Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 07:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Money (film)

Holy Money (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Film currently in production. No sources except IMDb, Google search turned up none. Was speedied as blatant advertisement, which the article doesn't really fit; the speedy tag was removed by the author. I prodded it for lack of sources, prod removed by author, who at the same time added the IMDb link. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Delete now, recreate once it's notable. Huon 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as crystalballism lacking any sources. While I found some links on google it is impossible to determine if the film will even be released or a straight-to-DVD at the moment. Has attracted no press interest at all - Peripitus (Talk) 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the 'keep' exponents raise a decent argue against deleting per their sources, the common consensus is that the sources aren't sufficient to keep the article. Daniel 07:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Balls

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

Declined Speedy Delete. Possible non-notable subject though Google returns some hits. Prefer a wider debate rather than prod Pedro |  Chat  14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is not a notable magazine. A quick google search shows up very few reliable hits for this magazine. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated above, there are few hits for this magazine. It is non notable except, perhaps, in a small niche market. There is little indication that notability exists there. --Stormbay 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable magazine. Keb25 11:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is a niche magazine that is notable in that market.[1][2] It is known internationally[3][4], and recognised as an appropriate publication to advertise in to reach certain demographics, by the ACT govt. John Vandenberg 10:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per JV. Twenty Years 13:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, :: maelgwn - talk 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - All of the press and ACT government mentions are minor and peripheral. Searching through Australian newspapers shows no articles primarily about the magazine. Appears to be a free advertising-supported magazine that has attracted little interest in the wider world. Fails to be notable - Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per JV very well known in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex McKenzie (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — Alex McKenzie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment I hope that whoever makes the final decision on this piece will check Australian sources because it doesn't appear to meet notability there, either. --Stormbay 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Only trivial mentions in some newspapers and government publications. Nothing substantial. Schools and churches with better references get deleted, so why keep this. Assize 12:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Have reviewed and tend to agree with Assize and Peripitus on the sourcing. Fails WP:N. Orderinchaos 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've read the publication myself several times, so I wouldn't regard a wikipedia entry on it as spam. However, if there are no reliable references we can't write a substantial truthiness-free article on it for now. Andjam —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Fyres Mixtape

Forest Fyres Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article states that this hasn't found much success in the mainstream on the charts. Exactly. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL in terms of success. I get 24 Google hits, which includes only one link that looks reasonably reliable, which doesn't meet the multiple, non-trivial crtieria in WP:MUSIC. Recommend deletion. Creator of article removed prod and notability tags for no stated reason. hbdragon88 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No coverage demonstrated; fails WP:MUSIC. --Alksub 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. The issue I have with this is that it appears to me that Mr Klenner has not published enough in notable publications. While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. Therefore, I believe that the article on Fred R. Klenner should be deleted. If it is necessary, it might well be worthwhile noting that he is one of the principal founders of the discipline in the history section of the Orthomolecular medicine. It's worthwhile noting that he doesn't even rate a mention in that article, which may just be an oversight. I should note that there was a lot of tangential talk - even to the point of talking about the U.S. Constitution at one point - and this has only made my job of closing harder as it tended to muddy the waters. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred R. Klenner

Fred R. Klenner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This AfD is being refocused on Fred R. Klenner only. Please see the below sub-section for the conversation to date. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:NOT.

The rationale for deleting these pages have been already discussed at length at the successful Robert Cathcart Afd -- and the Cathcart article was far more notable than these articles. Like that former article, these articles share many, if not all of the following WP:PROF and WP:BIO violations.

1. Some of these articles use self-published books as their only citation. This hardly falls under the criterion of "independent sources."
2. A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [5] This is hardly a reliable source.
3. To bolster their citation, some articles cite the "Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine" (self described within Orthomolecular medicine as "We had to create our own journals because it was impossible to obtain entry into the official journals of psychiatry and medicine") or the non-peer reviewed "Medical Hypotheses." This also fails the criterion of "independent source", along with the criteria of "significant and well-known academic work." (The definition is provided by WP:PROF, it is the basis for a textbook, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
4. Simply being published (especially in random, unreviewed journals) does NOT fit WP:PROF criteria. Otherwise, every published author would somehow be notable. What is required is, and I quote, ""an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."
5. Notice that this is not a merely listing of all orthomolecular authors. Some orthomolecular indivdiuals such as Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Györgyi are indeed notable. They are notable because they have been awarded internationally recognized commendation, or have published in journals such as Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These citations fit WP:PROF criteria -- self-published journals and Melbourne-based Greek newspapers do not.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above rationale:

Carl Pfeiffer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (recommend merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry)

Thomas E. Levy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Archie Kalokerinos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

David Horrobin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (recommend merge with Medical Hypotheses)

Julian Whitaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Abram Hoffer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Irwin Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Djma12 ^(talk) 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per the recommendations of DGG and Realkyhick (Talk to me), I think re-listing the other individuals separately would add to more complete debate. Even though I think the above individuals easily fit my above criteria, others (vociferously) disagree, and deserve their own forum. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• What does this mean? Are you still trying to get the above 7 doctors' entries deleted? If so, where are the pages that discuss the suggested deletions? If you aren't trying to get them deleted, why are there still deletion notices on the pages?--Alterrabe 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The tags are still on b/c Wiki rules do not allow you to remove deletion tags, even if they were your own nomination. I recommend Keep for the above seven pending renomination at another date, and have this AfD refocused on Fred R Klenner. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am pleased to hear this. However, I would like to know who, in that case DOES have the power to remove such tags? Could somebody please inform me of this? I noticed that on the David Horrobin site, whose listing was always wholly inappropriate, the 'notability' tag was indeed removed, but the 'deletion' tag persists, having been placed there by Djima after very significant editing and referencing. What gives? Further, I draw attention to the fact that each of the persons who were nominated had some connection with nutritional medicine. I am highly suspicious that the nominations were not at all agenda based in some way. They do not appear to have been random, or merely based upon some criterion of 'notability' or whatever. Brigantian 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep David Horrobin Both for reasons stated below, and for those which a cursory look across the content, external links and references on his site will make clear as the light of day. Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All Until Djima comes up with both a plausible explanation for the surprising similarities of the opinions and comittments of this particular grouping, to demonstrate that this is not merely a mass attack on an interest group in science, since none of these appear to be linked directly within Wikipedia; and until someone wholly independent nominates them individually for reasons more plausible than those which have been put forward.Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete all, as they fail WP:PROF. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Change to Keep and relist individually. After some prodding by a fellow editor, I think that a blanket delete may not be in order here after all. Klenner probably fails WP:PROF, but maybe some of the others don't. At least a full discussion on each is merited. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reconsideration. From WP:BIO: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Klenner originated the high dose IV vitamin C regimes for cancer, many toxins, and viruses, but his results remained completely untested and ignored in mainstream medicine almost 60 yrs, until recently. Klenner also cites an oxidative mechanism at high IV ascorbate doses over 50 yrs ago for viruses, some toxins, and cancer. Now ca 2000+, so does the NIH, starting to think about relevant clinical cancer trials. Klenner is notable for originating high dose IV ascorbate concepts 50-60 yrs ago, relevant to articles in Can Med Assoc Journal & Proc Natl Acad Sciences now —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This nomination is way too sweeping. Some are clearly non-notable, others are debatable, and Horrobin, for instance, is clearly notable (ISI highly-cited, scientific prize named after him, etc). --Crusio 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• The nomination for Horrobin is based upon the fact that the article is basically just a bio -- it names little that he is actually notable for. Other than founding "Medical Hypotheses" (and having the journal he founded name a prize after him), and being runner up in a book prize, what is he notable for? I suggest that his article be merged with Medical Hypotheses. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, if you have reservations about why the listings are too sweeping, please do share why specific individuals are notable. I am not adverse to taking individuals off the list if citations fitting WP:PROF can be found.Djma12 ^(talk) 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Even a perfunctory medline search reveals that CC Pfeiffer's research was published in, among other journals, Science, JAMA, Biol Psychiatry, Ann NY Acad Sci and similarly august journals. I am adamantly against the (unwarranted) deletion of Pfeiffer's entry (and most of the others as well)--Alterrabe 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

• Comment I believe I have overcome the worries expressed above in regards to the entry on Carl Pfeiffer.--Alterrabe 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why are these concerns overcome please? A simple pubmed search for "Carl Pfeiffer" brings up none of the citations you claim, and the specific article citations are not included in the bio. Furthermore, simply being published does not grant you WP:PROF criteria. (Otherwise, every single published author would be notable.) What is required is, and I quote, "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."Djma12 ^(talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• For future reference pubmed and journals work with surnames and initials!! "Pfeiffer CC" gets you more than 100 articles. Unfortunately, you misquote WP:PROF. There are 6 criteria, any one of which suffices to establish notability. Being Chair at Emory does make you a "significant expert." And even if none of the criteria are met, a person may still be "notable." Can we agree on this? FWIW during the Cold War the US government counted Drs. Pfeiffer and Hoffer among its experts on the use of LSD. This alone almost certainly makes them notable.--Alterrabe 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. I'll try to address you statements individually.

• Looking at the citations list, most of them are to the unreviewed "Medical Hypotheses" and other small journals. There are two JAMA listings but both of them appear to be editorials or reviews rather than actual original content.
• Simply being a Chair at Emory does not make you notable. Otherwise we'd have an article for every chairperson from every department from every university. What is required is still third party verification of a significant contributions made to the field. The article in the current form definitely does not provide that.
• Yes, WP:PROF criteria are not exclusive, but you still need to provide third party documentation of notability somehow. Do you have a citation that he was a "LSD expert." If so, does the citation state what contributions he made to the field? Djma12 ^(talk) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of the 103 articles, 8 are in Biol Psych, 5 or so in the Ann NY Acad Sci, some more in experentia, Arch Gen Psych and more. These are all blue chip publications. I cannot agree with you that these are "other small journals."
• Yes, being the the Chair at a top tier university won't suffice. My friend, read Pfeiffer's original works, talk to his collaborators and friends, as I have, and to grateful patients, and any doubt that he was noteworthy, and perhaps even ahead of his time, will evaporate. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, to which Pfeiffer lent his expertise, is at if not the cutting edge of research into the neurobiology of criminal behavior.
• If your read Colin Moss' book on Operation Bluebird, MKULTRA etc Hoffer and Pfeiffer's names are mentioned in connection with their expertise on LSD. Hoffer developed his "adenochrome theory" of schizophrenia from his knowledge of what LSD does.--Alterrabe 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• So of his 103 publications, only 13 or so of his publications are in recognizable journals? (And middle-tiers one at that. Biol Psych has an Impact factor of 6, compared with say JAMA which has a I.F. of 22.) All this only proves is that he is an academic with a few published papers, it doesn't go towards why he is notable.
• I would love to "talk to his collaboratos and friends" as you have, but that constitutes original research under WP:NOR. While I trust your intent, wiki seeks verifiability, not "truth". What I would love are citations on why his work is notable and important.
• Again, I would love citations, both here and within the article, about Pfeiffer's role with MKULTRA and how that pertains to notability.

Djma12 ^(talk) 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your logic (or total lack thereof) baffles me!! Are you serious?
• You get the impact factors totally wrong, don't have the magnanimity or acumen necessary to overlook an obvious typo, don't understand that you can talk with people, and do original research as long as you don't incorporate it into the article, and that doing so can make for a vastly better article. I have referenced the to date most authoritative book on the US government's interest in LSD. I have no doubt that one if not several attorneys carefully scrutinized every letter in that book, as I don't have it with me, I am not about to do more than mention the book. Their involvement automatically makes Pfeiffer and Hoffer germane not only to the History of Science, but also to the Ethics of Science and to Cold War History.--Alterrabe 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all, and relist separately. I don't believe this joint nomination allows sufficient time for full consideration of the individual merits of this ill-assorted group. Espresso Addict 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Second I second that proposal, excellent idea. --Crusio 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all and relist, using judgment about which ones to relist. ISI highly cited is a clear statement of notability as judged by hundreds of other researchers. A journal with an impact factor of 6 is--in any subject--a first rate journal, not a middle tier journal. Being a chair at a research university like Emory is a reasonable indication that people think someone notable. This does look alike POV motivated attempt to delete articles on everyone with a particular point of view on vitamin C. DGG (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to defer *any* relisting for 6 months, and allow time for articles to mature, as well as for concerned editors to gain more familiarity. "Educating" unfamiliar editors to various science issues, even dealing in the best faith and significant technical background, is extremely time consuming and sometimes enervating. For instance DGG, another "conventional" editor's take on Glyconutrient still loudly repeats the WP:V (mis)statement dietary supplements that contain a blend of eight simple sugars (monosaccharides) which is also simply WP:V wrong (the starch filler contained therein will yield some saccharides *after* ingestion, most of the rest are fermentable polymers among other properties, and the closest major monosaccharide in the original formula appears to be the aminosugar, glucosamine, not exactly one of the "8 essentials"). This is the problem with many "conventional" medical edits & claims here at WP, they simply can't tell Shinola from the other, er, stuff. (In this latter example, the most notable commercial promoter also technically confuses the situation, aggravated by the current editing in the current article at WP. And, yes, you've seen me before.) Thank you for your observations and comments here.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds fair - I'll relist the individuals on separate AfDs. To be honest, I grouped them b/c I really don't have the time to sludge through eight separate AfDs, but perhaps that's better in the long run (though more time consuming.) Djma12 ^(talk) 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the individual editors were not contacted, although not an absolute requirement, it is a common courtesy to individual editors on individual articles. I really think this is extraordinarily premature and, frankly, wasting a lot of peoples' time and patience. The Cathcart article assassination was out of the blue with a number of statements that appear to be false but take time for uninvolved editors to develop rather than five days notice (e.g. the 60s-70s contemporary value and notability of Cathcart's artificial joint that apparently made a lot of money at a time individuals' high tech patent millions were often harder to get than hi tech billions today). Also another problem with deletion is that it becomes hard to follow up on threads of questions or patterns of action. Decency would be to withdraw the nomination and try to collaborate first, several other oncologists here have done so in my experience, quite well, without POV becoming COI or vice versa.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you'll notice - The articles were tagged for some time as needing improvement. I can't help it if the interested parties can't be bothered to update their own articles. And if you'll read the "Cathcart assassination" AfD, its pretty clear what the consensus was. I also can't help it if the preponderous of wiki editors disagreed with your assessment. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first. Some of the individuals biographed are highly referenced in conventional medical literature that takes a while to dig out (my state doesn't even go that far back, much less Medline...or at least, even some of the editors here yet born). There has been precious little prior discussion here at WP on the articles by the nominating editor (dismissive), much less meaningful attempts to gain broader or deeper information on these subjects, to ask useful questions of other WP editors, and make meaningful trial edits back and forth that can develop better content. One of the presumptions the the nominator makes seems to be that common, highly commercialized, ad versions of science and the history of science dictates notability, it doesn't. Notability for individual altmed is different, whether dealing with prejudicially handled legitimate hypotheses, unfounded phantasms, or master showmen (see Dudley J. LeBlanc), than notability in the recognized mainstream of medicine. In a number of cases, individual distortions by the nominator also seem to be lumped upon the whole group, as well as seriously erring. (e.g. Djma12: ...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [1] The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[6] (or [7]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.) Orthomed contributors, who are a scientific group in a medical minority, have frequently been dismissed here at WP as pseudoscientists when obscured by so-called "mainstream" statements that turn out to be highly misinformed by conventional science reckonings (e.g. violating principles of hypothesis testing/replication and not using complete information for whatever reason), mere innuendo, or outright scientific misconduct by their "mainstream" accusers.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Orthomed contributors (...) by their "mainstream" accusers -> this problem you have with the way Wikipedia works will not go away until reliable sources have documented this and mainstream science has stopped dismissing orthomed contributions as pseudoscience. Placing "mainstream" in quotes here shows a clear (minority) POV: it states that really mainstream science does not dismiss orthomed, and suggests it supports it. Avb 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This statement continues to confuse pharmaceutical commericialism, numerously cited for its scandals, aka "mainstreet clinical medicine", different from currently accepted mainstream medical research, and confused with mainstream *science*, a process, despite numerous cited transgressions in the literature that should give chemical sales reps lurid fantasies. Orthomed is science based, but a minority relative to highly subsidized and advertised xenobiotic pharmaceuticals in medicine.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why complain in an AfD about Wikipedia content that has been written according to its rules? If you can show that the status quo as described by you is also described in reliable, preferably secondary sources, nothing should stand in the way of changing the encyclopedia accordingly. Conversely, if/where the rules have been violated, feel free to use the relevant dispute resolution processes. I also refer you to these comments. Avb 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first --> I think this comment on the nominating editor is not warranted. It does not inform the debate and may, therefore, be interpreted as a slur, or an attempt to discredit the nominator's arguments. It certainly is not an argument to keep the articles. It might be acceptable at the editor's talk page, in the form of advice. Just my opinion, of course. Avb 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that the AfD is far too early given the resources and number of editors concerned with orthomed being diverted by processes counterproductive to content time without any attempt to learn or edit more. The nominator has been pretty dismissive of things he shows a strong POV and little real background on, with the very real threat of additional disruptive deletions and restructuring rather than productive editing.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your content/process/etc-related comments are most welcome, just like your personal POVs. Your comments on the nominator are not. Please do not proffer other editors' (perceived) POV as a reason to keep articles. Note that the nominator's POVs (whatever they may be) are just as valid as your POVs. I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DELETE. Avb 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To help inform the debate here and at the individual AfDs: In addition to e.g. PubMed and journal impact ratings, http://scholar.google.com is a very useful resource. It lists articles, number of cites, and links to same. Try, for instance, the searches author: CC-Pfeiffer and author:CC-Pfeiffer orthomolecular. Avb 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of Pfeiffer's work as a distinguished part of the mainstream from the 1930s to the 1950s/60s may not be likely to show up on the proposed web / pubmed searches.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

True. But note that this is not a special problem of older material; even for recent work, while inclusion of a subject in the encyclopedia can be based on material found through these resources, exclusion cannot be based on lack of material found here. Regardless, Google Scholar does yield 107 hits for CC Pfeiffer in the period 1930-1969. Avb 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am unfamiliar with the other nominees, and do not have time to research. However it is absolutely clear that David Horrobin should be kept. He publlished more Peer-Reviewed papers in journals of unimpeachable quality (see his extraordinary bibliography currently linked from the site, as well as listed in bibliography on the ISI site) than do a dozen more average scientists in a lifetime. The reference to Medical Hypotheses entirely misses this, and further misses the point of the journal itself. It appears only to show an ignorance of the intended function of the Journal Medical Hypotheses in particular, of the very extensive work of Dr. Horrobin in general, and also of his own publication history related to the subject of peer review itself. (Try googling "David Horrobin" and "peer review" and peruse some of the 299 hits that specific search alone turns up!). Further, the reference at the outset of this discussion to Medical Hypotheses makes it seem as though this journal is somehow disreputable. Aside from missing the point of the journal entirely, it should be noted that Dr. Horrobin attracted the following as the journal's original editorial board in the mid 1970s: the double Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the Nobel Laureate in medicine Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, the Nobel Laureate in physiology Sir John Eccles, and the acclaimed physiologist A.C. Guyton. These understood the purpose of the journal, and it would be good for the nominator for deletion to consider its function as well. As for both the scientific and general notability of Dr. Horrobin, just take a look a the ISI site, or google him. In a main Google search, Fred Klenner produces a total of 211 hits, whereas David Horrobin produces 16,700- every one of which refers to him. Horrobin is an unusual name, and he was unusually notable. A Google Scholar search produces 478 hits, and pubmed search of "Horrobin D" produces 510. Every one appears to be by the David Horrobin in question. Quite apart from being a notable scientist, he was notable enough to have been accorded obituaries in almost all the major broadsheet British newspapers, as well as (notably!) in both the BMJ, and in the Lancet. The nomination is entirely unjustified, and its motivations are therefore rather questionable. Brigantian 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Keep all. My personal opinion is that the notability of one, perhaps two, of the doctors, where fair minds can disagree ought to be debated, if only to once and for all establish their notability or lack thereof. However when the contributor initiating the discussion has:

• deleted a perfectly good link to a scientist's publications at the NIH's medline, falsely claiming that it was bad,
• misrepresented wikipedia's guidelines (original research may not be entered into articles, but can be extremely helpful in finding acceptable sources for wikipedia and forming one's opinions)
• misrepresented the importance of various preeminent scientific publications
• made other suggestions whose logic other contributors cannot fathom,

I feel the wisest and most productive course of action is to immediately adjourn these deletion proceedings sine die until we can be sure that we will discuss them based on factual evidence and according to wikipedia guidelines. Scientists need not have had their contemporaries accept their theories to be sufficiently notable for a wikipedia entry; otherwise Galileo Galilei's entry would have to be removed, nor do they have to have been correct at all; otherwise Trofim Lysenko and Ptolemy's entries would have to be deleted.--Alterrabe 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Generally agree with Alterrabe's comments, especially the latter ones. Also, WRT David Horrobin once more, on the note of controversy, "Notability" does not, as Alterrabe suggests, necessarily mean "positive" notability. Dr. Horrobin certainly attracted controversy, but then so did Darwin, and Copernicus. However his NOTABILITY is unquestionable. The very negative obit which he received in the BMJ (the only one which was so, out of many, only some of which can now be linked to the site) elicited the largest number of responses (in his defence) for any such article in the history of the British Medical Journal. Now "Djima12", how do you account for that, if he was not NOTABLE!? Good grief. Brigantian — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 ^(talk)

• For the record - I based these nominations upon the articles themselves, which were sparse and poorly sourced when I found them. I even tagged them for some time to allow for expansion and improvement, to no avail. Now if the people who are complaining about the nominations have since found all sorts of Google hits, etc... after the nomination, then please put the citations within the articles. I am more than happy to reboot the nominations on an individual basis and allow time to add sources. Instead of all these accusations of "out of the blue assassination", however, why not look at the actual history of the articles and the requests for collaboration? Sheesh Djma12 ^(talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, that's odd, since (as you must know) I found it very notable in itself that you (Djima12) both attached the notability tag, and then attached the tag for deletion, in this case after the article had been extensively referenced (esp. by proxy with the ISI site and the David Horrobin Bibliography site) and enlarged, in response to the initial notability tag! This is of course clear from the revision history of the page, if anyone else wishes to check it. Brigantian— Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 ^(talk)

• Comment Further, the addition of the "few or no other edits" by Djima12 to my comments on this page is entirely irrelevant. I have only just begun to do so, and was moved to to so particularly by the clear inappropriateness of the deletion nomination of David Horrobin. I do not have time to be spending hours, or generally even minutes a day editing Wikipedia. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of what I say, then by all means do so, but flagging the number of editorial contributions smacks of ad hominem. I do wonder why it was thought necessary to add this sub tag. Are you attempting to discredit me in some way because my comments are not to your liking? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just find it odd that someone with no prior interest or edits in wiki can suddenly find a random AfD with a clear understanding of wiki tagging and editting. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• In turn, I find it odd that you have added this note to my comment, having excorciated a commentator above for inattentive reading, since I make it clear that my comments here are the very opposite of random. They are wholly specific. Brigantian

I didn't to say it but you seem to want it force it out of me. I suspect you of being a Sockpuppet. No one with no prior experience in wiki knows both the AfD process and the editing process this thoroughly.Djma12 ^(talk) 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is laughable. Apart from its clear ad hominem irrelevance, do you really think it so difficult? I learnt to do this in about half an hour. I simply followed the links from the notability and deletion flags themselves. On your own user webpage you claim to be a peer-reviewed published scientist and electrical engineer or some such. How on earth did you get to that level without the wherewithal to learn to edit something like this in a few minutes? I am operating from a British University with a stable web address. I will log out and post a comment to demonstrate my web address immediately after this. And in the future, I would suggest that you don't issue such ridiculous accusations, lest you reveal the little man behind the curtain! Brigantian

• Brigantian here. Here is my web address. Have fun attempting to prove your accusation. It will waste even more time than your nominations have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.110 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Further, my first comment on this particular page was unsigned, and I recieved a message from TheNautilus earlier today, which is why I created the Brigantian account. That message, just for further proof, can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:129.215.49.110&redirect=no In any case, if he's still watching, the Nautilus can confirm themselves. In case you think I am them, you could perhaps request their IP address in like manner. But this is really getting ridiculous and is in any case unnecessary, since it is clear that the message Nautilus sent was indeed to my specific web address, and was sent 2 hours PRIOR to your silly accusation. The bottom line appears to be that while you are obviously very happy to call into question the notability of scientists who have published hundereds upon hundreds of papers, you don't like criticism yourself. Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• There, see, I've just visited my own user page for the first time, and learned something new: how to sign automatically. Any more school playground attacks, or are you prepared to actually look at the facts concerning David Horrobin, which is the purpose of your ill-considered nomination after all, no? Brigantian 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I have saved a full copy both of the edit history and of this page, as is. Brigantian 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Finally, as I do need to do some other work, your call for the references to be comprehensively included in the site is wholly overdemanding especially in the case of David Horrobin. Or do you think it reasonable that I or anyone else should add some 800 or more links individually, rather than one or two to perfectly compiled and accessible bibliographies on such unimpeachable sites as ISI? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refocus on Fred R Klenner

This AfD is being refocused to concentrate only on Fred R. Klenner. I recommend that the other individuals be listed as Keep for now, with relisting for deletion at another date.

