the article itself. See also [26]. P.S. I notified the relevant Wikiproject in order to get some more input this time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems I somehow didn't success in listing it, maybe a browser error... Anyway, let's have a look now. --Tone 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• (Transwiki and) Delete as a moderate fan of the show. Way to detailed for a general encyclopedia. It's like I have never heard 90% of the non-linked names (meaning I doubt even in-universe notability). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but heavily cut down. The basic premise of the list is good, it's useful information to have, but we do not need that much detail about characters that appeared for five minutes in one episode before being killed by Monster X. That can go on episode pages. Characters that have appeared more than once should be listed somewhere, though. --Tango 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean like List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis and List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1? Those lists already have all the in-universe-notable ones. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. Some merging is required. I'm not quite sure what should be merged into what, but Atlantis personnel and Tau'ri characters in Alantis has far too much overlap (all but two characters, in fact). --Tango 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not as List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate because is redundant with List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis but as summary of this List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis or (beause this article is big) as sub-article. This article should be keep beacause it list all characters with status and compare them (well adjusted with military ranks) by ranks, assigments... Same for List of Stargate Command personnel - Rollof1 08:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I tagged it for deletion. It lists all characters, regardless of importance or relevance to the plot. This list belongs to a stargate wiki, not to an encyclopedia. All the relevant characters are already included on other lists such as List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1, though even they need some trimming. We are building an encyc here, not a fansite. --Tone 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Cruft is not a reason to delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is useful nformation in these articles. Viperix 03:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I elaborated my point considerably more than just calling it cruft. And I somehow doubt how listing a characters we only know by name is useful. If you like guidelines, what about WP:IINFO. --Tone 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this article qualifies for anything in WPinfo. Just a list of characters for no reason would be un-useful, but a list of Atlantis personnel in star gate is useful. The only reason you gave besides cruft was that it had been nominated before. Viperix 20:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as individual characters and list thereof have no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said on the Biker Mice AFD, these articles along with most Stargate-related material have been copied to Fancruft.net so no matter the outcome of this AFD there's still a place to edit and archive them. just FYI.--Torchwood Who? 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Trans-wiki and delete as per sgeureka - Ukulele 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 could I ask for just a little less panic and screaming next time, please? Okay, maybe the article shouldn't have been nominated that quickly; but that's why we give people a whole week to discuss and improve them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable organization that should be deleted per WP:N and WP:V, as no reliable sources are cited. Originally posted and deleted as a copyvio, then rewritten. Prodded but prod removed by author with edit summary "Removed bot comment".  But|seriously|folks  17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my nom above. -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [Struck -- see below -- But|seriously|folks  21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]

• Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance - article includes no more information than is present in Waterkeeper Alliance other than smaller group's date of founding. -Drdisque 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per DrdisqueNeutral -- article shouldn't have been nominated after 90 minutes with the creator still actively editing.Keep -- external references establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve, before you arbitrarily decide what is or isn't notable, or does or doesn't contain, or not contain, the things you're complaining about. Also, Waterkeeper Alliance is a separate organization that served as a model, not a proxy, for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. I think user Butseriouslyfolks is acting badly, and he needs to chill. Thank you. StevenBlack 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sticks and stones, my friend. -- But|seriously|folks  19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your belligerant bullying is not going unnoticed. Please refrain from exercising topics that are nascent. Thank you. StevenBlack 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy If the editor wants to continue working on this article in userspace, that seems like a reasonable compromise. -Chunky Rice 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep given improvement. -Chunky Rice 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also consider: currently the Waterkeeper Alliance topic is very thin, and is not much more than a stub. Please refrain from bullying this topic until its contents are more fleshed-out. StevenBlack 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Excuse me, but you need to allow topics to "cook" for a while, to evolve What the heck, no you don't. This is an encyclopedia, not a kitchen. JuJube 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  Reply Ah, so there are no stubs in Wikipedia. StevenBlack 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Enjoying your new straw man? JuJube 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Reply Please clarify. Thanks. StevenBlack 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also consider: about the notability of the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper organization, specifically in relation to WP:NOTABLE.
  • In News, for example
    • CBC-News: [27],
    • CTV News: [28],
    • Google News: [29]. (55 citations)
    • Globe and Mail: 11 total citations
    • Government of Ontario: 43 citations (in various capacities and contexts)
  • The Canadian Environmental Law Association: [30]
  • In the Government of Canada domain: [31] (57 citations)
  • In the City of Toronto website: [32]
  • In the City of Kingston website: [33]

  and so on. StevenBlack 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  Unless I'm missing something, none of these seem to support notability. -Chunky Rice 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting WP:NOTABLE:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Q.E.D. StevenBlack 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting your name into meeting minutes does not constitute notability. I, or anybody, could do that just by showing up. -Chunky Rice 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing "significant". Perhaps you should read that guideline all the way through rather than quote just the bit that matches what you need. — Coren ^(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; no assertion of notability beyond "famous people supporting"; and notability isn't transitive. — Coren ^(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Coren, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's national broadcaster. Your advice about "read that guideline all the way through" rings hollow. StevenBlack 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your presumption is amusing. I usualy listen to Societé Radio-Canada myself, not the CBC, because I prefer my news in French. Since you like quoting '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' (emph in original). Would you care to show us which the the above sources addresses the subject directly in detail? — Coren ^(talk) 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Coren, that onus, I believe, is on you. Please be specific. StevenBlack 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as you provided the source and claim it meets the criteria, the onus is on you to illustrate exactly how it meets the criteria. A simple claim that it does isn't sufficient. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You believe incorrectly. — Coren ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Waterkeeper Alliance unless some serious work takes place in a short while. --Stormbay 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: If I understand correctly, there's a five-day period here. Day 1 was wasted fighting heavyhanded hasty zapping, including a unelateral deletion, by user Butseriouslyfolks. StevenBlack 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect/Delete. I don't find it notable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper citations for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001

In addition to the network television citations above, searching Proquest and Osprey Media yields the following articles containing Lake Ontario Waterkeeper since 2001.

Even considering duplicates among sister publications, this should lay to rest that Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a "non-notable organization".