• Delete - The article on Fred R. Klenner fails criteria for WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A medline search of "Klenner FR" on yields 2 hits, both of which are from the "South Med Jour" during 1951 and 1952 respectively. Furthermore, the rest of the citations on his article are either from his own books or from "http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate". Djma12 ^(talk) 17:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Google Scholar: FR Klenner and RF Klenner. Avb 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, as I tend not to use Google Scholar for medical searches. So we have a total of 5 original articles published in South Med Jour, J Appl Nutr, or Southern Med Surg. Does anyone else have other sources? Djma12 ^(talk) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just added an article on his presentation to a meeting of the AMA. Others have written of an article he published under the auspices of the AMA, which I can't corroborate. He wrote far more than 5 pages. One chapter in Levy references 19 articles alone. I see no need to include all them in the article.--Alterrabe 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

•  ::*Again, do you have a citation for this? The citation within the article is merely to someone else's article, not his. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article needs more sources if it is to be kept. Articles have to show the notability of the subject; this one doesn't. I'm reserving my opinion because I hope that editors will supply sources. I'm afraid arguments without third-party sources just don't cut it. Avb 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In keeping with the refocussing on this one individual alone, I strongly suggest that you remove reference to Medical Hypotheses on this page, as being both irrelevant, and indeed ill-researched and inappropriate for reasons stated earlier in the discussion. Brigantian 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what you getting at. While Medical Hypotheses may be a useful journal for proposing additional avenues of research, it is non-peer reviewed and thus does not fit WP:CITE criteria. In reference to the Fred Klenner article specifically, though, I don't believes it cites this journal and thus the critique would not apply. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE gives no stipulation that sources must be peer reviewed. In fact Medical Hypotheses does fit Wikipedia's WP:V criteria as a published source. Lumos3 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I continue to comment on Med Hypotheses, as it remains a part of your denigrating list above. I find it ironic that you have suggested a merge of David Horrobin with Medical Hypotheses, as well as deletion of the former, if you clearly have no knowledge of either, as you have appeared to claim above, saying that your nominations were simply based on the entries alone. But for the record, Medical Hypotheses was founded precisely to solve the issue of the stifling effects of Peer Review upon innovation in Medicine. The principle is simple: new ideas are always somewhat to radically outwith the scope of the conventional and the established. Peer Review fairly effectively allows the assessment of ideas in accordance with ESTABLISHED principles and wisdom, but is singularly ill-equipped to deal with truly new, radical or revolutionary ideas. A forum for such ideas is warranted, the principle being that if even one in 100 were true, then the power of the forum to promote revolutionary change would be immense. David Horrobin established the journal precisely to be a non-peer-reviewed journal so that such ideas could be aired. It is not that it is not edited. It is for this reason its original editorial board was so impressive. Its present editorial board is both intellectually powerful and scientifically credible, counting among its number, for example, Antonio Damasio and the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson. Do you still feel comfortable with your using its name in a deprecating manner at the outset of this discusion? If so, I would really like to know why. For that matter, Djima12, I have yet to see very good reasons for any of your particular judgements in this sorry episode.Brigantian 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are several reasons for my decision:

• (A few years back) I found medline to be of little to no use when investigating research from before the late 60s. Coverage was, to be polite, spotty. Medline cannot be the ultimate arbiter of pertinence for medical research conducted decades before medline was conceived. Moreover I have added one citation, and hope to add more. It's a fair assumption that the various authors on the uses of vitamin C, Pauling, Levy, Cathcart and others, all have sung Klenner's praises. It would be an act of pedantry to insist that all these authors, whose beliefs largely overlap, be quoted individually. I think it would be fair to set guidelines for how extensive the article must be to really be an addition to wikipedia.

• Klenner's research which was an important new concept, theory or idea which was profiled in an article in the JAMA, which is a WP:RS. Moreover Linus Pauling, a two-timed Nobel Laureate, intrepidly followed in his footsteps. Within the world of alternative medicine, Klenner has become something of a folk hero due to his research with sodium ascorbate.

• Do you have a citation for this? The citation within the article is merely to someone else's article, not his. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Last, but far from least, there is a haunting potential historical parallel which I believe provides a clear answer; that of Joseph_Goldberger a doctor in the American South who proved in 1916 that the 100,000 cases of pellagra in the American South were caused by a dietary deficiency and not by an infectious disease as was then thought. Goldberger, despite being employed by the PHS, was unable to convince the medical establishment of his findings, and thus the pellagra plague continued until 1937, when the missing nutrient was isolated. Roughly 100,000 people spent 20 years essentially living as imbeciles because Goldberger was unable to get his findings into the canonical medical texts of his day. Had Klenner been a Nascar driver, I wouldn't worry at all about his not being included in wikipedia. In the past - such as with Pellagra - huge mistakes have been made, and I think it is an ethical imperative that those who bother to read - and even donate to - wikipedia should be able to decide for themselves if Klenner was closer to being one of the more notable cranks the South has produced or another Joseph Goldberger, whose findings though never disproven, have yet to be adopted into the medical canon. Let the people decide!!!--Alterrabe 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Though I appreciate the sentiment, I don't believe this argument is relevant. Per WP:NOT, wiki is not a forum to broadcast your personal ideas -- it is an encyclopedia for detailing published literature. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to blithely misunderstand the points I was making.

• 1) Klenner was published so these are not my personal ideas! Insinuations to the contrary are deceptive. Orthomolecular medicine hasn't taken off stateside, perhaps because other medical philosophies employ enforcement mechanisms redolent of the Spanish Inquisition. Farther afield however, orthomolecular medicine is not nearly as close to a "fringe" discipline; my pharmacist, gp, and dentist are all aware of it, and practice it to a greater or lesser degree.
• 2) There is another aspect: a physician is well within his rights to inform a patient that he or she discharges the services associated with his or her art according to the generally accepted practices of his or her peers, and doesn't wish to experiment with unconventional approaches. Yet even American constitutional law acknowledges that there are limits to the freedom of speech that the First Amendment affords; falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded and darkened movie theater is not protected by law; in fact, if frightened movie-goers trample each other to death, the malefactor can be, and generally is, held accountable in a court of law. Wikipedia requires that its users assume good faith, even in extremis; other spheres have different burdens of proof. For this reason, I believe that Wikipedia has at least a moral obligation to protect its readers from the suppression of innovative theories and therapies that are practiced outside of the United States and from edits that smack of censorship and the rigid enforcement of a particular ideology / point of view.--Alterrabe 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep There is no doubt of Klenner’s notability within the field or orthomolecular medicine. To suggest that he needs to be recognised by other medical fields as well is to take a particular side in the ongoing argument between orthomolecular and "mainstream" medical science. Notability is proven within orthomolecular medicine and this is enough. In no other area do we insist that notability is proven to exist outside the field of a subject’s specialism. This deletion request, linked as it was to a range of workers in this field is clearly an attempt to further a particular anti-orthomolecular point of view on Wikipedia. Lumos3 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Lumos on this. I am extremely suspicious of the motives of Djima12, who at the same time as attacking a very particular grouping such as this, claims above in discussion with me not to know much about any in particular, beyond what was comprised in the original article. How, I wonder, would one go about compiling a list of orthomolecular scientists SPECIFICALLY, if not through personal knowledge thereof? And why should one do this? Interesting that Djima12 appears to accuse me of a surprising specificity on this (I have indeed not commented on any other Wikipedia page, and was indeed moved to do so by the outrageous Notability/Deletion tags specifically on David Horrobin), as it appears almost inconceivably unlikely that he would just "happen upon" such a group without prior and intimate knowledge...Brigantian 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There appears to be no doubt that he is perceived as a pioneer within the vitamin C field. Though his works were never widely recognised they were published in peer-reviewed publications. Agree with Alterrabe that older medical research is poorly represented on Medline. Espresso Addict 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, then what do you propose using as citations per WP:BIO? I don't find "www.seanet.com" or "orthomed.com" to be the most objective of sources. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• The JAMA reference meets reliability standards; the recent J Othomolecular Med articles also seem to establish notability within that community and are clearly independent of the subject himself. His own peer-reviewed publications are also appropriate primary sources. Espresso Addict 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• And do you have a citation for this JAMA article please? Everyone has been mentioning it but the only citation within the article is to someone else's paper, not Klenner's. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately JAMA only archive back to 1966. Espresso Addict 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Google Books finds reference to what it was about in the Thomas E. Levy book. More a pointer than a ref though: Xlibris is self-published, so not a peer-reviewed publication. Gordonofcartoon 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• These issues were all addressed at the Robert Cathcart Afd. Simply "being notable within the orthomed community" is NOT enough per WP:FRINGE. And I quote

In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual.

Furthermore, just b/c an individual is a folk hero of the orthomed community does not make his article exempt from the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Simply stating that "his many publications just can't be found on medline anymore" doesn't cut it. The burden of proof falls upon the author to provide citations demonstrating notability, not vice versa. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We just went over this. He devised a pioneering therapy for the treatment of poliomyelitis referenced in the article that was referenced in the JAMA, as well as the other journals he published in. Another point that you overlook is that the New England Journal of Medicine began, as its name implies, as a Journal of Medicine for one part of the country; the Southern Journal of Medicine would obviously have been its Southern counterpart. It would be unwise to assume that the relative standing of these journals has not changed over the last 50-60 years. I cannot follow the logic of those who claim that a man who published multiple articles on a revolutionary new therapy in a counterpart of the NEJM is not noteworthy.--Alterrabe 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you misuderstand NEJM and South Med Journ. NEJM is named as such b/c is published through Brigham and Women's hospital (i.e. Harvard), not b/c it only applies to the Northeast. The South Jour of Med is NOT the equivalent of the NEJM in the South. Nor does it have even a fraction of the Impact factor of NEJM. Secondly, as was established in the Robert Cathcart Afd, you cannot establish notability off of someone else's coattails. He was referenced in passing in one JAMA article. Any JAMA article has literally 50-60 citations. Merely being cited in passing in someone else's paper does not establish notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I should add that it is misleading if not deceitful to include words in quotation marks in a reply when these words were not used in the text being replied to; demagogues know this practice as a strawman. I never once suggested that the Southern J Med and the NEJM were "equivalents," but rather that they had been "counterparts."--Alterrabe 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The NEJM is "is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society" as can be read on its website. (http://content.nejm.org/) The South J Med was established by the Southern Medical Association, which itself was established to educate physicians in the states of the Confederacy, Maryland, Texas and the District of Columbia. The two journals obviously enjoy different levels of influence, but were manifestly established to fulfill the same needs in different parts of the United States. It would be interesting, and perhaps pertinent to the discussion, though tedious, to learn more about the impact factor of the two journals in the past decades. Could it be that, in those distant and perhaps benighted days before the abolition of Jim Crow and introduction of the fax machine and email, doctors within the confines of the Confederacy were expected to correspond with the organ of the Southern Medical Association? If so, would it make sense to expect Klenner to act according to procedures that didn't exist at the time? I agree that if Klenner's only accomplishment had been to get mentioned in passing in the JAMA, he definitely wouldn't be noteworthy. Klenner did more than just that.--Alterrabe 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think you've hit on the crux of the issue. To understand the impact factor of these two journals is not just "pertinent", but crucial, "tedious" as it may be. Southern Medical Journal currently has an impact factor of 0.780, compared with the New England Journal of Medicine who has an IF of 51. South Med Jour has never been an organ of original research, and even self describes itself as "devoted solely to continuing medical education." The fact that Klenner published to a small, post-confederacy medical society on an outdated topic in continuing medical education does not establish notability. Your commentary on the days "before fax machines and email" is interesting, but original research, as if correspondence did not exist even in the early days of NEJM and JAMA.

• I'm sure that you misconstrue my thoughts. I deliberately couched my suspicions in a question, with a question mark at the end, to emphasize that I was not asserting that this putative scenario was factual. Airing hypothetical possibilities cannot constitute original research for obvious reasons. Would you have a source for your statement has S Med Jour never been an organ of original research? Bear in mind that in Klenner's day, double-blind placebo-controlled studies were rarely if ever done; rather doctors shared their experiences with one another. How can you be sure that the use Vitamin C as antiviral is "outdated;" perhaps its day hasn't come.--Alterrabe 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I understand the hypothetical question posed, but I think you misunderstand the burden of proof here. If you are going to use a journal with an impact factor 0.78 and no medical reputation for research, the burden of proof lies with you on why this establishes notability for Klenner. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Crusio makes an important point. The fact that Klenner has not been widely cited since the 1950s establishes that he made no lasting contributions to medical notability. If his work was truly the foundation for further work by Pauling, etc..., surely he would have been cited within the literature. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's not necessarily the case. Scientific research is full of examples of pioneering research that wasn't properly cited by later work in the same field. Pauling acknowledged that Klenner's papers were important in the foreword to the summary of Klenner's publications [8]. Espresso Addict 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again, sources please. Could we please find a source that is not merely posted on "www.seanet.com/~alexs", which fails per WP:RS#Self-published_sources? Djma12 ^(talk) 20:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Djma's repeated mis-citation of WP:SELFPUB, as above & misrepresented again as "www.seanet.com/~alexs". The "www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate" related links to are 're-published papers in mainstream journals for convenience, with properly cited original references. My reply,(e.g. Djma12: "...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage..[1]" The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[9] (or [10]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.)--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a certain logic to this proposition. And yet there are also strong arguments that speak against it. One is that Klenner's work has faced a Catch-22: in order to be accepted it had to be published, and at the same time in order to be published it had to be accepted. Marcia Angell, a former editor at the NEJM, has bewailed the decision making processes at some medical journals. Klenner, and similarly minded individuals, found it easier to publish in journals beyond the index of medline. The problem with the logic of this proposition is that the logic, i.e. that a therapy must be accepted by mainstream American medicine to be valid or notable, leads to views that defy common sense, such as that acupuncture, an ancient Chinese practice, was not notable in the 1970s because it wasn't openly practiced in America. My personal opinion is that the wisest course of action is to include all the applicable caveats, but let the article stand.--Alterrabe 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO specifically allows ANY notability, even negative notability to be used. Even if the majority of the medical community believes your idea to be junk, if they have published an attack on you in a reputable journal, you are notable. However, if your idea is so unknown that no one even takes notice (hence publishes nothing for or against it), you are NOT notable. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re ... if your idea is so unknown... You are perhaps suggesting that CMAJ, PNAS, NIH, Ann Int Med & J Am Col Nutr, are now unknown or non-notable bodies, after the HD Riordan and Mark Levine et al papers concerning potential cancer treatments with Klenner's IV vitamin C blood levels? Also Levine et al, again in PNAS, (2007): ...These data provide a foundation for pursuing pharmacologic ascorbate as a prooxidant therapeutic agent in cancer and infections.[11]. Please especially note the ...and infections part.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• But the point is that until it became clear that that pioneering research was indeed pioneering, it was not notable. Klenner has not been cited, so he has not been notable. If in the coming years it will turn out that his work was right and seminal and his day comes, he will become notable. Without a good crystal ball, there's no way of telling who will or will not become notable. That's why it is important that he is not notable now. --Crusio 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to be cautious about the word "pioneering". It carries a strong connotation of vindication: if that vindication is not generally agreed-on, it's not a neutral word to use. Gordonofcartoon 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the brunt of your comment, except for the notion that a "crystal ball" is needed. There were a number of other scientists who were interested in Vitamin C as an anti-viral; among them Jungeblut (Jungeblut C (1937 Vitamin C therapy and prophylaxis in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exp Med 65:127:146) Kligler and Bernkopf, (Kligler I. and Bernkopf H. (1937) Inactivation of vaccinia virus by ascorbic acid and glutathione. Nature 139:965-966), Holden and Resnick (Holden M and Resnick R. (1936) The in vitro action of synthetic crystalline vitamin C (ascorbic acid) on herpes virus. J Immunology 31:455-462), Baur and Staub (Baur H. and Staub H. (1952) Poliomyelitis therapy with ascorbic acid infusions Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 84:595-597), Salo and Cliver (Salo R and Cliver D, (1978) Inactivation of enteroviruses by ascorbic acid and sodium bisulfite. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 36(1):89-75) not to mention Linus Pauling, to quote just a few via Levy. These and many others suffice to demonstrate that Klenner was not alone in his beliefs, and that while interest in Vitamin C as an antiviral is not generally accepted, there is a continued and abiding interest in the ideas behind Klenner's pioneering work. Wikipedia has pages dedicated to rock and roll musicians few would be caught listening to dead, which confirms me in my belief that there's also space for Klenner and his work on wikipedia.--Alterrabe 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any citation that these individuals used Klenner's work? Remember, this AfD is about Fred Klenner, not orthomolecular medicine. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• As my point was that the Vitamin C has been the subject of continous interest as an antiviral, which Klenner pioneered it's wholly besides the point if they did so independently of Klenner.--Alterrabe 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the argument that worse articles exists, thus so should this, has been addressed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• To put things into perspective, wikipedia strongly rejects the argument that it's just not notable WP:JNN, that it's unencyclopedic WP:UNENCYC, that I don't like it WP:ITBOTHERSME, I've never heard of it WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Additionally, I think it's good that rock and roll afficianados are allowed to have pages on wikipedia; there's more to music than classical music only.  ;-)--Alterrabe 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - I think it's sufficiently demonstrated that he is important within the literature relating to this field, and the Fultz quad connection adds notability that's not solely connected with this angle. I think the Doctoyourself.com bio, as it's reprinting an obit from J Orthomolecular Med, 2007. Vol 22, No 1, p 31-38., is OK as source for filling out basic biographical details. That said, I think that article needs scrutiny for WP:SOAP; it looks somewhat a coatrack for vitamin C. And the AFD looks iffy too, both for the original blanket nomination on basis of orthomolecular topics, and for the level of soapboxing in opposition to this (I'm also suspicious of the arrival of an entirely new account, the majority of whose edits are to defend this article at AFD). Gordonofcartoon 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I assume that you refer to me. Your suspicion is wholly misplaced. I was, as I stated, prompted to find out how to do this precisely because I was outraged that David Horrobin's page was tagged as "not notable" or whatever. Good grief, I proved this quite adequately above. This is an open contribution resource- what on earth is the issue here? My edits to the page itself and my contributions on this one should be judged on one criterion alone: do they or do they not establish notability for David Horrobin. The answer is obviously that of course they do. What would it matter if I was new, old, or the fairy godmother? Brigantian 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. But yes, it does matter. As I said elsewhere, although it is indeed an open contribution resource, in practice the appearance of new editors solely for an AFD is a common form of abuse of the AFD process, so it pretty well always raises suspicion, especially if the topic is contentious. Gordonofcartoon 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Gordonofcartoon- is that from the Robert Girardi novel Madeleine's Ghost? I remember it being used as a joke in a mugging scene. Well, it is not so in this case, and I feel I have demonstrated that amply enough. Also, can you or anyone else please tell me how and when the "delete" tag will be removed from David Horrobin's site? Brigantian 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the AfD tags from the withdrawn nominations. Thanks for bringing this up; it should probably have been done when the nominations were withdrawn. Espresso Addict 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much! Good call. Brigantian 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Are you calling Orthomolecular Medicine a "Fringe" therapy? Are you building to a RFD for the whole subject? We are arguing here about the notability of Fred Klenner yet you return in you arguments to your belief that OM is fringe and it seems by your behaviour, you want all articles related to it to be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper and there is room for articles on notable people in all fields. Thats what makes WP bigger better and more useful than a paper encyclopedia. Your campaign is blatant POV pushing and censorship. Lumos3 08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I urge you to reread WP:DELETE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FRINGE. Comments like the one above are very likely to strengthen Djma12's arguments when the uninvolved closing admin makes a final assessment. Instead, you would do better to explain why you feel that Klenner's theories and findings do not meet WP:FRINGE, citing acceptable third-party sources. Avb 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• By my understanding of the issues of hand, the exact opposite is true. Lumos3 makes some highly pertinent observations; while there is no scientific consensus on the viability of orthomolecular medicine, there is no debating that various countries in Europe, Asia, and, to a lesser degree North America, have societies of physicians who practice orthomolecular medicine. http://www.orthomed.org/ISOM/societies.htm and patients who willingly pay for their services. Although I believe I can understand the thinking that would lead it to it, I am strongly against a USA-centric approach to this article, which would presumably have it that since orthomolecular medicine is all but unknown in the United States, it cannot be valid.
• Here, too, there is a historical precedent: in the 1970s, acupuncture was regarded as quackery in the United States and banned; today the NIH consensus statement states that: the data in support of acupuncture are as strong as those for many accepted Western medical therapies. To have insisted in the 1970s that acupuncture not be included in an encyclopedia because it "wasn't practiced here" would have defeated the entire purpose of an encyclopedia which is to educate and inform. To argue that orthomolecular medicine should be excluded or that it is invalid (as opposed to highly controversial) because it "isn't practiced here" would be as wise as refusing to even discuss acupuncture in the 1970s.--Alterrabe 15:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let's keep in mind that this AfD is about Fred Klenner, not about orthomolecular medicine. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Over half of the listed therapies in the orthomed article involve Klenner, an attack on Klenner is frequently an attack on orthomed and vice versa, in some ways more so than Pauling.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (see below) Web of Science lists very few publications with small numbers of citations. Non-notable scientist. --Crusio 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just as a matter of interest, how far back does Web of Science go? Espresso Addict 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're absolutely right there and I should have mentioned that in my comment: My access to WoS goes until 1975, after Klenner stopped publishing. However, it appears that only a few of his articles got very few citations since 1975, so it looks like his work never made much impact. The current article mentions that Klenner published 28 papers, which is not a very large productivity. If some (or even one) of those papers had made a huge impact, that would establish notability. As it is, I don't think this person is notable. --Crusio 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

since my access goes back to 1900, I rechecked, but did not find any more. South Med J Volume: 113 Issue: 4 Pages: 101-7 Published: 1951 Apr has been cited 5 times, and South Med J Volume: 114 Issue: 8 Pages: 194-7 Published: 1952 Aug has been cited once. As for Medical Hypotheses, my understanding is that it deliberately publishes material that may be interesting and important, but not yet supported by evidence-in other, words, hypotheses. Scientific journals normally only publish hypotheses supported by evidence--there is surely a role for journals such as this--and this is a very well know and reputable one, but is not evidence that anyone has ever paid attention to the hypothesis. DGG (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

...so it looks like his work never made much impact in increasingly notorious pharma sponsored journals, virtually a raison d'être for there being both orthomolecular and patented ("conventional") toximolecular medicines rather than just a unitary molecular medicine. For his age, Klenner has substantial coverage, beyond pharma captive journals coverage with insultingly thin deprecations of a mortal economic enemy (uncontrolled nutrients, economically "worse" than imported generic drugs). As for his publications, this was for a real, practicing doctor, in an age long before academic "minimum publishing units", with a substantial number of breath taking claims (to me, too). Klenner was clearly a man abrest of the advanced/experimental nutritional/vitamin science of his day, integrating current information with his clinical observations in real time, acutely observant in science without the frills, practicing as an unfunded, unsubsidized doctor, against the status quo. ~50 years after Klenner discusses metal enhanced oxidative mechanisms with IV vitamin C, Klenner's disciple, Riordan, holds NIH's feet to the fire, and now you see the CMAJ, PNAS, NIH papers that essentially say, "oh, yeah, thaattt IV vitamin C oxidative mechanism". So who were the real (non-)notable scientific boobs and reliable sources?

Again he is not some endowed, corporate or university scientist or conventional physician, rather a more humanitarian, citizen-scientist and country doctor persona important to orthomolecular medicine, and recently to mainstream research, a belated 50+ years.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TheNautilus, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about orthomedicine. But your arguments above don't hold. First it seems like you argue that the very fact that "mainstream" journals do not cite Klenner proves his notability. Then it appears that his ideas are now being accepted. But then why is he hardly ever cited? The simple truth is that his work has basically gone unnoticed. And journals like PNAS are really not "pharma sponsored journals". Notability is not the same thing as being right or wrong. Some people become notable because they were wrong. Some other people were right about something and still don't become notable. Your arguments in this section only underscore to me what is becoming abundantly clear: Klenner is not notable in any encyclopedic sense. And I really start losing patience with this uncessant bashing of "mainstream science" as if "mainstream" equals "wrong". I change my "delete" vote above to strong delete. --Crusio 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my arguments. (1) I am not bashing "mainstream science", I am critical of those who have clearly abused it and fundamentally misused its name, often in economically conflicted medical journals that have not used scientific rigor in many ways. (2) I am citing PNAS articles to support my position that Klenner's ideas and protocols have broken into the mainstream via later authors who write/speak highly, and (WP:)notably, of Klenner. (3) I am simply saying don't count on finding much in conventional medical magazines, because of the intensely prejudical medical history of this subject and various large, economic conflicts of interest in certain quarters. (4) nn - is your opinion, unsupported by FRK's first use or discovery of *authoritatively demonstrated phenomena* that have global dimension *if finally conventionally examined & medically accepted* dispite great previous prejudice. Your argument disregards Wikipedia:Notability (people) as I started to cover in detail at FRK:talk. Biographies, books about, national front page results, as well as authoritative interest on broad scale therapies erroneously ridiculed, some editors here appear to be in total denial.--TheNautilus 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Klenner's work made 1946 national front page news with the survival of the Fultz quads[12][13] at birth. Riordan, co-author on recent high dose C treatments on cancer cases with NIH's Mark Levine (conventional recognition)[14][15] and related work [16], wrote a chapter in his book, Medical Mavericks profiling Klenner as well as in numerous speeches[17]. Ewan Cameron and Pauling were initially interested in directly testing much stronger Klennerian cancer regimes (e.g. 40 - 50 grams / day) but had too little support (and too much resistance) to proceed past 10 grams/day IV vitamin C for 7- 10 days ("Vitamin C and Cancer", Pauling, 1st ed), a milder Klennerian regime. Klenner's work was acknowledged by Pauling in the foreword of The Clinical Guide to Vitamin C and Pauling's collection at OSU libraries has a copy of Klenner's 1960's book. Thomas Levy, former professor at Tulane medical school, wrote a *whole book* discussing, updating the published evidence on IV vitamin C for various medical conditions in a book dedicated to Klenner and his IV vitamin C work. Cathcart's 1978 interview with the American Chemical Soc acknowledges Klenner's IV ascorbate inspired development of (maximum) oral vitamin C dosing to bowel tolerance for illnesses. Klenner has a recent biography in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2007). Clemetson, whose (fragmented) quotes ca late 1970s/early 80s were used as mainstream sound bites against Pauling in the media as to what had been officially proven, built up data that showed an inverse correlation for histamine and ascorbate in the blood levels and histamine neutralization to hydantoin as another mechanism that support claims of benefits in the Klennerian regimes. Clemetson, a bulwark of mainstream medicine on vitamin C in the 70s/80s press, came to inject infants with 500mg ascobate, a Klennerian first shot, immediately upon signs of adverse vaccine reactions. The recent[18] and current medical trials by Jeanne Drisko at U Kansas are Klennerian levels of IV sodium ascorbate for cancer treatment.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Does appear not to qualify in any part of WP:MUSIC --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony da Costa

Anthony da Costa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable performer, and unreferenced article. Fails all 12 parts of WP:MUSIC criteria for musicians. Likely an autobio. Sasha Callahan 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, no solid assertion of notability by reliable sources. Daniel 08:01, 1 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 University of Illinois at Springfield. Daniel 08:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UIS Journal

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

Failed PROD. Non-notable student newspaper. Sasha Callahan 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into University of Illinois at Springfield page. Can't see any non-trivial coverage by secondary sources so lacks notability for its own article. --BelovedFreak 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete: Article creator here. The page was created as part of a collaboration on Springfield, Illinois, suffice it to say, I didn't put much thought into its creation (obviously). This was also before User:Wiki Wistah/Newspaper articles this page was developed as part of WikiProject Journalism. Those guidelines have been applied often since their inception, and I think they are pretty decent. Anyway, nothing too notable here, a merger could likely cover it. IvoShandor 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Not otherwise notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Edokter • Talk • 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches in the United Church of Canada

List of churches in the United Church of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A long and sprawling directory of non-notable individual churches that belong to the United Church of Canada. Wikipedia is not a directory. Canjth 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Canjth 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. This is not a directory, but a list. Wikipedia has lots of lists. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a directory. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid resaon to keep, Earl. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP ontains many lists--as it should. this is the preferred way of handling this sort of information--more appropriate than individual articles. DGG (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP contains many lists of notable subjects, what makes these notable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, although I'm not the expert to do so. This is one of the two largest Christian Denominations in Canada, which is notable in itself, and many of the parishes are also notable. Also, this complies with WP:LIST. Bearian 13:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. A list of notable churches might be acceptable, but that purpose would be better served by a category. WP:LIST is a style guideline, not a guideline for inclusion or exclusion of articles. Toohool 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT as a directory. As already stated, a list of notable churches in a denomination MAY be notable. However, this appears to be developing into a list of external links, none of which appears to have a notability og their own. Nuttah68 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because Wikipedia is not paper and so we can be pretty inclusive of content; plus, organizing verifiable information in list format is what references do. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What content is being verified? The name of each church? or the link to each ext. site? I think we should remember "Wikipedia is not a LinkFarm". Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- I agree per exit, the subjects are notable, but not the lsit, which is needless. Agree per category remark.JJJ999 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Unsourced, reeks of Original Research (unless someone has a large, verifiable source that isn't a list that this was plagiarized from that contains all the churches in the United Church of Canada?). Deltopia 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft & WP is not a directory or yellow pages, what's next List of McDonald's locations, List of gas stations, List of people in the Manhattan telephone book? c'mon. Carlossuarez46 21:44, 2 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 also. Daniel 08:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull & Keys

Skull & Keys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Google comes up with very few hits for the existence of Skull & Keys, and those that are there are merely passing mentions. There are no articles in news.google.com, and those in books.google.com are also just passing mentions, generally that such and such a person was a member. We need reliable sources to write an article from, or this fails WP:V. Corvus cornix 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and source better If its really been around since 1892 and if people are being mentioned as members in directories, then we should have an article on it. The sources already in the article have info in them, they just aren't formatted cleanly, and you have to read them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have sourced it better if I could have, but I can't find anything to write an article from. What sources in the article can you write an article from? Corvus cornix 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your right in that there is very little, thats the problem of a secret society. But by reading the two references I was able to substantiate all but one paragraph, and now thats flagged. Enough to keep as a stub. Plus you forget to look under "Skull and Keys" in the news archive. Look here [19] at the Oakland Tribune writing about the "running" and other pranks. You always have to search under all variations of person's or an organization's name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think phigam.org is a reliable source. Corvus cornix 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a reason behind your thinking? Its a published article and contains all the references used, and had been unimpeached for 75 years. Why on Earth would you think its unreliable? Did you read it or just look at the url? Do you think its an elaborate fraternity prank? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sources, and appears to be notable. Bearian 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Richard Arthur Norton has provided sufficient details as to prove notability, so I will withdraw this nom. Corvus cornix 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snowball delete. Maxim_(talk) 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drummondville inferno

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

Asserts notability, barely, but doesn't meet the guidelines from what I can see. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What is JHA? What sport do they play? Why are there zero Google hits for "Drummondville Inferno" or "Victoriaville Castors"? Corvus cornix 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no apparent notability. No ghits for "Symon Patry" either. "Simon Patry" + Drummondville gave a handful of hits in French. It's possible "inferno" is an incorrect translation of the team name, so there may be more sources, but at the moment there's nothing really to work with. --BelovedFreak 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Four Ghits for 'Drummondville JHA', none of them meaningful. Corvus cornix 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm guessing the "H" in JHA stands for hockey by the context of the article. But it's not notable by any means. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Drummondville, Quebec and Victoriaville, Quebec both have teams in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL); but the former's team is called the Voltigeurs, and the latter's is called the Tigres. The players listed on the Drummondville team's Web page don't match those given in this article. If the article isn't some sort of hoax, I suppose it refers to a team in a different (and nonnotable, given the absence of online sources) junior hockey league. Deor 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Deor 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. —Deor 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a real league or team. Hoax. --Djsasso 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yep, it's as real as the Federal League in the Slap Shot (film). GoodDay 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To call this a "hoax" gives too much credit to the article creator. Resolute 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If not a hoax, lacks notability.--JForget 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and transwiki. @pple complain 14:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin

International reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This has been nominated once, and closed with no consensus. Now that this is all rather stale news, it is time to review this whole thing again. Here are the main rationales for deletion:

• First of all, and most importantly, this just is not an encyclopedic article. This is just a collection of quotes. Period. This does not belong in an encyclopedia, not by any standard. If you want to transwiki this to Wikiquote, or Wikinews, or any other place, then by all means, be my guest; all I am saying that this just does not belong on Wikipedia.
• Further, I do not believe that this can be made into a good encyclopedic article. The death of Boris Yeltsin was not by any measure notable or noteworthy. He died peacefully, not in office. No reasonable encyclopedic article can be written about his death.
• Wikipedia is not an obituary.
• Wikipedia is not a collection of random quotes. And the quotes themselves are absolutely uninteresting, just the standard platitudes that one produces when world leaders die.
• This is one of the worst examples of recentism on Wikipedia. Surely, Yeltsin did many notable and controversial things in his life, but his death was not one of them. Just because he died in 2007 does not mean that we should gather all these platitudes, condolences, etc., into a Wikipedia article...

There, I hope I have provided enough reasons to satisfy the most ardent inclusionist. Actually, in my view, this is a clearest case for a speedy, or at most a prod; I would have prodded it if this hadn't gone through an AfD already. Hopefully people will be more sensible this time. Ekjon Lok 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki or delete Like you, I don't see what encyclopedic purpose this can be said to serve - it's a collection of the usual platitudes and condolences, not a useful or objective appraisal of his life. And this is a collection of quotes, which Wikipedia is not. Send to Wikiquote. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Move to Wikiquote. Your rationale is well stated and thorough. Should have been deleted the first time, although I can understand how emotions may have gotten involved because of it's recentness (which ironically is exactly why it should have been deleted the first time) Keeper76 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or trans per nom and above. - superβεεcat  22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and transwiki to Wikiquote. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and transwiki to Wikiquote per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki - it's snowing in Moscow. Bearian 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki Or merge into Yeltsin's main article. Tiptopper 00:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Walton^One 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Skochilo

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

Appears to be not notable per our standards. Spin-off AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bektour Iskender. • Lawrence Cohen 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weakish keep Certainly asserts enough notability (award-winning blog, widely cited in the mass-media etc), though sources to support this seem a bit thin. Really needs an impartial Russian speaker to look into the quality of the sources, as the author seems to have a hint of WP:COI, however I'd be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt in the meantime - Wikipedia has enough systematic bias against non-western subjects as it is. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Truly was a media event during the Tulip Revolution (there's a link to her blog from the article) and can be kept, but can be deleted as well. --ssr 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect salient info (ditch the chaff) to Tulip Revolution. Watchingthevitalsigns 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete IMO - NN Tiptopper 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Tulip Revolution. Not notable for EN WP, but possibly for a Kyrgyzstani WP (does one exist?). --Sc straker 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• reply it does, at http://ky.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Chris 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the article exist there? Can we redirect between wiki sites? Is notability on each unique? • Lawrence Cohen 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't render the Kyrgyz characters myself, but the name would be the same as in Russian Елена Скочило but that Kyrgyz WP is much smaller, maybe 2000 articles, so I doubt it exists there. As to notability, far as I understand, in terms of Wiki policy on systemic bias, if someone is notable enough to have an article in their native language, it extends to other Wikipedias. While I was trying to get a spelling on the last name in Cyrillic, I ran across this just by last name http://accidentalrussophile.blogspot.com/2006/02/shout-out-to-lena-skochilo.html , which might argue for some notability. Later these http://morrire.livejournal.com/ and http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=855 The last name brings up dozens of hits for her, and only one other name, a university bomb suspect. Chris 04:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ps-googling in Russian instead of English brings up http://www.photographer.ru/nonstop/author_about.htm?id=20713 and this article http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=pruvbca337903&l=uz&s=v&p=bca&o=337893 in Kazakh, which means she has at least mild renown in neighboring republics as well. That being said, I want to place a vote for keep, this is my old stomping ground and while I do not know her, those circumstances make her notable. Chris 05:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the link to the policy that shows if a subject is notable in one Wiki they are notable for all? I would need to withdraw the nomination based on that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bektour Iskender

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

Nominating for AfD. His notability appears to be just on the cusp of what is fine (maybe!), but I'm inclined to say a weak delete. However, it appears he wrote the article on himself as User:Bektour.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Skochilo, a related AfD. Please review. • Lawrence Cohen 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete-although I am thrilled to see any editor from Central Asia, this selfaggrandizement is bad form. If Bektour is notable, someone else should have written the thing. Chris 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, self-vanity --ssr 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Creative professionals. --Sc straker 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by Rklawton‎ (non-notable (not yet released) indie film). Non-admin closure. shoy 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes of haggard

Dukes of haggard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Probably nn film; production group "White Ninja Productions" sounds fishy to me. OSborn^arf 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per OSborn above Keeper76 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Revenge

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a fairly popular band in the "queercore" or "homocore" genres. See [20] [21] [22] etc. This is one band in a fairly underground genre, but I'm convinced it meets WP:N. - superβεεcat  20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In your first reference, the interviewee says that homocore is "asleep" (not active any more?). Not exactly what I want from a reference. Notablility takes more than getting a mention on a web site somewhere. MarkBul 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability isn't temporary. The genre of homocore may be "asleep", that doesn't say anything about the notability of the band. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Moreover, you picked one line from a person in one band which the article is not predominately about, and totally out of context. So I think kids will come up waving the homocore flag again. It's not dead, it's just asleep.. The spirit of the article is very clearly that the genre is doing well, and the point of including it as a reference was that given the genre, it's an important band, which is why it is pointed out in the article about the genre. - superβεεcat  00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - has significant fan base within queercore scene, (WP:N) and is representative of that scene. Also has coverage in secondary sources. --BelovedFreak 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not only was Best Revenge instrumental in the queercore scene, the band was responsible for the release of the recordings (through their indie label, Spitshine Records) of several other notable queercore artists including Skinjobs, iamloved, and Brian Grillo (of Extra Fancy) to name a few. Also featured in Homocore book. Mackaye 00:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep once the references cited above are added to the article. Side note: Should it trouble us that the record label links to us as the band's bio? Chubbles 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronn Winter

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

Advertisement, seems entirely unnotable and unsourced. (Note: User:Ronnwinter removed "conflict of interest" and "unsourced" templates.) The very model of a minor general 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7, non notable. His fame seems confined to myspace and his website. - superβεεcat  20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not just an NN subject, but awash in Spammish language, and not enough data to turn into even a barely-serviceable stub. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and SALT. 15 minutes after AfD nomination, removed AfD tag, so a pattern of removing tags suggests SALTing. All obvious citations are from MySpace. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO. Accounting4Taste 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've restored the afd template and warned him about removing afd templates. - superβεεcat  21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] División de Honor Juvenil de Fútbol 2004/05

División de Honor Juvenil de Fútbol 2004/05 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

División de Honor Juvenil de Fútbol 2006/07 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Season of a national youth league, and last time I checked we don't cover youth sports on national level. Punkmorten 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe we don't cover them either. We cover 2nd and 3rd tier professional leagues, but not youth, mostly non-professional. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Dominguez

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

I'm unable to verify this. Player is not included at the squad list at our article Club Nacional de Football. Punkmorten 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have a strong suspicion that this article is a hoax. The player is not listed in the "plantel professional" on the Nacional offical website. Also there is no mention of a Roman Dominguez at BDFA [23]. I suspect this person is in the reserves at best. Jogurney 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The BDFA website is suffering problems due to their revamp, so the search function isn't working. I have searched elsewhere and found no mention of him, seems like a hoax to me, and I have no reason to doubt Jogurney's word on the BDFA search. King of the North East (T/C) 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like a hoax. I could not find a mention let alone any support for the article's claims. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those proposing deletion (aside from the nominator) actually say that there should be an article called "Open source games" on Wikipedia, it's just that it needs references and cleanup. There's actually nothing stopping anyone from doing this - editors may feel free to be bold and totally change it, if need be. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open source games

Open source games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V: This article is an essay with claims that are flat-out unverifiable. It defines open source games as having free, non-proprietary content, which is a definition that can never be verified. Even its external links list games that do not fit this definition. The Linux Game Tome, for example, has an entry for Doom 3. This article looks more like a PR spin by some competitor to bash gaming companies that release their source code like Id Software. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tuxide 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator (so I don't get bashed for WP:RUBBISH) My reason for putting this through AFD is that this article consists entirely of unverifiable, original research as pointed out in my nomination, and its external link section is context-free. I am not against seeing such an article on open source games get recreated in a better form, to avoid it getting salted...if there really is such a reason to have an article on this topic. Within good faith, I believe the current article is unredeemable. Tuxide 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with nom; Article isn't supported by any notable sources. Fails WP:V. - Rjd0060 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with List of open source games. Together, they have sufficient WP:RS. Bearian 15:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator obviously fails to qualify the article for deletion. The definition of open source has evolved to be more than just a program's source code. It is a common misconception to claim that open source refers strictly to software. It is now a set of principles and practices. See open source and open source (disambiguation) articles for more details and examples. The following is from the latter:
  
  

  Open content, another term for open source, when the distinction between source and product is less clear.

  
  And the following is from the article's discussion:
  
  

  There is still confusion with "open source" that newbies think it means software, which is not only what it means. We should not give a definition that only includes software and excludes all other products. That would be npov. Here is the definition by Pengo:
  
  

  denotes that a product includes permission to use its source code, design documents, or origins.

  
  Note that "source code" is a form of "origins," so it is redundant.
  
  Here is the broader npov version:

  denotes that the origins of a product are publicly accessible in part or in whole

  
  --- Mr. Ballard 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  
  If open source is the origins, then content is part of those origins and must be open, as least in "part", if not in "whole". Quake 3 Arena's content was never open, neither in part nor in whole.
  
  Indeed, we need an NPOV on this. Implying that "open source games" can exclusively refer to "open source code", disregarding the content is not an NPOV. Why should it suddenly be any different when applied to open source games compared to open source film, open source journalism, open source politics or open source culture? While the open source may be commonly applied to source code, such application is not exclusive, as has been proven by open source article.
  
  The article/definition in question is, in fact, verifiable with a reliable source. The specific example given in the article lists Quake 3 Arena, which can only be acquired via a retail(or online) purchase as a game. Therefore, as a game, Quake 3 Arena cannot be freely published and distributed as open source game due to copyrighted content. The distinction is important, since definition of a video game or computer game confirms that it requires more than just a source code or an engine to qualify for being called a game. Creating an open content to replace the proprietary one and publishing it as open source game qualifies for a distinctly new game, which can no longer be called Quake 3 Arena. Such a project has, in fact, qualified and has been published as an open source game OpenArena.
  
  The Open Source Definition by Open Source Initiative states the following:
  

  Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

  
  Moreover, the term open content has been derived from open source, as has been mentioned before. In fact, the following article] at OpenContent] refers to open content as open source content as an alternative and acceptable definition.
  
  If open source games definition simply does not exist and is unverifiable, then no game can legitimately claim to be "open source". Any game found to make such a claim would, therefore, be deliberately misleading in its description. Open source has never been about proprietary dependence or deliberate obfuscation.
  
  In addition, the suggestion to remove the link to The Linux Game Tome is completely baseless, since the site does not have to cover open source games exclusively to be a great example of one that does cover them extensively, especially because it clearly states the licenses involved with every game listed, so it is not misleading in any way.
  
  I also get a distinct impression from the nominator that his motives are less than sincere. He is making unprofessional and baseless accusations and is drawing personal conclusions without any proof whatsoever, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion in the first place. Contrary to his claims, a "competitor's PR spin" is what seems to be prevalent in his line of reasoning.
  
  And that is all I'm going to say for my part.
  
  --Bristn 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — Bristn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep all it needs is expansion. The meaning of "the external links section is context free" escapes me--it contains relevant links; its not supposed to contain encyclopedic content. And even the nom. thinks the subject is notable. DGG (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator I never said the subject was notable enough for inclusion; I just didn't bother citing WP:N as a reason for deletion. There is already an article called free games which in my opinion is the correct word for what this article is about, but proposing a merge just because I said that would be original research since it doesn't cite the definition either. Since this discussion has already started, I'm not going WP:ALLORNOTHING here. Tuxide 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Going with WP:RUBBISH. The topic itself certainly deserves an article, and I agree with all that was said above to that effect. But then, is the current text on this page an encyclopedic article? A personal blog and a link to the open source definition as references, and three external links the first two of which likely fail even the criteria for external links. So all of the (very short) article text itself is unverified and most of it sounds more like personal opinion. I would say, this AfD was not needed, but instead someone who starts a proper article on this topic. But since the current one is not salvageable, I don't see a problem deleting it for now - of course the result would be that it will be recreated and likely without any better concept and secondary literature, hence the weak. --Allefant 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Video game#Development. This is not a game genre, but "a way in which video games can be developed", belonging in that section. User:Krator (t c) 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator; no delete opinions. Non-admin closure. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The News Leader

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

Non notable news paper. I do note that this userspace essay would like to recommend that all daily newspapers are notable, but doesn't provide a rationale for it, and I personally disagree that they should be automatically notable. I'm bringing the AfD because the speedy tag (the article doesn't even assert notability or have any 3rd party sources) was removed because of that essay and I'm certain a prod would be removed too. I'd like wider community input.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw OK, you guys have convinced me. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Googling it does not suggest any significant independent coverage of the newspaper. Unless some particular notability can be demonstrated, the article seems unjustified. If there are agreed guidelines to suggest that such newspapers should be included I would be prepared to change my mind. Could be kept as a redirect to Gannett Company, and if there's nothing interesting to be said about the paper I would suggest that this is the best option.--Michig 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me (for now). Keep and allow time for expansion.--Michig 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it's a stub, and needs expansion, but it has an infobox, and Gannett indicates a Sunday readership of over 21,000. Maybe this doesn't belong in the article, but a journalist in the paper contributed to a breaking story in USA Today about the Virginia Tech Massacre, see [24]. This article states that a cartoon first published there received nationwide attention [25]. Anyway, seems notable to me. (Some confusion exists about "Daily News Leader" vs just "News Leader"). Novickas 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Re:journalist - to my mind, that's evidence of the Journalist's notability, not the paper's (and notability is not inherited), Re:cartoon - again, that goes towards the cartoon's notability, not the paper's. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add to WP:OUTCOMES. Here's my reasoning behind this. WP:OUTCOMES states that based on precedent, licensed TV and radio stations are generally considered notable based on the limited scope and so forth. While there is no legal limit to the number of papers that can be allowed within a geographic region, the money involved in undertaking and continuing to print a daily newspaper limits the total number of daily newspapers. As of 2000, there were 1,480 daily newspapers operating in the United States, yet 12,717 licensed radio stations. If every city's radio and television stations are considered notable, why would the print media not be notable? I realize this is kind of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I think it's a valid one. By the precedents, the TV station and radio station would be notable, but the daily paper which preceded both of them would not be? Smashville 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm persuaded by Smashville's argument. Also, I don't think this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue; it is not using the existence of other articles as justification, rather, it uses a settled rationale which is applicable for the reasons Smashville has well stated. - superβεεcat  20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Founded 100 years ago? I'd say there's probably notability here. MarkBul 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Daub

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

Notability not established, no WP:SOURCES, problems with WP:V Rackabello 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7, unremarkable band/musician. - superβεεcat  19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, un-sourced and non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The band he belongs to seems to barely squeak by WP:BAND, having appeared in a notable festival at least by Wiki standards...so far.--Sethacus 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Which part of WP:BAND is that? I think I missed it. And I'm not so sure about the notability of Eccentrik. That might be up for debate. -- Ben 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I think Sethacus is saying that the festival appearance would make a speedy delete inappropriate. J Milburn 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. Cool. Thanks. -- Ben 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup. That's what I was getting at, in my own roundabout way. I will say delete, though. Despite his band, Clockwerk, having done "numberous" performances, according to its wiki article, there's no evidence of that in reliable sources. I'm going to bring the band to Afd to see what say the community.--Sethacus 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. He's that guy from Clockwerk, but notability is not inherited. Bearian 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Helfer

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

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Brief appearances on local TV don't meet WP:BIO. As a secondary issue, the article is a WP:COATRACK for pro-smoking views. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Beyond date of birth, the article isn't about Mr. Helfer; good call on the coatrack MastCell - I see it as the primary issue, not secondary. Although it is quite hilarious that there is apparently controversy about a cig actually called an R.I.P. Rest in peace, my smelly friend....Keeper76 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - notability on national vs local arena not established. David Ruben ^Talk 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN Tiptopper 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & merge. Notability issue. Consensus is to merge. Totally unwieldy article name though, so no need for a redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover

Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deleted through prod, then recreated, so taking to AFD. Prod concern was Non-notable mixtape that's not covered by in-depth, non-trivial sources. "Non-trivial" meaning there is nothing beyond a track list and can never expand to include sales, certifications, reviews etc. Punkmorten 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge To Nicole Wray. The album doesn't warrant an article unto itself, but probably deserves mention in the main article. -  superβεεcat  19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: I second  superβεεcat 's comments. Watchingthevitalsigns 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Raus

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

Probably autobiography since the original author was named after Connor's managment/copyright group. Lacks verifiable sources. These might be overcome but little in it asserts much in the way of notability. As to accomplishments, Ghits easily bring up several substantial accusations of plagiarism. Not all can be laid to that but it's still worrying. Pig^man 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What I see here doesn't have notability yet, and the lack of sources is troubling with respect to what is present. I can find nothing to add notability or strong third-party sources. Accounting4Taste 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no verifiable non-trivial sources make this likely vanispamcruftisement. Bigdaddy1981 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Vanity article, most likely by the subject rather then a mgmt. company (notice the instance of bad grammar). Nothing to back any of this up. Notability to come...maybe.--Sethacus 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. --Sc straker 15:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reviewing the arguments put forward in this discussion, the deletes brought up notability and reliable sources, while the keeps generally consisted of arguments like "importance", the frequently-used WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, being 24th on a niche listing, attacking the nominator and Wikipedia's bias, books being mentioned by people and reviewed by other people. Although well-expressed and with some legitimacy, Robert Horning's comments went against the general trend of the consensus about notability, so therefore on the issue of notability his opinion couldn't be given too much weight in forming consensus. All-in-all, I believe that there is a consensus of established Wikipedians who believe this article should be deleted based on legitimate factors. Daniel 08:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No indication of why this book is notable. On Amazon, but with sales rank below 1.1 million. NawlinWiki 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Although amazon and buy.com permit vanity publishers(Not self-published after all) the book seems to be listed in quite a few online bookstores, including those which specialize in textbooks. It's also listed as a resource on BYU's magazine [26]. Considering the specific niche of the subject matter, I believe it passes WP:NB, but only barely. The article needs a lot of improvement, and I'd support a prod if it's not improved. - superβεεcat  18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This book is a very important book in its category and the Book of Mormon studies would be incomplete without it. This book shows all Book of Mormon locations in the old world and how they were discouvered. Cmmmm 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any valuable content to Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon - not clear why this requires another article. Bigdaddy1981 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Main content seems to be a map - which already exists in Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon, so there is nothing in my view to merge. Bigdaddy1981 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is possible for self-published books to be notable, but it would require extremely strong reviews,The listing in the BYU magazine is not a strong review, just a notice in an article about recent books. Listings in online bookstores is not sufficient for notability, no matter how many there are. DGG (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Apparently, it is not self-published, rather it is a Ceder Fort publication. Cursory googling shows this to be (all things considered) an important LDS/mormon publisher. Under WP:NB, I think this most resembles the section regarding academic books, as this is a specialized niche sort of publication, which seems to be sold in a lot of online textbook stores. Therefore, the notability of the publisher can be considered. My knowledge of the actual subject matter (LDS) is negligible at best, so I don't know whether Cthe subject matter itself is addressed elsewhere, or whether it is cited in other religious commentaries. - superβεεcat  19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon per Bigdaddy1981. NN by itself, with zero indy cites, and notability is not inherited. Bearian 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

no evidence that it is worth merging or linking--adding all books on a subject in an article, or a links to an article is spam. DGG (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I got spam asking me to review my vote. I can't say this would be a keeper. One link, here,[27] misspelled endorsement and has 3 reviews from three persons, only one of whom is a scholar, LDS or otherwise. I'm now leaning towards Delete unless I can be convinced the other way. Bearian 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This book is on the Amazon Book of Mormon bestseller list.84.146.194.126 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

where is that list please?DGG (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon if the article is not going to get any larger. I do not see how it can get much larger if it is about the book. But if the creator of the article plans to expand, then Keep, as fairly noteable. --Blue Tie 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge — I personally support the subject of this book, but the article has been around since the 2nd of this month. It is still a stub. Since this doesn't appear to be changing, merge what is useful from this (stub) article into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon then delete this article. If there is significant information available at a later date, then this article can be recreated. At that time, we can evaluate it for notability. — Val42 05:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added information to this article and I now think that this article is better and can stay on wikipedia.Cmmmm 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response All that Cmmmm appears to have added is a list of chapters and a plug for the book by another Mormon scholar (hardly an independent source). NawlinWiki 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge — I have reviewed the additions. These additions seem to provide what was discovered, by whom and when, but don't provide the "Documented Evidences" that would seem to be required for a proper treatment of this book. There are also no independent reviews, and there are no claims of notability for this book. I hate to seem like I'm piling on, but I don't want you to later accuse me of coming up with yet-another-reason-of-shooting-this-article-down.

Like I said above, I support the topic of this article (check my user page), but this article doesn't seem like Wikipedia material. (I had an article speedily deleted, so I certainly can sympathize with you.) Merge the useful information into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but not the obviously copyright-violating map. I would like enough information in that article that it could be split off into two articles: old world and new world. — Val42 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment--confirm deletion I was asked to take another look. The "Endorsements" that were added are not reviews. They are really in the l of book-jacket blurbs, and not publications. People write these for their friends and associates as favors. They are neither reliable or truly third party, for they appear at the discretion of the publisher, and are uniformly favorable, regardless of the book. they have just about the strength of a posted readers review on a site like amazon--perhaps less, because posted reviews are occasionally neutral or negative, and these blurbs never are. And there is no book that doesnt have them. We consistently do not use them in WP. DGG (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Non-notable, no sources or cites, stub, clearly POV in favor of the book. --Orange Mike 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Want the people who want that this book should be deleted a evangelical christian opinion on this book. I think there is a bias against this book here because it presents possible locations and sites for Book of Mormon events and some people do not want books about the Book of Mormon on wikipedia which claim to have found direct evidences for the Book of Mormon. Cmmmm 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm not an evangelical Christian or a Mormon or indeed an opponent of either group and I can assure you my view on the matter is not a result of any such bias. It's a good idea to assume good faith at first. Bigdaddy1981 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think this book fails WP:NB as far as I can tell. Aside from notability of the book itself, the article doesn't seem to consist of anything more than a chapter summary and endorsement blurbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I found out that this book is on the 14th place of the Book of Mormon Bestsellers at amazon.com84.146.210.159 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Being a bestseller in a niche market is not necessarily an indication of notability. The real accepted indicators of notability do not seem to have been met in this case. I would support recreation of the article if independent notability were to be established, but do not at this time. John Carter 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I added a Criticism section.Cmmmm 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

• • Response - 1) sign your entries; 2) "Criticism" sections are not good Wikipedia format; 3) the only "criticism" in that section is a quote from a review on somebody's website, saying one of the guesses is rather iffy. This is still a Strong delete. --Orange Mike 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - we have 54,000 articles on cartoon characters; this is still a rather new article and could use some additional editing, but it would seem it could be expanded and result in a worthy article. There mere fact that the book is mentioned on Amazon is notable! Possible merge, but it would seem like we give it until the end of the month; if the article has not been sufficiently expanded a merge would be appropriate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - No, "mentioned on Amazon" can apply to even the most obscure piece of self-published fluff from a vanity press. There is no article to merge it into. --Orange Mike 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I found a review of this book which is 20 pages long. So nobody can say that there are not any reviews about this book.(review 20 pages)The Wrong Place For Lehi´s Trail and the Valley of Lemuel and I wrote something about Nephi & the Oil Sheiks TourCmmmm 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Nobody claimed there were no reviews of the book (although websites like that are not reliable sources for anything). None of this makes the book notable; and the tour is completely irrelevant to the book's notability. --Orange Mike 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - Besides, if you go to the link you will see that it's a review of an entirely different book!

• Comment I´m outraged that Orange Mike first lies, you can read Review of George Potter and Richard Wellington. Lehi in the Wilder­ness. Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2003. xv + 191 pp., with bibliography. $39.95 on the first page of this review and then edits my comment.Cmmmm 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Lies? You just admitted that that is a review of an entirely different book; where is the lie in that? I'd remove the strikeout, as perhaps not the best way to highlight the false entry, and apologize for that; but it's still a review of an entirely different book altogether, as you yourself admit!

• • • Comment Lehi in the Wilderness is the headtitle of this book and 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History is the subtitle of this book. The reviewer uses always Lehi in the Wilderness, but this is the same book with the same authors and the same publisher.

(for those who can not think) Cmmmm 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • That was unclear; I do apologize. Book articles normally do not include the subtitles (for one thing, the semicolon can mess up some computer links), and this threw me off; if this article is retained, the article title needs to be changed to just Lehi in the Wilderness. Please, assume good faith here. We're all trying to make the Wikipedia better. --Orange Mike 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment it remains the case that a single review does not show the notability of a book. there are several hundred books on the subject of finding the correlation between the events in the Book of Mormon with geography and history: OCLC shows Undoubtedly a few of them are notable. This is not one: The proof of this is that WorldCat shows only 8 libraries holding it--3 of which are branches of BYU and 1 is LC. BYU, of course, collects all books on the subject, notable or not. No other university library in the world has a copy. The subject of the book is notable, the book is not. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I will first say that I have nothing against LDS, and have enjoyed long series of conversations with LDS missionaries in my area. At the same time, I have no connection to the church of LDS. Now, my reasoning. This book seems to be a non-notable example of an arguably notable genre. I'd be happy to see some evidence of notability, but I can't see it either on the page or on this AfD. If there is an article related to this genre or area of study, I'm sure it would be acceptable to mention this book (along with many others) in that article. Even if the article were to be kept, it would require a lot of cleanup (a contents section???). SamBC(talk) 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Speaking as somebody who is LDS and a little more familiar with the LDS Culture, I have never heard of this particular publisher... Cedar Fort Publishing. If it were "mainstream" LDS publishing, it would be something like Deseret Books or Signature Books. Still, a quick Google search found this list of LDS publishers by a group of LDS authors which can be found here: http://www.latterdayauthors.com/ldspublishers.htm Cedar Fort Publishing is listed as one of the companies who has published work from LDS authors in the past, and having published more than just this one book. Another list can be found here, also with Cedar Fort listed: http://www.ldstorymakers.com/ldspubs2.html

  I guess the real issue here is what defines notability. This is not a self-published book, but it is from a smaller press and by authors who are otherwise relatively unknown. If you go into any large bookstore, you will find hundreds or even thousands of books from publishers of this size, covering comparatively obscure topics like this. The line for notability has become somewhat more relaxed over the years for Wikipedia, and with now over 2 million articles, it would be hard to really define the criteria. If it were genuinely a self-published book, I would say delete this article, but that is not the case. And this book is sold in the general LDS book market. --Robert Horning 13:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. At this point, I don't feel that it sufficiently meets any of the criteria. SamBC(talk) 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This book is mentioned by Hugh Nibley84.146.216.186 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I added more comments about this book by LDS organisations and FARMS to show that this book is really important.Cmmmm 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)
• Comment I ask =again, if the LDS think it important, why have so few libraries bought it? Not everything sold in the LDS market is notable. Many other things are--many other books on this topic are held in many libraries. DGG (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This book was written by a private project called the Nephi Project. The books of this project are not as often in libraries as the other LDS books because this project is a private project and not funded by the state of Utah like for example FARMS. But this book is very important for Book of Mormon scholars so it should stay on wikipedia.84.146.235.212 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Sam BC Redirect or merge. Not a page unto itself. Tiptopper 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The subjects covered by this book are referenced in the articles on Nahom and Bountiful (Book of Mormon). This book is also referenced in those articles. However, other books on this same subject exist, some of which are given more weight by LDS scholars. If we were to have an article for this book, we would have to potentially create articles for the others. This is not the only definitive book on the subject matter. In my opinion, it would be better to add the relevant material from this book to the subject articles rather than create an article specifically for this book. Bochica 04:24, 1 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 and redirect. Put frankly, I couldn't find anything substantial to merge, and no-where within the destination article to merge the little that was marge-worthy. If someone wants to merge it, I'll happily undelete the history behind the redirect and they can do so editorially. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do so. Daniel 08:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Matthews Elementary School

Wesley Matthews Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable elementary school. Elementary schools do not generally have inherent notability, and this one only has light assertions of notability (otherwise it would be speedied). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Miami-Dade County Public Schools, just an average elementary school without notability. Nyttend 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This was never put on the main AfD page. I've put it in the September 25 log. Wizardman 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepDelete/ReDirect: There are so many schools, especially related to Miami-Dade County. Every school on the template {{M-DCPS}} has its own page and the majority aren't really notable enough for their own article. That is why they are listed as stubs. Oh, and I already know about WP:WAX but that is an essay, not a guideline. So don't bring it up in reference to my comment. - Rjd0060 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What I will bring up, however, is your meaning: are you saying that WMES is more notable than others, or that articles about nonnotable schools are good enough for stubs, or something else? Nyttend 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I am saying that none of them are notable. Which is why I believe they are all stubs, and could be expanded. Unless the entire problem is going to be corrected (and that means merging all of the non notable schools from {{M-DCPS}} (which is most of them) I am going to say keep on this one. - Rjd0060 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But if they're not notable, why should any of them be kept? Why should they even exist as stubs? Nyttend 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I disagree with going after only one at a time. That is pointless, and well, stupid. They should be nominated in groups. Obviously when admin closes this discussion, it will be a merge but I am just saying this "for the record" that they should all be AFD'd. I am changing mine to Delete/Redirect, but hopefully you understand my point. - Rjd0060 01:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly I disagree as well with that idea as well. Go look at the AFD logs from when this was first nominated: I nominated pretty much all of these schools, but it was kept for procedural reasons because most people thought that the group nomination was a bad idea. You're going to have to nominate them individually if you want them to be deleted. Nyttend 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the people have problems with group AFD's. I dont know why though. They save so much time. I did change my opinion to Delete/Redirect. - Rjd0060 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• merge per nom, most of those below high school in Miami-Dade are non-notable and unworthy of the article space-Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of space-filler. Chris 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Per Nom. Twenty Years 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rantahryu

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

Contested prod. A non-notable method: [28]with possible spam problems. The Evil Spartan 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N. Insufficient reliable third party coverage. - superβεεcat  18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:Notability and I can't find much in the way of third-party coverage, except of the methods of which this is an offshoot of an offshoot. I can't see a way to shoehorn this in as a sentence in Tang Soo Do, for instance; best left uncovered, I suggest. Accounting4Taste 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:Notability kung-fu cruft. Bigdaddy1981 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Zangie

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

A singer whose claim to fame seems to be (1) one album on a minor label (2) once being a backing singer for someone more famous than him, (3) a few singles which were only released on compilation albums and (4) the obligatory MySpace page. Which doesn't seem be enough for WP:MUSIC. Also very promotional in tone (written by User:HypePR) - I thought about tagging it for speedy as spam, but if someone can find more evidence of notability, perhaps it can be rewritten. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Spam. This guy's first album just came out. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool.--Sethacus 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete very non-notable. Probably self written (only contrib by the creator). Keeper76 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, no consensus to move to category. Daniel 08:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of movies that take place in one day or less

List of movies that take place in one day or less (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of films who share only this trivial fact. Almost totally dependent on original research. Still more listcruft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Move to category This is probably something that can service better as a category. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to delete going with majority so that it can be closed and done with. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Move to category Agree--this is one case where a category makes more sense. DGG (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose move to category. I don't care if the list article stays or goes, but save us the trouble of a CFD. This is exactly the type of thing that makes a lousy category—it's a trivial feature of the article's subject, not a defining fact, and the films that share this trait likely have nothing else in particular in common. Furthermore, if it's OR in list form, how much more valid is it going to be when it's an uncited, unelaborated category tag slapped at the bottom of an article? Postdlf 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom / oppose move per Postdlf. - superβεεcat  18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Depends on WP:OR either way. shoy 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research and it would never be complete. I thought of at least 3 movies off the top of my head that weren't on that list. But to add them, I'd have to find a source that says it only took place in one day. Please delete this listcruft. --SGT Tex 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can't bring myself to vote delete or keep. Somewhat interesting bit of trivia, but that seems to be all it is at the moment. Many suspense thrillers take place in the span of less than 24 hours so as not to break the suspense; then there are the "day in the life" type like Ferris Bueller. BTW, Three O'Clock High had an aftermath that took place the day after. Mandsford 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it define "day" by a 24-hour period, or by a calendar day? I'm not sure that's clear. Postdlf 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  That's another problem I have with the concept. Once you get into an arbitrary cutoff point for what's on the list and what's not, it's pure trivia. Producers and directors will sometimes look for a plot that represents a day's worth of story, but rarely does anyone let a time limit get in the way of presenting the film. I doubt that Alfred Hitchcock gave it a second thought when he did Psycho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Mandsford, it seems like a great piece of trivia, but I think it serves as original research as these movies are not particularly notable for the fact that they take place in 24 hours.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• I am most convinced by the arguments to make this a category than anything else, unless if it can be kept as a better referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article / Weak oppose move to category. List has major problems with WP:NOT#IINFO /WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR, and a new category wouldn't help with that. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and oppose categorisation. Bad on so many levels (probably unverifiable, loosely associated, or, the list goes on). Categorisation is pointless as the same problems still arise. Bad bad bad. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reviewing this discussion in detail, there were some very poor rationales presented on both sides, and some very good ones (as well as good responses). I could not find a clear consensus either way after giving certain arguments lower weights, and even if I took it all on face-value, I suspect there wouldn't be a consensus to delete either. If you think I'm going blind and missing key points, please file at WP:DRV. Daniel 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copasetic

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

This article is a dictionary entry with a pop culture section thrown it to make it seem like more than it is (pop culture sections are against policy anyway). I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

There are apparently a couple of users who seem adamant about keeping this although nobody wants to articulate a reason.

--Mcorazao 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think we need to stay on topic here. The question is not whether we can add some interesting discussion in the article. I could add a whole section on the Roman Empire saying that the empire was "copasetic" but that is beside the point. The question here is whether there is an actual subject here. A good test to use is, if I were to substitute the title word with a synonym (say, "acceptable" in this case) would it still make sense and would the subject remain the same. For this article the answer is obviously "no". The thing being discussed here is the word. There is no "concept" of acceptability being discussed (and if the intent is to create an article on that concept then the article is misnamed and the content does not really support it). I agree that there is some interesting annecdotes surrounding the term "copasetic" but Wikipedia is not a collection of interesting annecdotes. Every article should clearly discuss a thing that is independent of what terms might be used to describe it. The terms used to describe things should be listed in Wiktionary (along with their definitions, etymology, and any other relevant information about the words themselves). --Mcorazao 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It already has an entry on Wiktionary, and, as often pointed out Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why I think Wiktionary exists... Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The discussion is more than in a dictionary, the uses are significant, and the discussion can -- and should --be expanded. DGG (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, very much a word with cultural associations (at least two major ones, Bojangles and Apollo). Significantly more than a dictionary definition. At worst, transwiki this referenced material to Wiktionary, which has an earlier unreferenced version of our article on its discussion page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It does look like just a dicdef (etymology and all), but apparently it's a rather unusual word, being of unknown origin, so I think it can be expanded. And since when are "pop culture" sections against policy?--UsaSatsui 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Trivia sections --Mcorazao 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Handling trivia --Mcorazao 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither of those pages are policy, and this page: WP:IPC is more appropriate anyways. It says they're discouraged, but not forbidden. --UsaSatsui 07:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:IPC says they are discouraged and gives good reasons. The "pop culture" list in this article simply lists people who have said this word. Good grief. Are we going to list out the people (notable or not) who say every word in every context (notable or not) in every ridiculously obscure song/movie? That's called a concordance, not an encyclopedia. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • And it's still not "against policy" to have them. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Whether it's "against policy" or "discouraged", IMO, is irrelevant. The essence of the guideline is that it doesn't belong here. "Pop culture" means "trivia", and these "pop culture" events simply list some people who have uttered the word or maybe used it in an obscure song. Hardly encyclopedic. Keeper76 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The word it odd enough that I think it rises to the level of encyclopedic. The pop culture citations are painful - has anyone read a friggin' book in the last 20 years? Wikipedia is long past saving as far as that goes. MarkBul 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a really fancy dictionary. Recury 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons given above as the last three "keeps". It is just a word, to use your "word". Being an "unusual" word doesn't warrant an encyclopedic article, but does warrant what should be a much more interesting wiktionary article. Make the wiktionary article better instead. (right now, it is lacking). And preemptively, I'll add WP:ININ and similarly WP:OTHERSTUFF in case the flood of other "word" articles get cited here as justification... Keeper76 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A "more interesting" wictionary article? I don't think so. Wictionary is not an encyclopedia (See? It goes both ways). --UsaSatsui 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Can't Wiktionary be interesting too? Recury 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course not. Have you ever seen an interesting dictionary? (Seriously, yes, it can, but that doesn't mean information outside what you'd find in a dictionary belongs in Wictionary. The word can have an entry in both Wikipedia and Wictionary.) --UsaSatsui 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Obviously! It is a word! Thats it. Just a word. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Rjd0060 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There are several, perfectly valid articles that are "just a word". Like this one. It's content that counts. An article that can't be more than a dictionary definition should be deleted, this one can be more. --UsaSatsui 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No need to get short UsaSatsui. Your example is rather harsh, and, although I can easily argue that your example is not even in the same league as Copasetic, it is still an ineffective argument by wiki-standards according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Who says ^#%$@*&!^#%@ can't be also nominated or transwikid? You even said it (copasetic) appears to be a "dicdef." What exactly could you or anybody add to make this better that wouldn't be more appropriate in wiktionary? Are you asserting that a wiktionary article can't be interesting, and if it were, than it should be here instead? Really? I still say delete - Keeper76 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, it was the first word that came to mind, and a bit vulgar, but a good choice. I wasn't making a WP:WAX argument, which would be "The F-word has an article, so this should too!". I was just showing that an article -can- be written about a word, and being about a word doesn't automatically exclude it. And for the record, I said it appears to be a dicdef. Upon a closer look, it's more.

• What exactly makes this more "upon closer look?" Its a word, etymology, obscure "uses" in pop culture, and some references (some good, some bad) Dictionary all the way. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• The phrase "It is an unusual English language word in that it is one of the few words of seemingly unknown origin that is not considered slang in contemporary usage" is what does it for me. For me, that asserts the notability of the word outside of it's meaning, and other sources in the article back it up. It can be expanded on, sure, but it's not just a dicdef. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article states that it is "of seemingly unknown origin" and then lists several possibilities for origin. That isn't a "missing" etymology, just "conflicting" or perhaps "controversial" etymologies. Either way, missing or conflicting, it is still more appropriate for wiktionary if that is the ONLY notable thing about a word. Beyond it's etymological anomaly, the word in and of itself is obscure, rarely used, and the references including Mr. Jangles, are a stretch. Keeper76 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The word is interesting in part because of the literary interest of authors such as David Mamet and John O'Hara. Both of them have written about the word, not just used it. Words that have people writing about them (e.g. "fuck") are more notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Folks, I can't understand why we keep getting so far off topic on such a simple issue. The fact that somebody wrote an interesting magazine article about the history of the word has nothing to do with whether the word itself constitutes an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. --Mcorazao 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, it has everything to do with it. The very fact that it has been written about helps to establish it's notability. --UsaSatsui 07:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki this referenced material to Wiktionary. Doesn't matter to me where it is put, but DON'T DELETE as has happened with referenced etymologies etc. of other words that were called "just a dicdef". I vote keep because it gives a portion of history of the english language and of cultural usage. I did a lot of the research for this page so please respect that and transfer completely to wiktionary if deemed inappropriate for wikipedia. Might I add that this should be standard policiy for any AfD deemed just a dicdef. Repliedthemockturtle 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • Repliedthemockturtle, I do respect your work and your editing. It isn't about respect though, it's about appropriateness. Yes you did research. But it belongs in Wiktionary at best, and my vote is for delete AND move. Keeper76 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung and DGG. A mysterious word used by cool folk like high school band directors in the early 1960's, of unknown origin, etymology and meaning. Requires further research to bring to featured article status. 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Edison
• Keep While this is not a dictionary wikipedia can have an article about anything and not only any thing, including words, if there is a enough to write about as in this case. Or, as someone else put it: We don't really want articles about words, but if someone writes a good one, we'll take it. --Tikiwont 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator is dead on here. Plus, its the copasetic thing to do. Burntsauce 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, obviously Wikipedia is consensus-based and I see no indication of a consensus. Any of the "Delete" proponents want to say anything further or is the nomination dead? --Mcorazao 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's dead yet. This was only AfD'd yesterday, and normal AfD policy is to allow about five days of discussion for a consensus to develop. Rob T Firefly 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, don't be so quick to make a judgment. This is a good discussion. --UsaSatsui 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Transwiki nothing but dicdef materials... move it to wiktionary and delete it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's one of my favorite words, but it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article when the dictionary definition does the job nicely. Rob T Firefly 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Copasetic is not the only word in Wikipedia. I just checked and nigger is still in and there seems to be no drive to delete it (and there shouldn't be). Obviously you would not have words like 'table,' 'glass,' or 'chair' in an encyclopedia. However, when a word has specific cultural associations, then that merits an entry. Copasetic is copasetic and should STAY. gar in Oakland 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll assert again, that the two examples given as "reasons to keep copasetic" are really in a completely different LEAGUE of notability based on their varied use, translatability (I know that's not a word), and social context and history. "Copasetic" is just not comparable to fuck and the n-word. Just NOT. Picking out highly controversial words that have shaped entire country's histories (Ok, "fuck" hasn't shaped anything) is not a good argument and is completely crap. Copasetic is an obscure, albeit very cool, word. But it's just a word. It belongs in Wiktionary. IMO. Keeper | 76 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get back on my soapbox again even though I know mine is apparently not a majority viewpoint. Wikipedia is gradually becoming less an encyclopedia and more an "anthology" of interesting writings. I think the philosophy that if you can pick a title and come up with some interesting writings that are related to it then you have an encyclopedia article is not a good one. I think for Wikipedia to be a coherent reference (which an encyclopedia should be) you need to draw the line fairly clearly on what an article is supposed to be (i.e. "interesting" or "notable" is way to vague). I'll reiterate my philosophy that an encyclopedia article should be about a coherent, notable physical entity, event, or concept. Articles about words, essays on "interesting things", and other such articles, while valuable, do not belong in an encyclopedia. An article on the N-word is certainly interesting and some of its content might be appropriate to include in articles on racism, profanity, African American history, or other topics but an article on the word itself, however interesting, is not encyclopedic. --Mcorazao 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is nothing but a dictionary definition. It's not even close. It doesn't even pretend to be anything else. Other times we allow an article about a neologism, it's not for the word itself but the phenomenon surrounding the term. Here there is no such discussion. Wikidemo 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, who seem to have a clear consensus (ie. a combination of number and strength of argument, combined at appropriate weighting). I found the arguments in response to the WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS arguments to be insufficient in closing this as no consensus. Daniel 08:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic Energy

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

Delete, unsalvageable OR and nonsense that I was just a hair away from speedy deleting. This appears to be an attempt to describe fictional representations of "energy" as the basis of superpowers. It is confused from start to finish ("cosmic energy is a fictional type of matter"??), and consists of little more than nonsensical statements ("Several examples of real world Cosmic Energy are: Lighting, Neuclear Energy, Lasers, Fire, and Radiation") and unfounded generalizations. The very premise of this is furthermore flawed, as there is no common use of the term "cosmic energy" from one work of fiction to another, let alone a universal underpinning of the fictional "physics." We already have a list of superpowers that can list and compare. Postdlf 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This article should NOT be deleted becuase their is NO article for Cosmic Energy/Energy Fields and Forces in fiction. There is an article for every character you can imagine, many of whom harness energy, but there is no article for such. Maybe a title change to ENERGY (fiction) is all that is needed. But by no mean should it be deleted. Perhaps rethought, but I thought my job as a Wikipedian was to expand Wikipedia to make it closer to completion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs)

• Delete unsourced OR. --Fredrick day 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, chalked full of original research, and horribly written. Need I say more? --Ghostexorcist 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Ghostexorcist needn't say more as that'll do. To Radman622: If you feel there is something in this copy it to your sandbox and work on it there. Feel free to drop by the Comics Project to ask for feedback when it is fully referenced and we can have a look at it and see if it can be moved back. (Emperor 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

• I did some major editing, but I don't appreciate your personal attacks on how "horribly written" my article was. If it's so bad then why don't you get off your wikibutt AND HELP EDIT IT! The point of wikipedia is not to delete every new article because it is complete, it is to do everything in your power to guide those articles to completion, and make it to where they are not "horribly written". So I'm sorry if I didn't satisfy you high and mighty critics, but anyone can be a critic. It takes a real wikipedian to deliver. Now. I would appreciate any and all help if you can stop insulting me for about ten seconds, look over the article and put your edits in. I'm only an ameture wiki people, give me a break and help me out! Thank you, and I hope I won't have to say it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why so defensive? My comment about your article was NOT a personal attack (see, I can use uppercase letters too). I have been on wikipedia for quite a while, so I can easily tell a good article from a bad one. I personally don't want to help with the article since I have my own to work on. And please sign your name properly with "~~~~" each time you leave a reply. --Ghostexorcist 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the main problem with your article is that cosmic energy has been used in such an inconsistent and vague manner across fictional universes that it would be impossible to create an useful article around such a term. For every usage example you provide, someone is going to provide another that says "no it works this way". Original research is the only way you could complete the article - and we don't do original research. sorry. --Fredrick day 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Never show me the odds. I'm going to create this fricking article, or have my fingers fall off trying. I don't care if it doesn't get made into an article. At least I fufilled my duty as a wikipedian "make wikipedia as complete and accurate as possible." Thank you for your input, thank you for being polite, and I will take that into consdieration when writing the future edits of this article (maybe an edit war will even start). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I applaud you for your enthusiam, but it looks like the article is going to be deleted any way. However, I hope you can rewrite it in your sandbox and actually provide comic book or scholarly book citations to support your claims before activating the page again. --Ghostexorcist 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really believed that this article could be saved, then you'd be advocating that it be turned into a stub for later fleshing out into an article without OR. By advocating to delete, you are saying that this article will never amount to anything. -- Lilwik 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's a "stub" doesn't mean it can be OR either, so I'm confused as to what you think would comprise this hypothetical stub. Postdlf 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you are aware of what a stub usually is! A stub is just a simple description of what the article is to be about, to later be expanded into a real article with real content and sources and everything. The purpose of a stub is to show other articles that they can link to here where there probably will one day be an article, and to encourage editors to help create an article. This article is already a stub, but it's a stub with editing problems that needs to have a bunch of OR cut out and a stub tag added. As always, the solution to OR and bad writing is editing, not AFD. -- Lilwik 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask what stubs look like generally, I asked what a valid stub on this topic (whatever it might be) would consist of, seeing as the posting is 100% OR. What would this "simple description" state and upon what reliable source(s) would it be based? Postdlf 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't actually know what cosmic energy is, but I have heard of it often enough to be pretty sure that it is important. I'm not specifically qualified to work on this article or provide sources for it, but I do know that most of the arguments being put forward for the deletion of this article are actually editing issues. For deletion, we should be arguing about things like notability of cosmic energy. I think before this AFD was started, someone should have done bold editing and replaced the content of this article with something like, "Cosmic energy is a phenomenon related to outerspace in numerous works of fiction," then marked it with citations needed and lacking sources and being a stub, so that people who know what they are doing can make it better. You wouldn't have even needed any discussion to do that, but of course it can't be done while the article is up for AFD. -- Lilwik 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's what you're trying to save here? A single sentence that is meaninglessly vague beyond invoking the generic association of the word "cosmic" with outer space. Move along, folks. There's absolutely nothing to see here. Postdlf 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that is worthy of an article all by itself. I'm suggesting that we make this a stub so it can be brought to the attention of people who look for stubs to flesh out, and to the attention of all the projects who might be interested in it, where people might know more about it than we do, like the Paranormal project and Science Fiction project and the Comics project. I'm saying that if we give it a reasonable chance, it might grow into a good article. It's hasn't been given enough time and it hasn't been categorized properly; there has been no chance for people who might know about this stuff to work on it. -- Lilwik 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced and original research, as indicated above. To the creator: you have several days to improve the article to the point where it can meet our guidelines, but you must ensure that it meets verifiability standards and uses reliable sources to back it up. If it hasn't been written about by others, it's probably not going to fly here, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete LOL trippy!:) To the articles creator- if it does get deleted don't dispair- my first article was too.Merkinsmum 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep. I agree that the current article is no good, but that just means that it needs heavy work done, very heavy work. It should probably be stripped down to the barest essentials and made into a stub. Then we should watch to make sure that no OR is added into it. However, it is such a commonly reference subject that I think it is certain that we should have an article on it. It just needs to be a better article than this. It could be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal maybe, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. A badly written article is grounds for editing, not grounds for deletion. -- Lilwik 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's far more than just poor writing—it doesn't contain a single statement that isn't incorrect or an unverifiable generality. I'm not sure I even know what the subject is supposed to be, as it starts off as if "cosmic energy" is some kind of discrete concept or force (it "resembles rays of colored light"?? according to what?) but then goes on to equivocate any use of the word "energy" in sci-fi/fantasy (and reality) as if it all referred to something similar. It then seems to be some attempt at a fictional unified field theory, using "cosmic energy" as underlying any kind of "energy," yet this clearly isn't something that is an express or even implied premise in every work that has any semblance of the fictional phenomenon listed. It shows no grounding in any particular fictional canon and does not even accurately represent what could be considered common fictional themes. Plus it shows absolutely no understanding of energy in reality, which is kind of necessary if you're going to distinguish what is fictional about its treatment in fiction. The author was clearly making it up as he went along and at best confusedly remembering a few stories he may have read—how else do you explain nonsensical assertions such as the "forms of Cosmic Energy in the real world," or that "electrical energy" is "most commonly used by mechanical characters"? As I said above, the only germ of this that has any validity is in cataloging different superpowers in fiction and their purported physical sources, for which we already have list of superpowers. Postdlf 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that we keep the writing. I'm just suggesting that we keep the article as a stub so that it can be replaced with all new and better writing someday, and scrap most of the current content. Deleting the article is saying that we never want an article about cosmic energy. It's not only saying that this article is worthless, but also that this article cannot ever be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. -- Lilwik 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment- Lilwik, see the articles Energy Energy (spirituality) as you can see these articles cover all the subject matter of this article, the mention of mages etc may be referring to Magic or Magick, though more likely is from online gaming. So you can see we have an article for everything he mentions except the use of an energy in fiction, which is yet to be defined narrowly enough to write an article about, and for the article to decide on its own definition would be original research anyway.Merkinsmum 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Energy in fiction seems to be a fairly big oversight, actually. It is referenced very frequently in fiction to the point where it is more notable than most individual works of fiction that we have articles on. There may be some difficulties in writing a good article on that subject, but that doesn't mean that we should take away people's chance to try. -- Lilwik 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Psychic energy is cosmic energy? Mystical energy? Electrical energy? Who's defining cosmic? Who defines what types of energy are cosmic? Oh, right, a reliable source... Which is notably lacking. Yes, this is Original research of the obvious kind. - jc37 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Radman622 does not know about the Power Cosmic article. --Ghostexorcist 06:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Another article that might be important in this discussion is Cosmic ray, which one might consider a kind of cosmic energy. -- Lilwik 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, because they both use the word "cosmic"? Postdlf 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - original research. GlassFET 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that alot of speculation is neccesary to tie together every fiction ever written, and I understand that many of you will be flabberghasted by the concept of such an article, but the fact that the article contains OR does not mean delete it! I simply means that I need you high and might wikipedians who can so easily sit back and criticize to HELP ME IMPROVE IT! DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN PLAY HOLIER THAN THOU FOR A CHANGE! ARE YOU AFRAID OF WORK? This article has left a sour taste of Wikipedia in my mouth. I try to do my job as a wikipeian which is to expand wikipedia (the ultimate goal of wikipedia is completeness) and what thanks do I get? Personal insults and snide comments! Well let me tell you something. You can do whatever you want to my article, I don't care anymore. I'm not going to even try to save it with critics like you hovering over it, but personal insult I will not stand for. So I'm not even checking in again until a month from now. You people can either sit here and go on and on about my poor writing skills, my lack of knowledge on the subject and my original research, or you can try to make it work like REAL wikipedians. But trust me, I'm not placing any bets on you people. Radman 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs)

• Strong delete - WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NFT & WP:CB are all violated IMO. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of those, but I really don't think WP:NFT applies. There may not be any sources given, but the editors of this article did not make up the concept of cosmic energy themselves. It is a real concept that could have a real encyclopedia article one day. -- Lilwik 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lilwik, I hadn't seen this before but take a look at the Power Cosmic article User:Ghostexorcist pointed out. This is a duplicate article. Radman622 no-one is picking on you, but the entire concept is in that article already, so another one isn't needed- you can do your excellent work there.Merkinsmum 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the concept of cosmic energy doesn't begin or end with the Silver Surfer. I haven't been able to get any specific examples, but I'm almost sure that the concept of cosmic energy has a long and colorful history through science fiction. I'd like to see an article that talks about the various ways that it has been used as an idea in fiction and how that relates to real science. The thing I like most about Wikipedia is the amazing way that no matter what I want to look up, I can almost always find it here. Wikipedia is better than Google, and so it should be, but Google gets 294,000 results on "cosmic energy", and this article is all that Wikipedia has to offer. Wikipedia deserves more than it has now, not less. -- Lilwik 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But as "cosmic" is a word generically used to evoke the wonders and mysteries of outer space, there isn't any reason to think that its pairing with the word "energy" has any consistent meaning across works of fiction beyond a fanciful term raising an obvious connotation of, well, "energy from outer space!!! Woooooooo!!!" (ahem) If it is instead a consistent and substantive concept in fiction (e.g., psionics), then one shouldn't have any problem finding reliable sources that establish that, and meaningfully define the concept through an intertextual synthesis. Until that happens, garbage like this certainly isn't going to be left up just to add "more." And if a reliable source synthesizing "cosmic energy" in fiction has never been published, that objective can't be inaugurated here. Postdlf 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

lol at the theme music Postdlf. I did think the Power Cosmic article could be expanded to include other types of fictional 'stuff'. I've never heard of Silverthingy.:) But Postdlf is right, it would be WP:OR to state that there is a similar force to that posited in many other fictional works, if no-one reliable has said it before (even if it were true.)Merkinsmum 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but who are we to say that it hasn't been done? No one is suggesting leaving this garbage up. All I am suggesting is letting it be a stub for a few months to see if anyone has something useful to edit in about it. I can't claim that I know of any secondary sources that unify the concept of cosmic energy across works of fiction, but they could exist. At the very least this article could become a survey of how cosmic energy appears in various works of fiction, couldn't it? -- Lilwik 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We're (at least I'm) not saying "There shouldn't be an article on this subject" we're saying "The current article is unsalvageable, remove it and if someone can write a better version, they can recreate the article". Having a stub would not achieve anything useful. By all means move to userspace and continue to work on it there, but it doesn't belong in article space until such time as reliable sources can be used to verify that the contents of the article are not original research. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If we remove the article without leaving a stub in its place, then we are exactly saying that there shouldn't be an article on this subject. If there should be an article on this subject then there should be a stub for people to link to and later fill in with a better article than what we have here. Deleting this now would make it much easier for any future article on this subject to be deleted, as well. -- Lilwik 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

em no it wouldn't - a well sourced article making use of multiple realiable sources and avoiding OR is hard to delete. You are making an argument to the future. Policy is clear - this article should be deleted and that is no barrier to recreation in the future. --Fredrick day 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That sort of article is hard to delete, but almost no article ever starts out that way. An article needs to go through a growing process, starting out as a low quality article and slowly improving over time. Obviously the article we have is no starting point, but people will always be able to cite this AfD in deleting any starting-quality article that ever comes up on this subject. And having no stub is hardly an invitation to build an article. -- Lilwik 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And policy does not say that this article should be deleted. It is not clear on that at all. OR and lack of sources is an editing issue. There is no policy that clearly shows this article should be deleted rather than improved. -- Lilwik 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

and what is left if we remove the unsourced or original research material? anyone the question is moot, this article WILL be deleted - it's pretty much WP:SNOW. --Fredrick day 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A stub is left. This isn't WP:SNOW. Someone has to defend articles from being deleted for WP:OR or bad writing, because WP:OR and bad writing aren't grounds for deletion of any article. If you want grounds for deletion, look to WP:N or WP:NFT or similar things that indicate articles that shouldn't exist rather than should be corrected and improved. If we really must delete this article, then turn it into a stub, put it into the correct categories, and then wait a few months to prove that this subject has nowhere it can go. That would be grounds for deletion. -- Lilwik 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lilwik, I think you're generally confused as to policy and the pragmatic consequences of policy. WP:OR means that, where OR is identified as such, it is removed. It isn't tolerated as a gap-filler, and an OR stub is no more permissible than an OR full-length article. Even a stub has to be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Here there simply is no non-OR basis for even identifying and substantiating the article's topic, let alone defining it; you said yourself you don't even really know what it's supposed to be about. Nothing has been submitted out of which a valid stub can be constructed, not even a single valid sentence. And I also disagree that a redlink for a particular article title is somehow more discouraging to development, and less preferable, than completely inaccurate and made-up garbage posted under that title. Further, an article deleted through AFD on the basis of OR does not preclude the posting of an article on the same topic or under the same title that is not OR; the scope of an AFD is always limited to the rationale(s) for deletion. Postdlf 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not every statement needs sources. We are allowed to state the obvious and things which we cannot reasonably expect to ever be disputed. We can make a perfectly good little stub for this article even if none of us know anything substantial about the subject matter. A red link very much encourages an article to be developed, but it also encourages the link to be removed from articles, until soon the problem is solved by forgetting about cosmic energy rather than expanding Wikipedia. -- Lilwik 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to state the obvious and things which we cannot reasonably expect to ever be disputed. so if it's so obvious - what's cosmic energy? Feel free to add two sourced statements to the article that explains it. --Fredrick day 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself clear. We are allowed to make statements like that without sources. We don't source every statement on Wikipedia, only the ones that might be disputed. Just look at what WP:V actually says about the requirement to have statements be verifiable: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. That's not all statements, just some of them. It's only deletionists who try to twist WP:V into meaning that absolutely everything must have a source. Personally, I'm not really in a position to help with this article, but the principle is still the same. -- Lilwik 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't source every statement on Wikipedia, only the ones that might be disputed. Yes and the main part of this HAS been disputed - well actually reading the article, I'd actually dispute every sentence of it. I'm baffled why you are defending this article so much when you have already said you don't have any clue about the content. We are going around in circles here - it is clear from the discussion here that this article WILL be deleted. I have nothing further to say on the matter unless someone improves the article by adding sources. --Fredrick day 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like this discussion, then it would be better if you stopped misinterpreting the statements of others and thereby giving them motivation to correct the misinterpretation. I also have lost interest in this, because the article just isn't that important, but I'm baffled by how you could be unintentionally twisting my words around like that. I never said that there was anything worth keeping in this article. I've said the opposite several times. If you look at the context of the words you quoted from me, you will surely see that I was talking about writing a stub that would contain minimal sources in response to your challenge to me to create a stub that had sources for its every statement. -- Lilwik 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took ALL of the useful information in that article, and made it a stub. You can find it in my userspace here: User:M2Ys4U/Cosmic_Energy. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the most awesome stub I've ever seen. Thank you for that.  : ) Postdlf 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I guess you've convinced me. I wouldn't want to make the stub myself and it seems that no one else here could do it well either. If we can't write a good stub then we have no choice but to delete. If cosmic energy is important enough, I hope that someone will create a new article one day. -- Lilwik 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL User:M2Ys4U, that is, like, the best stub evar!:)Merkinsmum 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete vaguely named, weakly defined, poorly written article. Cleanup would serve no constructive purpose for pointless article. Doczilla 04:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dafna Arad

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

• As stated [in the prior CFD], totally not important figure. I think the article should be deleted. 87.68.192.151 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Seems to meet WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• I still say Delete. I'm sure she's a charming person, but she's no more notable than many of my friends in Israel. --woggly 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established for a performer. Fails WP:MUSIC, nothing about being a notable writer. Vegaswikian 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 are issues with notability and verifiability. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pax Galaxia

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

Notability is my concern here. I have had a look for reviews; Download.com and Gamespace are typical of what I am finding, not exactly WP:Reliable sources (The former, for example, says at one point "We weren't able to test the online capabilities because our network wouldn't let us on, but we imagine this would be a great game to play against others on the Web."), plus the usual dozens and dozens of directory entries. Marasmusine 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is IGN a reliable source? Mikesc86 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  There's no information there. Marasmusine 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rob 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Marismo, what makes you think that Download.com and Gamespace, are reliable sources for a small game like Pax Galaxia? If you want reliable information you should have visited and read the official website, and forums, after all they would know best.

My name is Robert, and I am one of the most active members of the Pax Community, and I saw no errors in the article except for the terms like pusher, nomad, and turtle, which I have pointed out already.

"We weren't able to test the online capabilities because our network wouldn't let us on, but we imagine this would be a great game to play against others on the Web."- you

Many of us in the community find this irrelevent, [29]I mean does it really matter if someone cannot fix up the game? It does not make the article false or unreliable.

No offense but you are not a member of the community, and as far as I can see posses no knowlegde in this area, with alll due respect please leave this article up to us, and restore it to the original version.

PS: Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, I don't really use Wiki other than reading the articles. And sorry if the procedure, or edict is wrong. Rob 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Rob13055

Hi Rob, I'm looking for secondary reliable sources, that is, information published by sources other than the makers and users of the game itself. All subjects need to show that they are notable, by being the subject of such sources. Once notability is asserted, the primary source (i.e. the game and official website) can be used to verify information in the article.

You're right that I'm not a member of the community, and my only knowledge of the game will have to come from reliable sources. But that makes me both neutral (WP:NPOV) and adhere to WP:Verifiability, both important Wikipedia policies. Marasmusine 09:14, 3 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Student Government

Associated Student Government (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is merely a university student body and the only sources are the organisation itself. There is no evidence of notability and its author appears to have a coi. B1atv 16:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. First, the original editor, User:CarsonG, has direct contact with the president of ASG. Note the source information at Image:Asgpresreagan.jpg. WP:COI is in play here. Second, the article is overly deep and relies upon primary sources; no independent sources are cited in the article itself. Finally, I don't see anything in the article that shows the organization as notable outside of TSU-San Marcos. As for the disposition of the article, I do not see the need for this to stand as an article or as a redirect. I think the content could be condensed into two or three paragraphs and included into Texas State University-San Marcos, but I do not see the need for a redirect to remain. —

C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict.

I do know the president of ASG and I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. Even if I did do you believe after reading the article that I have been bias by citing primary source material indicating the exact rights, duites, and powers of the branches of government? If anything I feel this would completely vindicate the position (which is to not have one at all) of objectivity. Only information, no opinions. According to the COI page a conflict of interest exists when an 'editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests....' If that is the reason you have indicted me then I challenge you to show a single instance of my as an editor advancing an outside interest. My only interest is information and in it being available which from what I understand is Wikipedia's goal as well.

Also, I was not aware of that fact that ASG being pertinent to only San Marcos, Austin, and San Antonio is not enough in the eyes of Wikipedia to warrant an article. There are over 28,000 students that attend Texas State University and I simply thought that the students would appreciate access to informaiton about the government that spends their money.

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that because the source is Asgpresreagan.jpg that I have a COI of with the president of ASG? The name of the file is the name and position of the person holding the title currently. Your logic seems to be unreasonably flawed here.

Having ASG listed did not seem like a bad idea at all but after my battles with editors here it seems that there is essentially no chance of saving this article from deletion. Becauce the fight to provide more unbiased information to people about things that effect them will obviously be unsuccessful please go ahead and delete the article.

--CarsonG 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision. Also note that in the references section there are over 10 links to outside sources confirming the notability of ASG to the state of Texas and the students they serve all over the country.--CarsonG 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all of those ten links are external sources, and some of them do not establish notability, e.g. the article that talks about the University putting up a statue of LBJ but only peripherally, in one paragraph, talks about ASG. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You mention "those ten" sources and that some of them are not external. First, there were more than 10 links. Second, which link is an internal link? Which link or links connect to asg.txstate.edu? For that matter I challenge you to point out a link I listed that points to *.txstate.edu at all. Please clarify your statements and cite your assertions with evidence so that I might have a fair chance to reply.

Also your evidence (the LBJ article) that none of the links listed establish notability I believe is absurd. The admin that made the original request simply asked for 3 outside sources talking about ASG and I assume I was also supposed to demonstrate why ASG is notable, as in what have they done to warrant recognition? Out of the 11 or so listed at least a few, including the tuition article, student services fee, and name change are changes that effected not only ALL 28,000 students of the campus, but also the entire staff and faculty. All together we are talking about over 50,000 people. Not to mention all of the kids all over the nation who might recognize Texas State over Southwest Texas.--CarsonG 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no more notable than any other university student government. (If the result is to keep, the title needs a disambiguation page, as the name is identical to that of student governments at other universities and colleges. Western Kentucky University comes to mind, mainly 'cuz it's my alma mater.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is like saying the United States government is no different from any other government therefore the United States Wiki entry should be deleted. A disambiguation page is certainly needed. I never meant to monopolize the article for Associated Student Government. In fact I heartily welcome any other school in the world to include their student government in this article. Student governments are extremely important and deserve to be recognized. To say it is no more notable than any other student government is tantamount to saying Ralkyhick is no more notable than any other person on Wikipedia therefore we should delete him from Wikipedia or that Texas State University, the University of Texas, the University of Maryland, etc etc are not notable compared to each other and so they do not deserve Wiki entries. Sorry Realkyhick but your logic is fatally flawed and will lead to bad administration on Wiki.--CarsonG 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We keep the page for the main student government/student body organisation of major universities, and I think Texas State -San Marcos counts. The title needs to be changed of course. So I changed it to Associated Student Government (Texas State-San Marcos). For the record, we do not have a article about Reakyhick--a user page is something else altogether. But the argument is correct that in the sense that we should have pages for all of this particular group of subjects. they're important in the university. What we shouldn't have is pages on individual students clubs and the like, and pages such a this are the place to put such information. DGG (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To me this seems like a very logical and fair way to set up the entry and I hope your point of view wins out.--CarsonG 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you provide an example of a university that has an article on its student government? I did a quick check if the two I attended, and neither NC State nor Georgia Tech has one--and editors have been aggressively carving out history and other sections from Tech's main article.

Beyond that, I'm still not convinced that ASG warrants an article. After the blocks of text copied from its bylaws, etc. are removed, I think we're left with four paragraphs of original prose. That can be rolled into the uni's article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I found Category:Student governments in the United States. On the other, I note it's thinly populated, and only Washington University Student Union would be from an institution similar in size to TSU. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do not have ANY idea how you could possibly even attempt to claim that Washington University and Texas State are similar in size. Please brush up on your statistics before you go around talking about things you know nothing about. The Washing University's own website claims no more than 6,000 full-time undergraduet students, while TSU broke an enrollment record this year topping out at 28,132 full-time undergraduate students Texas State breaks fall enrollment record. Texas State also includes another couple of thousand graduate and doctoral students as well. So clearly your assertion is completely unfounded. Is this the level of administration here at Wikipedia? Using misinformation to get an article deleted does not seem to be in the interest of Wikipedia or the people who use it so why use it?--CarsonG 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, I'm still not convinced that ASG warrants an article. After the blocks of text copied from its bylaws, etc. are removed, I think we're left with four paragraphs of original prose. That can be rolled into the uni's article. - C.Fred

Right now the article is a stub. After all I did just create it two or three days ago and need more time to put everything up. I am not looking to invest 20+ hours in the entry if I know there is a good chance it will be deleted soon. Nonetheless, as mentioned before this article is pretty much still a stub. There is just so much information to list that a few days is not enough time to post everything.

That point aside. Is it not important to make sure the bylaws and constitutions are included in the page(s) since each governments constitution and/or bylaws are different? Not every government is the same or has the same power. For example the student government of TSU is much more powerful than the student government of UTSA (university of Texas San Antonio). Just because this may be the first, or perhaps more properly one of the first student government entries, this is an opportunity to create a rational and logical system that will provide a place for any student government in the world or someone else interested enough to acknowledge the pros and cons of a student government.--CarsonG 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I propose rolling ASG-San Marcos into the category:Student governments but I also propose retaining a place in the asg disambiguity article as well as the associated student government article redirected to the general category page for Student governments.

• Also as a response to the assertion that only Washington University Student Union would be an institution similar in size that is present on that list is incorrect. At first glance I saw at least once school that compares well. Arizona State University.--CarsonG 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable schoolcruft. One degree of separation from the Southwest Oologah Vo-tech A&M Baptist Community College Linux Users Group. ➪HiDrNick! 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTE. If the organization and its functions are notable, then the article should mention those functions - "The ASG is responsible for a variety of functions on campus, consisting primarily of X, Y, and Z." The specific legislative means and authority for those responsibilities, as shown in bylaws, constitution, etc., is unnecessary - unless those elements of the organization are notable in themselves (i.e. being the first or oldest such constitution). Once those elements are removed, the remainder is one paragraph of "About" and one paragraph under History. The About section should be the lede, and must be revised to present a Neutral POV - the organization's website does not get to write the lede, it must be neutral. The history section, similarly, must also be re-written, and it doesn't really discuss the organization's history, but rather cites an example of the organization's activity. Of the sources, at least half refer to the ASG's site, which isn't an independent source. The other half discuss events and activities unreferenced in the article - those links are nice and all, but nothing in the article says why they demonstrate notability. WP:COI is a serious concern, as noted - and the author's percieved relationship to the organization and its members may comprimise his/her neutrality. I think that this article would be salvageable, but for the notability issue - though I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N, not every student government is inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 2 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. John254 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificer Sergeant Major

Artificer Sergeant Major (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable by not asserting its notability. Also completly unsourced and very poorly-written. Note that the removal of the PROD was not for a valid reason. Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It asserts it's notability in the very first sentence.
  "Artificer Sergeant Major (ASM) is the appointment held by a WOI tradesman in the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), the corps of the British Army whose function is the repair and recovery of all mechanical and electrical equipments of the army."
  It's notable as being an official designation within the British Army. It should have references, but a quick google check shows they're available, just waiting to be added. It needs a little work, but needing a bit of fixing doesn't mean it needs deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflicted) Speedy Keep or merge - it's notable. I couldn't say what to merge it into. I did a little poking around. Is there a list of British Army ranks out there that it could be joined with until there's more subject matter on it? Regardless, if there isn't, it's a definite keep. Into The Fray ^T/C 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a standard army rank in the UK, and w have articles for these. The article needs referencing and expansion, to show the trades included. DGG (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiably exists. Would be good to have information on other warrent officer appointments. Greenshed 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a rank in a large army is obviously notable. Silly nomination. Bigdaddy1981 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's not clear to me - is this a rank, or a job title? If it's just a job title, like Truck Mechanic, Grade I, then Delete. If it is an offical rank, then Keep. MarkBul 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an appointment rather than a rank, I believe, but I see no reason for deletion. A lack of references or poor writing is not a good reason for AfD nomination. The nominator might like to consider improving articles that they feel are deficient rather than nominating them for deletion.--Michig 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I also believe that it is an appointment but it is worthy of an article. The standard of the article is not what it should be judged on, it should be judged on what the article could be. It just needs improving, not deletion. I will attempt a bit now. Woodym555 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If we intend to improve our articles on the British Army such articles are clearly needed. Dimadick 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe start again and rewrite, It don't read too good. But the subject matter , if factual, is notable. Tiptopper 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Peninsula Outlook

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines; no evidence supplied that it is a "famous" school newspaper. Winning a few awards does not automatically confer notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Good grief! I think that's the longest newspaper article I've ever seen, even for commercial newspapers! The paper I work for doesn't have an article that long, and we've won two Pulitzer Prizes. The student paper is not even close to being notable by Wikipedia standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not as strong, but still delete. Needs sources, been tagged that way for a while - and by very nature is unsourceable. Complete OR. I have a strong suspicion that the only contributors are those that know this paper even exists, which would be students at the school, which definitely creates WP:COI and would probably account for the article's obscene length. Has anyone notified the creator directly besides of course with the article tag? Also, the IP (anonymous) posts are all (surprise!) near or probably in, the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The paper has won national awards several times. Here are just two citations [30] [31]. It has been cited by Poynter, was involved in this modest contoversy, and the authors clearly spent a lot of time working on it, even though there's some extraneous stuff (e.g. Nine Ball) and not a lot of sourcing. What was that thing about helping improve and source weak articles instead of deleting them? Some core principle or something, I forget. - 75.3.243.147 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources mentioned do not qualify as non-trivial coverage. After removing all of the extraneous and unsourced stuff in the article, it could easily be merged with the it's high school's article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the prizes mentioned are not distinctive--there are dozens of such awards a year in multiple categories. DGG (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This needs to be chopped down to its rightful size per guidelines, re-sourced, completely rewritten for neutrality, among other problems, and then merged into the HS article. Don't take it personally, but most of the info belongs elsewhere. Get a blog. Keeper | 76 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources, and the mentioned awards are unconvincing. -- Whpq 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Although his death may have generated a focussed degree of fame, I agree with the majority consensus that that does not generate encyclopedic notability. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sébastien Briat

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

Very sad event but it isn't an encyclopedic subject. Had he been better known then my opinion would have been different but here.. circa 300 pertinent hits and article deleted from FR WP Bombastus 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment His death is marked every year by French and German anti-nuclear activists. Does that make his death notable in itself? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, according to a quick search, he seems to be the first anti-nuclear activist who loosed his live during an dry cask storage transport. I will investigate further. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I like a story with a funny ending as much as the next guy, but it's a news item. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. MarkBul 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Sorry he died, but notable only for bizarre death; insufficient notability for his own article. Watchingthevitalsigns 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

article.

• Keep, Sébastien Briat is a famous name in the french anti-nuclear movement. Moreover, the deletion of this article is not deleted in the french WP, some tough discussions are ongoing wether we should keep this article or not. --Ajor 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - falls into the realm of WP:BLP1E for me. -- Whpq 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But he's dead! How can the article falls into the realm of Biography of living people? Ajor 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oops! yo are right. But he is still essentially just a news item. -- Whpq 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Let's wait until the French decide. JASpencer 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Edit. Here is the French debate.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hexayurt

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

This article has a number of problem: there are no reliable third-party sources, notability has not been established, and User:Vinay Gupta appears to have conflict of interest being both an editor of the article and mentioned in it as the inventor. This appears to be a vanity page. GlassFET 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - COI aside, I was unable to find any reliable sources writing about the Hexayurt. -- Whpq 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

In terms of reliable sources about the hexayurt, I'd suggest that you check the *press* page of the web site where you can see a write up including Hexayurt-related material from the New York Times, or the Architecture for Humanity book.

http://www.appropedia.org/Hexayurt_press

for the infrastructure package, there's the following PDF:

http://www.archive.org/download/HexayurtPresentation/Hexayurt_pentagon_presentation.pdf

The main site is http://hexayurt.com/

As for having edited the article - yeah, I had no idea that was an issue - I just added brief factual notes about the project on Appropedia so that people could find it.

--Vinay Gupta 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete none of those are independent WP:RSes. fails WP:N per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 2 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 Already speedily deleted (g1, a7). NawlinWiki 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max kohen

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

Complete and utter hoax Arendedwinter 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - somehow Arendedwinter nominated this for afd at the same time as an admin responded with my request for a speedy deletion. The page is now only a link to this debate. Suggest this debate closed and rump article deleted speedily. B1atv 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As User:B1atv mentioned, I think what happened is it was deleted while I was writing the Afd. It must have gone though and recreated the article. Arendedwinter 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Curci

Most of the article is cruft. Most of the appearance section is unreferenced. If not deleted, it should in the very least, be merged to Nitro Girls. Thanks, Davnel03 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Article should be left alone and not deleted or merged . User:Cowboycaleb1 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have a reason? Davnel03 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You do know that if you don't provide a rational, then the admin will probably just ignore the fact that you even commented, right? The Hybrid 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, most of the Nitro Girls do not have notable careers other than there time in the group (an exception being Stacy Keibler and a few others). There is a precedent for merging the individual articles of the members back into the Nitro Girls article. For example, Amy Crawford, Chae An, Vanessa Sanchez, and Jamie have all been merged and redirected there. Nikki311 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails the notability policy; there are only three different references for her. In addition, the "personal life" section amounts to a trivia/fancruft section, and the appearances section is almost entirely unsourced. I don't even see much worth merging, personally. I say delete it, and then turn it into a redirect. The Hybrid 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I dont think there's any real reason to delete it, because there is nothing wrong with it as it is, but I'd like to know why users think it should be. Xchickenx 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Nikki311. I cleaned up the page a little bit, but she still isn't notable enough to have her own article I guess. --Naha|^(talk) 17:12, 1 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 a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense, speedied for third time. NawlinWiki 15:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke alford

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

Subject of the article does not seem notable. Also, claims in article are unsubstantiated. Parts bordering on hoax, just not a very good one. Arendedwinter 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Arendedwinter 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Precious Roy 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Db-bio.--Sethacus 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scraping for beans

Scraping for beans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The term "Scraping for beans" returns no results when searched on both google and yahoo. Appears to be an entirely original quote. Also, searches for the apparent author of the quote returns no person of notability. Arendedwinter 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Arendedwinter 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails, well, pretty much everything, WP:NN and WP:V for starters. Precious Roy 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Page obviously created by Doug Bartolowits, neologism. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Baseless neologism. "First uttered by Doug Bartolowits", and he will probably will be the last and only person to also utter it. Created by a user named Dougbeans, I'd also call it vanity. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, toss it away like an empty can of beans. NawlinWiki 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete total nonsense. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panthers 2nd Grade

Panthers 2nd Grade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Little claim of notability in article. Author claims extensive media coverage for group, but no sources offered in article and multiple gsearches aren't turning up that coverage. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Only 70 people altogether, half of them 7 and 8 year-olds? Fails WP:NOTABLE badly. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable cricket and social club. Does not meet WP:ORG. No sourcing of the assertions of notability in the article. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as others have said, there is nothing to suggest this club meets the notability guideline, and sources are not provided (and do not appear to exist) to back the claim that the club has celebrity status. Euryalus 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

although not the original editor i am a contributor to the page, I will attempt to source some of the media coverage and provide relevent links. The Western Weekender (a local newspaper) which has a weekly distribution of 25,000 runs a half page article weekly, i cant find this online however will attempt to do so. The sports nest is a program on Western Sydney radio program WOW FM, this show runs 10 minute segmant with reports and calls about the team. I will attempt to provide some verification of notoriety as requested.

• Delete, no independent sources provided and google only shows three hits. John Vandenberg 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn Tiptopper 01:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both the list and the article. Many have commented that the main article on nontheism is just OR. However, a number of other editors have pointed out that it's not OR, and is referenced in the etymology section, which is the case, with reasonable references. This the central reason for deleting the article doesn't really stand up. With the list, there are a wide variety of suggestions with what to do with it. Some would like it deleted, for reasons such as it's an indiscriminate list of information, that it's not sourced properly, and of course because their is no such thing as "nontheism". Many others would like it kept, or are at least ambivalent towards it (which is not really helpful in determining whether to delete or keep the article!) My reasons for keeping the list are that there is nothing stopping editors from sourcing the article more thoroughly, and that it actually is useful to know who counts themselves as a nontheist. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nontheists

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

I have nominated two articles for deletion - Nontheism and List of nontheists.

These two articles should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place to define new terms. There are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. It fails WP:V.
• The definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." This is a definition of atheist. And, there is no reliable source which define nontheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities. Thus, it fails WP:V.
• To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. On list of nontheists many famous people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are identified as a nontheist. Wikipedia is the only place where such label is used.
• Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. There is no point in having separate articles. RS1900 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RS1900 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - Redirect nontheism to atheism, and delete List of nontheists entirely.-- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Floaterfluss, what is/are the reason(s) for your delete/merge recommendation? Nick Graves 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge as per Floaterfluss. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pureblade, Floaterfluss did not give any reasons for his/her recommendation. What are your reasons? Nick Graves 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as suggested--the definition is too controversial, and as stated, does not correspond to the entries. The entries--at least the ones for other lists--seem to use the logical "people, other than theists"-- but however logical, that it not a standard term and proves confusing. DGG (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both.
  • Existence and use of the term is attested to by multiple sources, as cited in the Nontheism article. Words and concepts that are defined by reliable third party sources are legitimate subjects of Wikipedia articles, even if major dictionaries have not yet caught up enough to document them. Besides, non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, so even if one accepts the "it's not in a dictionary, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia" argument, an article on nontheists is in order.
  • The definition is correct, per the OED definitions for non-theist and theist. A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods" or "a person who believes in one God who created and intervenes in the universe."
  • The definition in the List of nontheists is the same as a definition of "atheist," but it is not the definition. As documented in Atheism (a feature article), some definitions of that word specify that only those who deny the existence of a deity are atheists, which would mean that not all nontheists are atheists. Also, agnostics are nontheists, yet agnosticism is commonly considered to be a position distinct from atheism.
  • Calling someone a nontheist is not problematic, as it does not bear the same potentially pejorative sense long carried by the label atheist (as in "godless" or "immoral.") I suppose one could call them "people who do not believe in God," but nontheist is perfectly descriptive of that position--it says the same thing.
  • Wikipedia is not the only place where the label nontheist is used. It has been used by the sources the OED referred to when making its entry for "non-theist," and by the many sources cited in the Nontheism article.
  • Many people do consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. But that is just one point of view among many. Many people also consider nontheism to be a category that contains atheism, but also contains other positions that are not atheism. That's why there ought to be separate articles. A redirect is inappropriate.
  • Whether a term is potentially confusing has no import on whether it ought to have an article. Atheism is a potentially confusing term, with multiple points of view as to its "standard" definition, yet it remains, and ought to. English vocabulary, theology and philosophy aren't always clean and easy to understand, but articles relating to these sometimes messy issues still fulfill the proper role of an encyclopedia.
  • At best, these arguments point to a need for additional sourcing and edits to clarify, not deletion, merging or redirecting. Arguments based on the contention that nontheism = atheism are dependent on a particular point of view, and any action based on such reasoning runs counter to WP:NPOV. Nick Graves 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nick, you are right. Non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. However, Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR.
    • A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal.
    • You said "agnostics are nontheists". That's incorrect. An agnostic believe that the existance of God is unknown. One cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. Agnosticism is a state of neither belief or disbelief. Thus, nontheists are not agnostics.
    • That's your POV.
    • Nick, can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's the problem. RS1900 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nontheism and Delete list. The list is pretty useless, and is often a point of contention except in clear cases of self-identification. But nontheism is a distinctly separate term implying a form of atheistic belief (just like agnosticism is often considered to be in the family of atheistic thought). If necessary, I can go into more detail about the differences, but I feel the article makes this sufficiently clear. To be perfectly honest, only someone who doesn't know squat about the subject could think it is simply an analogy for atheism, just read the source material for pete's sake. VanTucky ^Talk 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way are entries on the list a point of contention? If you're talking about the nontheist groups listed, I'm inclined to agree. I added that section to address concerns of T. Anthony, who favored more inclusiveness for the list. I'd favor deleting that section if other editors agree that it is potentially contentious. What do you mean by self-identification? Do you mean only persons who have specifically used the word "nontheist" for themselves? Can persons who have simply said "I don't believe in God" be considered to have identified themselves as nontheists, even if they don't use the word? I believe they can, given the literal meaning of the word, and the fact that, unlike atheist, nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense. Nick Graves 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nick, you said, "nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense." Well, that's your POV. RS1900 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both. Delete article, Keep list. Nontheist is just a way of saying "not a theist", as is made clear by the word itself and the article. Therefore, the concept of nontheism is sufficiently covered by good coverage of Theism. Most of the article is just explaining the word, which is useless because the meaning of the word is obvious. On the other hand, the list of nontheistic groups is interesting because it shows at a glance the groups that don't require a belief in gods, and the list of nontheists is interesting and it is far easier to assemble than a list of atheists, because atheism is harder to show than nontheism. I think the sources cited are sufficient to show nontheism for the people listed, so there is nothing wrong with this list. -- Lilwik 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Lilwik, even if the meaning of nontheism is obvious, the Nontheism article does a good job of documenting its etymology and the history of its usage, and points out such facts as the word's macaronic nature, which would not be obvious to most readers. Besides, an encyclopedia's job is to document subjects no matter their level of complexity or obviousness. That's why we have such articles as Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Nick Graves 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Okay, you've convinced me. The fact that nontheism isn't in the dictionary just makes it all the more interesting as a topic, since it's a word with a history and a real, interesting etymology that is not in common usage. -- Lilwik 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both The premise of both articles is that there is a belief system called "nontheism" that is not exactly the same as atheism or agnosticism, and that certain famous people are nontheists. The problem I have with both articles is the, pardon the expression, "holier than thou" approach by someone who holds himself or herself out to be a theologian who doesn't need anything to back up statements. Thus, we are told that "Most agnostics are nontheists, though there are some agnostic theists." Was there a survey of some sort? And "All atheists are nontheists in the narrow and broad senses of the word". And "Certain Buddhists believe the Buddha to be a deity". If you were smart, of course, you would KNOW these things already. Sorry, I don't buy it. Mandsford 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments seem odd and self-contradictory. "If you are smart, of course, you would know these things already," makes it sound as though you think the article is correct. "I don't buy it," seems to have the opposite meaning. Are you saying that smart people know these things are true, but you say they're false? -- Lilwik 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such premise to these articles, and I find your tone unnecessarily condescending. johnpseudo 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandsford, your comment borders on being a personal attack. Even if you were correct that the editor has a "holier than thou" attitude, that has no bearing on whether the article should be deleted. If the tone of the prose is haughty, then it ought to be edited accordingly. Tone is not grounds for deletion. The need for sources to back up claims is a substantive criticism, and I have removed the "Nontheist groups" section of the list pending documentation of the claims made there. The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources. Nick Graves 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw gee, three in a row? The "If you were smart" comment was my attempt at sarcasm. The point is that when one challenges someone about a "fact" that is tossed out with no proof, the response is often, "Well everyone knows that!". It's a wonderful tool for manipulation, and something that you should be aware of. This article is full of such "facts", like "most agnostics are nontheists" or, "certain Buddhists" do thus and such. If I were to say "Most patriots are Republicans", would you assume that it was true? Or, more likely, would you say, "Mandford, where's your proof of that?" I didn't intend to attack Nick Graves personally -- I didn't check to see who the authors or contributors were, and I don't know Nick from Adam -- but I do attack the articles. Writing style can be fixed easily, but locating sources isn't as easy a fix. Mandsford 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandsford, don't listen to Nick Graves. He said: "The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources". None of that is true. The definition of the non-theist on List of nontheists is incorrect. List of nontheists is "anything goes" type of list. RS1900 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. Look at the article. Look at the references. The section that Mandsford criticized is gone, since it had no sources. The definition of nontheist in the article is incorrect only if the Oxford English Dictinary is incorrect. Are you contending, RS, that the OED is not a reliable enough source to be worthy of use for Wikipedia articles? The list is not an "anything goes" type of list--it has clear criteria, and all entries are sourced. RS is misrepresenting this article. Nick Graves 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick, you are misrepresenting the List of nontheists. I can inculde even a proponent of Intelligent design who rejects the theistic concept of God on List of nontheists. Thus, both proponents of ID and proponents of atheism can be include on List of nontheists. RS1900 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on the list I think the list is intrinsically worthless because there will be nobody to include. Most of the people now there say they are atheists. They belong in the atheist list if its relevant to their notability--some are.. Agnostics, belong in their appropriate list. Any pantheists, likewise, and deists, and Buddhists, and so forth. So who would be in it--all of the above? we don't do super-lists like that --it would be like a "List of alumni of American colleges, as well as the specific ones. Or "List of major-party members of Congress" Or "List of MPs other than Conservative" There may be some people whose beliefs are so totally nonspecific that they fit in no other category: but that is not a manageable basis for a list, which requires some degree of consistency. How does one classify someone who says "I mean, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I pray three or four times a day." I classify him as as confused. Do we really want a "List of people with confused ideas of religion"? Even if it were useful, it's POV, and would require that they be shown not to have ever said something more definable. Or consider: "I don't believe in God, but I believe God invented four-tracks" --I classify that as a clever phrase that may or may not have any connection to actual religious belief. Further, we don't usually include people in these lists unless it is in some way relevant to their notability or career. I can not see how the fact that some one has such a vague belief can possible have such belief relevant to anything important about themselves. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, none of the people in the list have identified as atheists, agnostics or otherwise — if you can demonstrate otherwise they only need be transferred to the appropriate list. This excludes very minor subdivisions - only a handful of people identify as ignostics, so it would not be appropriate to start a five-name list for them. That very small list, along with people who do not believe in deities but do not identify as atheists, agnostics or other major groups, would belong in the list. Lists (as opposed to categories) very frequently include people to whose notability the subject is not important - including the vast majority of college alumni to which you refer. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, we do do super-lists. Just see Lists of people. SwitChar is right about none of those listed being identified as atheists or agnostics. That's why the list was started in the first place--to document persons who do not have theistic belief, but who, for one reason or another, cannot be definitively categorized as atheist, agnostic, etc. That's one of the advantages that Wikipedia's List of atheists and its sister List of nontheists has over other online sources that document notable people's religious disbelief--the Wikipedia lists apply much more rigorous criteria and base entries only on reliable sources. As for the individual examples you cite, those are only two entries, which alone do not undermine the legitimacy of the entire list. If editors contend that a jokey comment or a confused statement aren't enough for inclusion, then they can be challenged and removed. Nick Graves 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS RS1900 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both. Per the well thought-out arguments of Nick Graves. Nontheism is a useful, well-documented term, and the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. johnpseudo 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Johnpseudo, the word nontheism is not defined by any notable dictionaries as of 2007. The definition of nontheists is totally incorrect. How can we have such article and list? Both should be deleted. You said that the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. Really? Almost all people on List of nontheists have clearly said "I don't believe in God". When someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. And, there is no source which clearly define nontheism. RS1900 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • None of this is true. Nontheist is defined by the OED. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. Mere absence of belief in God or a deity is not atheism under all definitions and given that atheist has a pejorative use it would be unwise to label someone as an atheist if they do not identify as such. There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Really? Nontheism is not defined by the OED. Only non-theist is defined by the OED. In fact, the word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. It fails WP:OR. RS1900 12:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Please read what I said, RS. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. ... There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. The term nontheism meets WP:NEO as it has been well-documented, per the sources in its article. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick graves... very good and exhaustive argument.JJJ999 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for Nontheism - references are clearly provided in the article. If there is reason to dispute these, I suggest taking it up on Talk first. At worst, move to non-theistic, which apparentely is in the dictionary. Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, you are right. References are clearly provided in the article. However, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's why, we don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you find a single source in which the Sun is not connected to the Solar System? Perhaps those articles should be merged as well. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Switch, please define the term 'Nontheism'. I am not asking you to define non-theist. What is nontheism? Please define. RS1900 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • As I said, Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. ... There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. If you want a definition, you could easily try the article itself or its sources. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for List of nontheists. Few of those listed seem to identify as non-theists, and this issue seems to be better covered by the other lists (although note that the consensus is that "Lists of people" are rather dubious generally, as we can't be sure whether a person should be classified as such, and it risks violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Mdwh, the other lists do cover the vast majority of nontheists. However, this list fulfills a useful role by listing person who do not fit the criteria of the other lists, but who can clearly be identified as nontheists. I do not believe self-identification by the specific term "nontheist" is necessary for inclusion in the case of this list, since, unlike atheist, nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term, and is merely descriptive of someone holding a stance that can be documented by a reliable source. Nick Graves 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And, who set the criteria? Who decides which word is pejorative or not? Nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term because it is an unknown term. It is simply an obscure and ill-defined term. People simply don't use such terms and famous people who are categorized as a nontheist have never used such term. RS1900 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The criteria are set by the editors of the article--what's your point? The word atheist is potentially pejorative due to the fact that it has been used as an insult meaning "immoral." This is documented by reliable sources in the Atheism article. Nontheist is not an unknown term. It's in the OED, as already pointed out numerous times. If you still think the word is ill-defined, I suppose you can take it up with the editors of that work. By Wikipedia's standards, however, the OED is a reliable source. Why do you insist that someone must use a term for themselves for it to be applicable? Protagoras was no less an agnostic for not having used the term for himself. His agnostic views are documented in his writings, and it is perfectly appropriate to call him an agnostic. The same is true in the case of calling people who say "I don't believe in God" nontheists. Nick Graves 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nick, how can you say that atheist is potentially pejorative? In UK, France, other EU countries, China, and in many other countries, the views of atheists are respected. The term 'non-theist' is not used that much. And, a non-theist can believe in an impersonal God or non-theistic God. RS1900 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nontheism and Delete list. I echo VanTucky above, for pete's sake. --Evb-wiki 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Evb-wiki, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. We don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Try reading this academic article. And this article, which discusses Christianity and "practical nontheism," also the theme of two books reviewed here, suggesting that "taking leave of God is not the same as Godlessness." Atheism is a belief system, while nontheism is not necessarily a belief system. --Evb-wiki 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Atheism is not a belief system. As an atheist, I simply don't believe in God. And, I don't care whether you believe in 1 God, 10 Gods or don't believe in any God. Atheists do not believe in God. That's it. RS1900 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's nice to know your POV on the matter RS, but you should leave it at the door when you enter the realm of editing Wikipedia. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Aww. What about WP:Civil and WP:AGF? If you continue with this sort of tone, we cannot have a constructive dialog. Atheism is not a belief system. And, that's not my point of view. RS1900 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Just a reminder RS. As the discussions on the atheism article clearly show, as does the article in its current, NPOV form, the word atheism has several meanings, from nontheism to antitheism, and it has been used as a pejorative frequently, including in recent times. That the term atheist is synonymous with nontheist and not at all potentially pejorative is entirely your own POV. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the hopelessly open ended list. Artw 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Recently List of Christians was deleted. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). Unencyclopedic lists and articles must be deleted. RS1900 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • List of Christians had serious problems that List of nontheists does not have. The membership on the List of Christians did not have sources to support each one, and the rules for membership were vague and went against the rules for Wikipedia lists because of that. In contrast, the List of nontheists has support for each entry and simple rules for membership in the list, as simple as the definition of theism. -- Lilwik 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a difference. On List of nontheists, people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are also listed as a nontheist. And, please look at the definiton of nontheist. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." I tried to find a source where nontheist is defined like this. I couldn't find any source. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If "a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God," how can you argue that nontheism and atheism be covered in the same article? --Evb-wiki 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not agruing that nontheism and atheism should covered in the same article. Nontheism is not defined yet. However, non-theist is defined as someone who is not a theist. RS1900 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I must have misunderstood the comment in your nomination saying, "There is no point in having separate articles." --Evb-wiki 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I was talking about the article Deism. Deist don't believe in a personal God. However, they do believe in an impersonal God. RS1900 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Your explanation is not clear to me. You have nicely broken down the meaning of nontheist according to Oxford and it matches the meaning given by the list. Yet you say it does not match? If a nontheist is someone who is not a theist and a theist is someone who believes in God or gods, then through the simplest of logic we directly derive that a nontheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods. Of course we have people on the list who state they do not believe in God; that describes everyone on the list. What has being personal or impersonal got to do with that? Please do not take offense, I merely find your reasoning to be not clearly explained. -- Lilwik 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Please read what I wrote carefully. Theist is someone who believes in God or gods. Here theistic God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other word, theist is a person who believe in a God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A person can reject the concept of personal God (God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent) and believe in an impersonal God. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as miracles and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. There are many people who believe in an impersonal God and reject the concept of divine intervention. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
            • That is not the definition of a personal god RS. Please read the appropriate article. Further, a theist (per your own definition) is not someone who believes in a personal god, but merely someone who believes in a deity. Therefore, a nontheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. Therefore, the list should contain people who do not believe in deities, as it does. Nontheists of a more specific nature, such as those identifying as belonging to major groups of nonthiesm such as atheism or agnosticism, are placed in the more precise list. Regardless of your entire argument, someone who does not believe in any god neither matches the most restrictive definition of an atheist, nor are they a theist. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
              • A theist is someone who believes in a deity. But what kind of a deity? A deity which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A personal who rejects the concept of theistic God is called deist. RS1900 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
                • The type of deity is unimportant, RS; one who believes in a deity is a theist. However, I seem to be unable to understand what relevance your argument has to this discussion. Are you suggesting that the people listed are in fact deists? That would most certainly be original research. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • No, a non-theist can believe in a non-theistic God. Many physicists, chemists, and other scientists believe in a creator but they don't believe in a personal God. They believe in an impersonal God. For example, Thomas Alva Edison didn't believe in the God of religions; however, he believed in "the Supreme intelligence that rules matter". I am not suggesting that people listed on List of nontheists are deists, they are atheist. A non-theists do not believe in a personal God and they may or may not believe in an impersonal God. If a person do not believe in a personal and impersonal God, he is an atheist. If a person believe in an impersonal God but reject the concept of a personal God, he is a deist. If a person believe in a personal God, and believe that the existance of an impersonal God is unknown, he is an agnostic deist. The list of nontheists is not required. RS1900 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Artw, how is the list hopelessly open-ended. The inclusion criteria are clearly defined. There is a finite supply of notable people whose nontheism can be reliably documented. Nick Graves 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --RucasHost 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article, delete list. V35322 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have time to go over your new arguments just yet RS1, will do so later.JJJ999 05:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both per the Nick Graves. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article, no opinion on list. Dictionary inclusion is not a requirement, the term is attested and has a reliable definition distinct from atheist. Article is referenced, and I don't really see the problem. SamBC(talk) 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete list, keep article. The article has some good content and will continue to grow and develop. The list, like most other such belief lists, it's basically an indiscriminate collection that would better be served as a category if even such a thing were needed. Prominent or notable nontheists can be discussed in the article without the need for such a list (note: that is not a merge vote as such content should be in prose form in the article, not in a list form). violet/riga (t) 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Violetriga, the list criteria are clearly defined, so I do not see how the list is an indiscriminate collection of information. Categories do not perform the same function as lists, since they cannot contain references or substantiating quotes. Nick Graves 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further, lists may include people in unrelated fields, whereas categories are preferably applied only to people whose notability is directly connected to the category's subject. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article for sure, but I have mixed feelings about the list. The reason the list exists is a very internal to Wikipedia, and can be hard for other people to understand. We don't want to list people as atheists, unless they either self-identify or explicitly and state they believe that God does not exist. However, if someone just says "I don't believe in God", he isn't allowed on the list of atheists, but he is allowed here. Essentially, we have "List of strong atheists and self-identifying atheists" and "List of weak atheists and self-identifying non-theists". In some sense, this is a very long-sought for compromise between editors of different POVs, I wouldn't throw it out the window, instead I wish it was more clear to the reader what is going on here. Many people would consider the statement "Personally, I don't believe in God at all" as atheist, while something like "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God" seems to me much weaker, and the person just happened to use a strong atheism formulation. Anyway, my conclusion is then a weak keep for the list, because although I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, the list is a difficult compromise on a very sensitive topic: the definition of atheism. --Merzul 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merzul, When someone says "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God", he is a confused person. He may wake up the next day and say "I believe in God". However, when someone clearly says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't that second agnostic? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, and in some cases its a synonym. Certainly some of the people on this list are strong atheists by any definition based on the information shown about them here & elsewhere. Weak conception.: list of people who have at one time or another said "I dont believe in a personal god"--that's not defined enough to be usable.DGG (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both, per cogent arguments of Nick Graves. Nihil novi 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article, per Nick Graves and because the root of the term "non-theist" is defined by OED, which makes the slight variation "Nontheism" not WP:OR. Also, while the prose needs a lot of work, there is definite potential to expand. Also seems like there is only one editor (the nominator him/herself) vehemently for the deletion and their only points were well refuted by Graves in his original response. The list is weaker as the names are not self-identified as non-theists and many could object to "Nontheist" as soon as "Atheist." Adam McCormick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness, I do see a handful of "delete" recommendations above. And more for just the list. --Evb-wiki 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, how do you define the term 'atheist'? An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. So, why do we have people who have clearly said "I don't believe in God" listed on List of nontheists? It simply doesn't make any sense. RS1900 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it is because the class of nontheists is broader than the class of atheists. All atheists are nontheists, but not all notheists are atheists. That might explain it. --Evb-wiki 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, we don't need a kind of super-list, do we? The definition of the term 'atheist' is quite strainghtforward. An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. Thus, when someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem with atheism is that not everyone shares your POV on what atheism means. Another common usage of the word has atheist mean a person who believes that gods don't exist. In that case, simply saying, "I don't believe in God," would not necessarily make you an atheist. Nontheism does not suffer from that difficulty. -- Lilwik 04:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
            • According to the OED, the definition of atheist is: atheist n a person who does not believe in God. So, that not my POV. Atheism is not a belief system. And, one more thing: Can you find a single who says, "I don't believe in God and I think God exist"? No. Only a foolish individual will say that. A person who says, "I don't believe in God" think that there is no God or there is almost certainly no God. RS1900 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A comment is not a "vehement" statement. I see only two votes for delete with reasoning beyond "per nom" and only one person responding to the many "Keep" arguments. Furthermore, one of those "Delete" comments concerned the text of the article rather than its subject. Adam McCormick 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: RS1900 is to be commended for the rigor of his thinking.

• If it were up to me, self-described "agnostics" would be classified as "atheists" since, if they can't decide whether there is a God/god, they cannot be said to believe in one; and a person who does not believe in a God/god is an atheist.

• Unfortunately, as with other belief or non-belief systems, the universe of atheism has become splintered, partly due to bigots who have freighted a simple concept with pejorative baggage.

• A fairly neutral (probably because less known) term is "nontheism," which may perhaps serve as an umbrella term — not only for "atheism" and "agnosticism" but also for belief systems, many of them Asian, that have not thought even to make use of the concept of divinity.

• So I shall stick — happily — with "nontheism."

• (If someone spots an illogicality in any of the foregoing, I would appreciate having it brought to my attention.) Nihil novi 05:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Nihil novi Nihil novi, an agnostic doesn't believe or disbelieve in God or Gods. And, atheists don't believe in God or Gods. There is a clear difference between atheists and agnostics. Please try to understand agnosticism before you make any comment. Please read the work of agnostics like Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. RS1900 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Nontheism as per Nick Graves and others. --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep List of nontheists as per Nick Graves and others --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any specific reason why the AfD covers 2 articles that are in many ways completely different? Why have the initial posters calling for delete not responded to additional comment? --Statsone 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The initial poster was RS1900 — who has indeed been doing valiant combat with the forces of godless nontheism. Nihil novi 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep for the article - a useful contribution in an area where shades of meaning are difficult and contentious - yes, valuable. Weak delete for the list - defining a list by a negative is not a good idea. Snalwibma 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Snalwibma: Why do you think that defining a list by a negative is a bad idea? Nick Graves 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete for List of nontheists Abstain for Nontheism. Michaelkulov 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Michaelkulov: what are the reasons for your recommendation? Nick Graves 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

please see my comment below; i've argued enough on the pointlessness of the list in the list itself, but i've decided not to opt for the deletion of the article due to its history. Michaelkulov 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth striking/editing your original comment to help the closing admin get an overview of views. SamBC(talk) 00:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, doing that now. Michaelkulov 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy KEEP Nontheism. This is akin to deleting and redirecting Protestantism to Christianity because the former is one of the forms of the latter. The term nontheism/nontheist has been around since at least the 1800s according to OED. The term has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism, which all need to be explained thoroughly. It makes no sense to redirect one name to another, much broader name, when both names have their own varied histories. Abstain for List of nontheists. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 15:55Z

Pretty good point with the article. You could probably toss the list and keep the article. Michaelkulov 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do we have articles like Nonbelieve, Disbelieve, and Non-religion? No. Do we have lists like List of nonbelievers, List of disbelievers and List of non-religious people? No. We simply don't have such articles and lists because we don't need them. Brian, you said "the term (nontheism) has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism." Brian, what are those differences? And, there is an article called 'Deism'. Someone should clearly state how nontheism is different from atheism and deism. If somebody can clearly state those differences, then the article 'Nontheism' should not be deleted. As far as List of nontheists is concerned, it should be deleted. How do you define the term 'atheist'? According to the OED, following is the definition of 'atheist':

atheist n a person who does not believe in God.

On List of nontheists, we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in God. They should be on List of atheists. And, I also believe that we should divide the List of atheists into two sections. There are atheists who actively promote atheism and there are atheists who don't promote atheism. There is a difference. One section should be for those who promote atheism (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and the other section should be for those who do not promote atheism and keep their atheism private (e.g. Linus Pauling). RS1900 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article, Agnostic on the list. I reject the argument that if something isn't in the dictionary it is WP:OR or WP:NEO, as there are lots of reliable sources other than dictionaries. Nontheism is covered by many, such as the book "Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism". As for the list, I personally think it's pointless and unmaintainable, (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Since Nick Graves had solid arguments about the list and I don't, I'll refrain from further comment. Billgordon1099 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Observation it seems that some criticism is of the implementation of the list, not of its existence. Based on sources and arguments given here, it would seem that atheists are a subset of nontheists (or non-theists, I don't think that the hyphen is important). Nontheists reject theism, where theism is the idea of a personal and active god. Therefore deists are a subset of nontheists, as are atheists, as are a number of other groups and categories and an arguably infinite number of personal beliefs that people have. If a person has professed beliefs that mark them as nontheists, then it's reasonable to include them. Editorial judgement may lead to consensus that if a person belongs to a more specific group that already has a list of its own (such as atheists, I believe), then it is better to include that person on the other list, and link to all such other lists. These comments aren't entirely relevant to the article, except where they may indicate ways in which the article ought to be refocussed. If the list were to meet the description I give, or there was a resolution to refactor it as such, then I would strongly and firmly suggest keeping the list as well as the article. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, what you describe is exactly what the list was until a few days ago: See this version. The list prior to this AfD discussion included links to lists of other people whose stances, according to one definition of the word, qualify as nontheistic. Mandsford above objected to the unsupported comments made in that section of the list, so I deleted it until I could supply the appropriate sources to support that section.
  • I must say, I'm mystified by the large number of people recommending keeping the Nontheism article, but recommending deleting the list, or pointedly abstaining from making a recommendation concerning the list. Perhaps it is because of a residual distaste for the numerous lists of people by belief that fail to maintain clear or restrictive enough inclusion criteria, or that fail to provide sources to back up their content. Neither of these flaws are present in this list. As far as such lists go, List of nontheists is actually a stellar example of maintainability and thorough sourcing, as are its sister lists List of atheists and List of agnostics (unfortunately, I cannot say the same for List of humanists, though I intend to do what I can to fix that soon).
  • I suspect that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, candidly cited by Billgordon, has more to do with why people are recommending deletion of the list than anything else. I have yet to see what I would consider to be a well-supported, policy-citing reason for deletion of the list. There have been some who have recommended deletion without saying why. RS's assertion of WP:V violation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does any objection citing WP:OR, as all the content is backed up by reliable sources. The fact is that the list has been well-maintained. I recall reading an argument that lists should not be defined by a negative, and I agree that this is generally true (eg. we wouldn't want a list of all celebrities who have not appeared on SNL--such a list would be massive, and the lists of SNL hosts and musical guests renders the list pointless). However, while List of nontheists appears on the face of it to be a list defined by a negative, what it documents in practice is people who have said they do not believe in God or gods. That's a positive action made by a small minority of people, and is culturally significant in a world where the vast majority of people do believe in God.
  • It has been said that the list is pointless. I suppose if someone is not interested in whether someone does or does not believe in deities, then the list is pointless to them. I'm personally not interested in who is or isn't a vegan. But there are Wikipedia readers who are interested in vegans, and those who are interested in nontheists. A list of nontheists would be of interest to readers who are also nontheists, or those interested in religion, philosophy, or the sociology of belief. It doesn't have to interest everyone to have a point, or to be kept in the encyclopedia.
  • To help understand why this list does have a point, I should say something regarding the reason the nontheist list was started in the first place. About a year ago, the List of atheists was in a sorry state, with virtually no sourcing, and little regard for inclusion criteria. There were people listed whose only profession of "atheism" had been some disparaging comment about the church, or about the Bible. Numerous celebrities , such as Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, or Angelina Jolie (gee, which of these is not like the other? :-) would be repeatedly added by various editors, with no care taken to research what their (ir)religious beliefs actually were, or using unreliable and highly speculative sources. Since that time, several other editors and I have tried to turn the list around into something manageable, well-sourced, and free of potential WP:BLP violations. The occasional unsourced "drive-by" additions are still made, but they're usually reverted quickly by one of the editors (I must commend Ian Rose in particular, who has tirelessly and uncompromisingly kept up this valuable maintenance activity).
  • A speed bump was encountered, however, when some editors (including RS) wished to include persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God, but had not been identified as an atheist by themselves or a reliable source. RS has maintained that all people who don't believe in God are atheists. And I agree that they are atheists by one definition of the word. However, I have maintained that such persons should not be included, primarily becase (1) many people consider an atheist only to be someone who outright denies the existence of God, and (2) atheist has a history of being used in a pejorative sense, making it unacceptable (primarily for WP:BLP reasons) for editors here to identify someone as an atheist without citing a reliable source that does so.
  • A compromise was found by SwitChar in the form of List of nontheists, where such people could be listed without making a POV ruling in favor of a particular definition of atheist, and without potentially violating WP:BLP. RS has objected to this, and suggested a merger of the two lists at one point, but his position has not gained consensus support among editors of the lists. Since its creation, List of nontheists has served as a valuable repository for listing persons whose position on the existence of God cannot be definitively classified as atheistic or agnostic, but which can be classified as nontheistic. Several of the people listed there have been moved to the other lists when sources were found documenting more specific positions, so the List of nontheists has helped with the development of the other lists. So no, it's not a pointless list. It serves a purpose, and has done so admirably. Nick Graves 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Given those points of history, and reasoned arguments, I definitely support keeping the list, provided that the list returns to the state I described (and it sounds like it will). SamBC(talk) 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Nick, let me give you an example: Let say X do not believe in God. X doesn't consider himself an atheist because of your reasons. He also considers nontheism to be a synonym for atheism. By this logic, he will not consider himself a nontheist because he considers nontheism to be just another term for atheism! If persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God cannot be included on List of atheists or List of agnostics, then they should not be included on any lists. Their beliefs (or lack of it) are disputed. I think we need a seperate list for people whose beliefs are disputed. Do we have any such list? RS1900 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • This does raise the interesting point of WP:BLP concerns. It's worth considering caution in the cases of living people. It's also true that using a statement of "I don't believe in a personal god" to infer "I am a nontheist" may be seen as synthesis. I maintain that there's nothing improper with the existence of the list, but these concerns must be clearly addressed. For example, the synthesis issue may be alleviated if the text of the page makes it clear that the use of "nontheist" in the title is a sort of shorthand, and that people included on the list may have simply made a statement that clearly implies nontheism (with a description of what sort of statement that may be). SamBC(talk) 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The word 'nontheist' is clearly defined for the list and it's not an extraordinary definition. There is no original research in using a word to mean its definition. If people have claimed to not believe in God then they have claimed to be nontheists. That's not inference, that is just the definition of the word nontheist. It's not original research to rephrase a source in different words. And since the people in the list are self-described in that way, there shouldn't be a BLP concern either, so long as we are absolutely certain that they really did say what our source says they said, and they said it publicly so that it is common knowledge. Obviously we don't want to list anyone here who doesn't want to be thought of as a nontheist, but is surely not true for people who publicly claim to not believe in God. (It's not so surely true for atheism, unfortunately.)-- Lilwik 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The advantage of nontheist over atheist, as RS wants, is that nontheist is a strictly defined word, explicit in its meaning, which has never been pejorative. It does not encounter the same WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues as the list of atheists would if we were to include people such as Andy Partridge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep both Both Nontheism and List of nontheists should not be deleted. If a guy says,'I don't believe in God', he may or may not be an atheist. An Agnostic can also say 'Listen guys, I don't believe in God'. For example, here is the view of American economist Milton Friedman , the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1976.

“I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected.[32]

Here, Dr. Freidman has clearly said "I do not ‘believe in’ God" and also explained why he is not an atheist and why he considered himself an agnostic. The quote from Milton Friedman illustrates precisely why we cannot categorize someone as an atheist just because they do not believe in a deity. It is not enough for someone to simply say they don't believe in God in order to identify them as an atheist, since they might hold a position similar to that of Friedman's. Please read the argument between Nick Graves and me on the talk page of List of nontheists before making any comment here. Before even I was confused. Merzul was also confused. Nick Graves clearly explained why we need the List of nontheists. Please see the talk page of List of nontheists. Jai Raj K 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Jai Raj K is a sockpuppet of RS1900. I am still gathering my evidence, but I thought that should be noted here. In any case, Jai Raj K is a very new account with few other edits unreleated to this AfD. Nick Graves 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick Graves, you are a lier and a blackmailer. If Jai Raj K and I were the same person why would I ever vote 'Keep'? I am not Jai Raj K and I have no relations with him. Both the article Nontheism and List of nontheists should be deleted. RS1900 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article, Delete list. I grok the distinction being made between non-theist and a-theist. The list is just inviting trouble. JJL 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you specify what trouble you think it is inviting? Nick Graves 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Given that this term does not seem to be often used by the people to whom it is applied--the examples cited in the list don't seem to have been of people quoted as saying "I am a nontheist" and the lack of dictionary references to the term makes me doubt there'll be much by way of secondary sources--putting people on the list could be OR. Note, the nontheism article says "(nontheism) can be applied to..." which sounds weasally to me: It's not clear to me that the statement "If X is an athesist, then X is a nontheist" is true by definition. Putting people on this list will therefore be an iffy proposition. The second paragraph of nontheism does make a stronger statement that indeed all atheists are nontheists whether they like that label or not, but I don't yet believe that people will agree with that. My experience has been that people like to choose their labels very precisely in this matter (hence the profusion of labels that those pressing for nontheism are trying to unite--nontheism appears to be the "new atheism"). So, I see membership on this list being a contentious issue as someone argues for example that X is only an ignostic and not a nontheist. JJL 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both as per Nick Graves; it is also utterly ridiculous to claim an article on a term is OR when Google finds 72,900 hits for said term. The OED is useful, yes, but we can hardly limit ourselves to its entry; the term "transgender" for example did also take years to make it into it, and yet it existed, and thousands of people identified as such. Do however check the list as to whether those people did indeed call themselfes "nontheist" or where they have been called that in publications (in the later case, I want to know who called them that, too). Lists are always problematic in that regard, but if properly checked, they are most useful, too. -- John Smythe 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In the case of a list like this, we wouldn't want to list people just because publications call them nontheists, no matter what publication says it. WP:BLP says that we must be very careful to not hurt the living people that we talk about, so we must only call people nontheists if they call themselves that publicly. (Of course, they don't have to use the actual word. Nontheist is just shorthand for a person who doesn't believe in God. We could call the list List of people who don't believe in God, but there's no need for something so long and awkward when we have the perfectly good word nontheist which is in the dictionary.) -- Lilwik 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both as per Nick Graves; The beliefs of Bishop Spong and his school of thought are influential and have no other home central on Wikipedia.

-- Consanescerion 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC) — Consanescerion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong keep Nontheism, all atheists are nontheists, but not all non-theists are atheists, the concepts are closely related, but not synonymous. Weakish keep List of nontheists afterall most of the articles on religious positions have associated lists of notable proponents, I think those lists should really stand or fall together. – ornis⚙ 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both, The problem is that some people don't neatly fit in categories like "atheist," "agnostic," or things like that, so a more general category is necessary. Currently the terms "nontheist" and "nontheism" get a combined hit total on Google of 130,000 hits[33], so people are using those terms to describe things. The "non-" prefix leads to a rather obvious definition, so I can understand why that, and many other "non-" words, are left out of many dictionaries. Also, the terms "non-theist" and "non-theistic" are both in the 2007 Oxford English Dictionary.[34] And for those who argue that "nontheist = atheist" that's just not true. Theism includes a belief in a personal god, so deists are not theists, but since they do believe in a god, deists are clearly not atheists either. Simply put, both nominated articles are for a larger, more general group that is not interchangeable with any of its subgroups, thus I believe that keeping them is necessary. -- HiEv 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why keep both? I think both article and lists should be deleted. Please look at my arguments. Both the article and lists are useless. Deleted them. RS1900 06:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Is this still going? I think RS has gotten very involved with this. I think after reading the above I must stay with my keep vote. Sorry RS.JJJ999 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete, per DGG. Pete.Hurd 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep the nominator obviously doesn't know what he or she is talking about. It's true RS. I wish you luck understanding it. Be well, Greg Bard 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for the article and Ambivalent about the list.

• The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. IRRELEVANT
• There are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. NOT TRUE
• The definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect NOT TRUE
• This is a definition of atheist. It is "a definition", but not "the definition" (read the article).
• Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. The unpublished opinions of "many people" do not constitute a WP:RS, are not WP:V, and are irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If you have verifiable, sourced information stating that "many people" consider "nontheism" and "atheism" to be synonymous, then it should be added the article to provide balance. But since there are clearly reliable sources that make a distinction between the two terms, the opinion that they are the same, even if verifiable, is not valid grounds for deletion of the entire article.
• To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. POSSIBLY (see my comment below)

To the people recommending deletion: Did you actually read any of the sources referenced in the article? Nontheism is clearly notable as a concept distinct from Atheism in actual use. The original nomination noted that "nontheism" was not mentioned in any dictionaries prior to 2007. What? Is Wikipedia a dictionary? Is a dictionary entry really a prerequisite for an encyclopedia article? If so, someone should get busy deleting the thousands of articles that don't have a corresponding entry in a pre-2007 dictionary. Anyway, the fact theat "non-theism" and "non-theist" are both in the 2007 edition of the dictionary (OED) renders that point moot with regard to the article.

I will concede that the "the list" is a bit contentious because few, if any, of the people on it would (have) consider(ed) themselves "nontheists", even though their verifiable statements regarding their (lack of) belief would fit the definition. However, simply because a particular term is relatively new does not prevent it from being retroactively applied to those who fit the definition. For example, "homosexual" (used as an adjective) was not widely used (and never printed) before 1869, yet is often used to describe same-sex relations that took place during the Greco-Roman era, despite the fact that no one in ancient Greece or Rome would have self-described his or her same-sex behavior as "homosexual" (the term didn't exist!). Another, more recent example: the term "African American" seems to be the preferred scholarly term for Americans of sub-Saharan African descent (generally the descendants of slaves). Despite the relatively recent origins of this term, it is nonetheless now used to describe historical figures who would have been much more likely to consider themselves "negros", "colored", or "black" (depending on the time period/location). In addition, the term "African American" is clearly not used to describe all Americans of African descent, such as white immigrants from South Africa (is Dave Matthews African American?), those from northern Africa (who would likely be called Arab American), and recent African immigrants (from Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) regardless of skin color. Although "African American" in its strictest etymological sense should include all Americans of African descent, its actual usage is much more nuanced.

Similarly, "nontheism", in its strictest etymological sense might appear to be synonymous with "atheism", but anyone who takes the time to investigate and read the article and sources should realize that the terms are distinct (and both notable) in actual usage. Personal opinion as to whether nontheism "deserves" to be distinct from atheism is irrelevant POV. The original nomination for deletion is full of self-contradictory statements that don't reflect Wikipedia policy. Again, I am confused by the bizarre assertion that non-inclusion in a "pre-2007" dictionary is a valid criteria for claiming that a term is WP:OR and not verifiable. It seems that, despite the mention of the terms "nontheism" and "nontheist" (as distinct from atheism) in several reliable secondary sources and the latest edition of the world's preeminent English dictionary, we are being encouraged to delete an article because the nominating editor doesn't like the term.

RS1900, you should have actually read WP:OR and WP:V (or at least made sure that you understood them)before asserting that the arbitrary threshold for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia is mention in a notable pre-2007 dictionary. Your nomination makes no sense and your reasoning is flawed. The article talk page would have been an appropriate place to share yout concerns. Recommending deletion based on your personal opinion is a bit rash. Please retract your nomination for deletion immediately. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment.Addendum to my comments above (upon a closer reading of the arguments)

RS1900, why do you continually repeat "Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007" as an argument for deletion (and an assertion or WP:OR(?)) when you yourself acknowledged that both terms are included in the current OED? What does 2007 have to do with it? I'm sure you are aware that many recent terms (neologisms) are not yet included in the dictionary, but are still notable. Also, new terms have to be well-documented in notable print sources before dictionary editors would ever consider inclusion (i.e., there is a long delay between a term's initial use and its eventual inclusion in a dictionary). Therefore, the fact that both terms are included in the current OED is a strong indication that their use was validated in print sources prior to 2007 (since 2007 seems to be an important watershed year for you in determining the Wikipedia-worthiness of an article). How could you possibly think that including these terms is WP:OR when they are used in secondary sources and the Oxford English Dictionary (past editions are irrelevant)? Yet you still wrote "Nontheism is not defined yet" after admitting that "non-theism" is listed in the current OED. How does this make sense? What, exactly, is your argument for deletion? By the way, the hyphenation simply reflects a typical variation between British and American spelling that dictionaries rarely note explicitly. Many hyphenated words/terms in the OED would not be hyphenated by a typical American writer, and hyphenation differences in compound words are not an indication that the two terms are separate (any more than "realize" and "realise" can be considered "different words"). A simple redirect could fix this "problem" unless you seriously believe that a definition of "non-theism" does not apply to "nontheism". Is that what you are saying?

Also, regarding: "can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism?" Nobody is denying that the two terms are connected; this is not a rational argument. And many of the sources listed (and a quick academic database search will reveal even more) make a distinction between the two terms. As long as they are distinct, it is irrelevant that they are "always" connected. To paraphrase comments above, Protestantism is always connected to Christianity, and the Sun is always connected to the solar system, yet no one would ever suggest (hopefully) that Protestantism should be deleted because it is "just another form of Christianity" and "there is already an article for Christianity" or that Sun should be merged with Solar system becasue the definition of one is inseparable from the other.

DGG, your recommendation for deletion seems to contradict your stated "inclusionist" self-identification. The article could possibly be improved, but does not violate policy, so why delete?

The fact that people here are debating the subtle and complex differences between theism vs. deism, agnosticism, nontheism, and atheism, etc. (and whether all people who are X are also Y, but not necessarily Z, etc.) is a good indication that the article should not be deleted. It is a sourced article that could actually be helpful to people trying to understand the differences between X,Y, and Z as systems of belief (or definitions of non-belief) that may appear synonymous. Anyone is welcome to try to improve the article (no article is perfect), but deleting it is not appropriate. It has been thoroughly establishged that (a) Nontheism is distinct from, yet connected to atheism,(b)the term has been documented in reliable sources, and (c) it is even in the dictionary (which really shouldn't matter at all). — DIEGO ^talk 20:10, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Greater Mongols

History of Greater Mongols (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't figure out if this article is maybe about a book, or about the peoples mentioned, or yet about something entirely different. In either case, it is far from an encyclopedic text and lacking any useful context. Latebird 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: non encyclopedic article, taken out of context. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it is about a book, but without attribution of the book's notability beyond this "huraldai" society (for which there are scattered GHITS but little information that can be gleaned, at least in English). --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's apparently something called the "Mongolic People Huraldai Society", and it has a book by this title, discussing people called Proto-Mongols, and political entities called "Xiongnu", the "Xiongnu States" and "Tuoba Wei". No sources, not even another Wikipedia article about the society, the protos, or the states. That's about all we know. Mandsford 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair: Despite the text missing links, we do have articles on the Xiongnu, the Tuoba, and quite a few other peoples that are usually considered "proto mongolic". But most of the relationships between them (and to the actual Mongols) that the text states as fact can at best be considered hypothetical. --Latebird 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (PS: I've just been pointed to this article by the same author, and still not quite sure what to think of it either.)

• Delete This article is a mix--part about a book, part about the history it covers. Either might be acceptable, but not both. JJL 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Wafulz (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône – Liesse (SNCF)

Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône_–_Liesse_(SNCF) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (close to db-blank speedyable) unless turned into a proper stub (e.g. Parc de Sceaux (Paris RER)). May as well be a redlink if all we get is see also. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not sure but I think this meets criterion for speedy deletion as A3 or A1...? Burntsauce 22:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wrathchild. Going on consensus on this one I would have chosen to merge. The big problem here is that the article consists of one sentence and a track list. So redirect it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stakk Attak

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

Totally non-notable by not asserting its notability. Removal of PROD was just an unexplained one by the creator of the article, like so many others. Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Can't see many album articles that do assert their notability. I've certainly seen less well known albums stay. Fork me 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Band meets notability criteria. If it needs references, why not tag it as needing references?--Michig 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How does it meet notabiltiy when it doesn't assert its notability? THat's what the policy says, dear.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the agreed criteria for articles on albums at WP:MUSIC#Albums, which states If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting. Independent coverage is lacking in this article but if requested in the article/talk page it may be added - it's worth a try. Given that the band only released 3 albums, it may be better to merge this into the band's article. There are no requirements to 'assert notability' other than the requirement that the band is notable, and that ideally there is some evidence of independent coverage. At worst, this article should be merged. Please take some time to read the guidelines on notability re. music-related topics before prodding/AfDing further articles. Thanks.--Michig 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with the band then delete; there is no independent assertion that the album is notable apart from the band. Michig is misreading WP:MUSIC#Albums by fogetting to read the word "may" before "have sufficient notability". Like "Jimmy Hoffa may come walking through my door bringing me $1,000,000 in cash". And alas, both "may"s resolve to "no". Carlossuarez46 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to read my discussion before commenting on it.--Michig 06:47, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantly Creating Classic Productions

Constantly Creating Classic Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page seems to fail WP:CORP and WP:CS. It was tagged for Speedy (by myself) and also tagged for lack of notability, however the creator removed the tags and added some more info. It seems like the only notable information in the article, are the blue links. Rjd0060 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This group does not seem to have done anything to warrant notability.--Danaman5 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely non-notable. They've only created one 'film'-apparently pictures set to music. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, apparently a collection of high school film makers. Fails WP:N for now. Burzmali 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a new "company" "founded by friends" a month or two ago, with one film that hasn't been featured at the box office, doesn't really strike me as notable. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. Burntsauce 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part of a series of attack / hoax pages. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATW X-Factor Championship

NATW X-Factor Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NATW has been deleted here, due to lack of verifiable sources and notability, and so it follows that its championship, which also lacks verifiable sources and notability, should probably go, too. Deltopia 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bestial Warlust

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

Long on claims, short on facts/references. AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something, but I really don't see the notability here. TexasAndroid 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - they not only fail WP:MUSIC, the article also has copyright issues - the introduction's last sentence is copied verbatim from here. Huon 13:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it is not short on facts and references. If you go to the two references all the information is there. Yes, the last sentence is copied verbatim, but is also referenced. Not to mention, the sentence could be edited. This is a noteworthy band from Australia, and is mentioned in many other articles but had no page of its own until recently.Navnløs 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A link has now been added to the sentence that was copied verbatim.Navnløs 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dëth Thrash Über-Dark Dëlëtë - Fails WP:BAND. -- Ben 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reconsidering In light of this, I think I should probably reconsider my vote. I really hate to be thought of as an ass. I really do. -- Ben 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• My Case-How does it fail WP:BAND? For one they have members of other notable bands, namely Destroyer 666. They are very reknowned for those familiar with the underground metal world. They are one of the bands listed in notable Australian heavy metal albums Australian heavy metal. They had a member that was in Hobbs' Angel of Death and another member from Abominator. They are mentioned in many articles about australian metal bands and are known as a cult black metal band, and it says this in a couple articles (cult as in they never got mainstream but on the underground they were quite well known and popular). They deserve an article here, being as noteworthy as they are. There are many bands and metal bands that are not as well known, who have less references, that have pages here on wikipedia. Not to mention I can't help but notice that all the people above critiquing and asking for the deletion of this article seem to know nothing about metal.Navnløs 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did refer to the above as "asses." I apologize and I will refrain from the use of offensive language. I have changed what I said before to that user.Navnløs 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep considering that www.allmusic.com says that there were "One of Australia's first black metal bands of note", I guess it's notable. (You have to enter "Bestial Warlust" in the search field, I don't know how to get a permanent link to the page). From an international perspective one could probably argue wether they are notable, but from an Australian perspective they clearly are, if they indeed pioneered Black Metal in Australia. And of course the Australian people speak English and use the English Wikipedia. Zara1709 11:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The link to that page that Zara1709 speaks of is here.Navnløs 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as per sources. Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:58, 1 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 an attack page (CSD G10) and/or hoax (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Ortiz). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Helmsley

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

Cross-reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North All-Time Wrestling for related delete. No reliable sources, no notability if his activity has only taken place in non-notable (and non-verifiable) organizations. Deltopia 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete hoax, not as overblown as Alyssa Ortiz, but chock full o' whipped lard, nonetheless. Pete.Hurd 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all articles to Kinship (TV series). Per overwhelming consensus.

[edit] Chen An Ping

Chen An Ping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Chen An Xin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lin Mei Qi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lin Mei Xue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ying Li Shi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Zheng Jin Sha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Chang Ying (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Characters of the Singaporean TV drama series Kinship. All of the articles are written purely from a in-universe point of view; there are no independent sources (actually sources are extremely scarce at all). They fail WP:FICT. Merging to the main article is unnecessary since that article's Plot section already contains the relevant information. Huon 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to article on series as plausible search terms unless out-of-universe importance can be demonstarted for the characters. -- saberwyn 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to the main article - given the paucity of sources merging would be bad idea, but they are plausible search terms. (Disclosure: I have watched the show in question.) Resurgent insurgent 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: How about this, redirect all of the characters to a new page, Characters of Kinship. Aranho 06:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ragin' Rocky

Ragin' Rocky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. As per WP:RS Endless Dan 12:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-- because the entire article is "Ragin' Rocky was a talking pet rock in an electronic game devised by Playmate Toys." Maybe it was. Mandsford 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an attack page (CSD G10) and/or a hoax. Google gives no evidence that a wrestler by this name (or by any of the given stage names) even exists. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alyssa Ortiz

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

Cross-reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North All-Time Wrestling for related delete. No reliable sources, no notability if her activity has only taken place in non-notable (and non-verifiable) organizations. Deltopia 12:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a page at wikiquotes as well, which lists no references. Vidioman 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - needs a prose-overhaul, if it doesn't happen bring it back to AFD and I would support a delete. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I wasn't nominating it because it was poorly-written; I was nominating it because it is entirely made up, as far as I can tell (also note that the first editor's name is Alyssa, and that the first activity of the subject of the article was basically a 14-year-old girl working as a pro wrestler), and because even if I AGF and it's entirely truthful, it doesn't meet wikipedia notability standards. Deltopia 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete it's a pretty obvious hoax, I db's the wikiquote page. Pete.Hurd 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the mouth of Alyssa Ortiz I had to create an account in order to try and get the "Alyssa Ortiz" page deleted. I don't want people knowing my personal buisness and half of the information on the page is untrue. I'm all for deleting it on the grounds that it's untrue and creepy in a "I have a stalker" way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LithiumEdge (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• This perspective brings things dangerously close to Speedy delete criteria A10, in conjunction with the policy on BLP. I'm not sure if it directly meets the threshold, though, because the page isn't attacking or negative in tone, just generally libelous (assuming authenticiy and GF). Deltopia 09:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley Electronic Press

Berkeley Electronic Press (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete for spam Anthony Appleyard 12:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony, for restoring the page so that I can defend it. It was previously nominated for deletion on the basis of 'blatant advertising'. But it is not advertising. It is a valid page for the following reasons.

• I am not associated with BEP, and I have no conflict of interest regarding BEP.
• BEP is publishes a variety of economics journals (and also journals in other fields, but I don't Itknow as much about that). Many economics journals are already listed on Wikipedia, both in List of scholarly journals in economics and on their own pages. The BEP journals deserve to be listed just as much as those other journals.
• Alternatively, instead of creating a page on BEP itself, I could have created pages on some of its individual journals, such as The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, etc., etc., etc. But I think it would be more useful to list those journals on the BEP page, rather than on their own pages. That's because what is especially notable about those journals is their method of peer review, which they all share and which differs from that of most other economics journals.
• Perhaps my description of the journals' method of peer review sounded like an advertisement, because in fact BEP has been very positively received by economists for successfully speeding up the publishing process without losing quality. But I was simply trying to state factually the reasons for changing the peer review process, and how their new method works. If someone thinks these facts could be stated in a more neutral way, they are welcome to edit my text.
• If there are doubts about the notability of these journals, it seems to me the numbers I cited in the article speak for themselves. I would also argue that the editors and authors featured in BEP come from the top ranks of academic economists today, although I don't know how to prove that to an average Wikipedian who is unfamiliar with academic economics.

--Rinconsoleao 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as burden of proof has not been met for deletion. I see no particular reason to delete this stub; hopefully it will develop. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Information: Berkeley Electronic Press was speedy delete tagged as spam at 11:54, 13 September 2007 by User:Gillyweed. Anthony Appleyard 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Actually a fairly important publisher by now. Should be expanded to at least show the journals, and then pages can be gradually made for the more notable ones as they become established There are quite a number of references and reviews to this and other non-conventional forms of publishing on the various professional lists and other usable sources. I'll help with it. DGG (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG. Greenshed 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, significant academic online publisher. There are reliable sources in Google News Archive to write a properly attributed article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of Ghits for adding content, and lots of Google Books hits, as well. Article does need sources, though. Corvus cornix 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't speak to the economics periodicals, but the biomedical journals are covered by reputable indexing services eg Medline, EMBASE, which amounts to significant independent coverage for an academic journal, and by extension the publisher. Article should be expanded to list the journals, per DGG. Espresso Addict 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability seems to have already been established. Could use expansion but does not stand as an advertisement. Dimadick 06:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the notability of this publisher has been sufficiently established. Burntsauce 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 World of Ptavvs, to keep search term and edit history after merge (already done). (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kzanol

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

Fictional character in a lesser known Known Space book. Larry Niven is my favorite sf author, but I have to say that I don't recall the Thrint's name being important within the story. It certainly fails outside notability. Page is also duplicative of the page of the book he is a character in. I don't believe that redirecting is useful here, as non-fans are not going to search by "Kzanol". Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to World of Ptavvs. We're not so pressed for space that a small redirect will strain resources. Fans might arrive via Kzanol. Gordonofcartoon 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, not a bizarre search term. Note that one Dutch translation of the book was called Kzanol de ruimtepiraat (Kzanol the Space Pirate)[35], so at least for people speaking Dutch but using the English Wikipedia, it is a logical search term (hey, they exist ;-) ). Fram 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you got me there. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. I don't get the rationale non-fans are not going to search by Kzanol. Who do we think is looking him up, George Bush? It's a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling was that it wasn't a plausible search term, what can I say? His name isn't used much in the English version of the book. Should we make a redirect for Larry Greenberg too? Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap. I've merged the necessary info. Clarityfiend 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shad Valley

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

This is a nn educational programme whose article was created by the programme themselves. It needs a re-write if it were to be kept but I'm not convinced it is notable enough for a cleaned-up article B1atv 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Currently has no strong notability claims. The advert-like copy can be easily cured. If it's not notable, that's a different matter. --Dweller 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yugo Deb Net

Yugo Deb Net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

delete- This body is totally unnoteworthy, and the creators pet project is to build ego pages for people from the WSDC, a body barely meriting its own page. Jembot99 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a significant debating society involving students from several universities across Serbia and Montenegro. I created this page, initially because it was a red link on the European Universities Debating Championship page, but I think it deserves to stay. Yugo Deb Net has entered teams in major internation competitons such as the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship, and has produced the best individual speaker at the European championships. (I think the nominator is a bit confused. Yugo Deb Net is a university-level society, and has nothing to do with WSDC.) Purple Watermelon 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, just don't think it's notable... and would you please stop editing articles nominated so much? Or mention in this discussion exactly what edits you've made.JJJ999 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You've given no explanation as to why you believe Yugo Deb Net is not notable. And as for editing articles that are being considered for deletion, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy which prohibits this or which requires small changes to such articles to be mentioned on the AfD page. If there's a Wikipedia policy I'm not aware of regarding this, please point me to it. Purple Watermelon 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I've seen it noted repeatedly as being against the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe you've been told as much on some of the pages we've been discussing... I can point this out to you sometime if you like.JJJ999 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Universities_Debating_Ranking - per Arman Aziz. Have fun.JJJ999 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Arman Aziz made no comment whatosoever to me on that page. What he did was suggest that Colm Flynn should not edit that article as the rankings were his own originial research. The only person I've ever come across who's suggested that attempting to improve an article being considered for deletion goes against the spirit of Wikipedia is you. Purple Watermelon 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Don't have time to get a Mod ruling on it, and I certainly think that it was more than original research, but as a courtesy, which I think you should note your edits for.JJJ999 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment editing articles to improve them while at AfD is not just permitted, but highly encouraged, per WP:AFD and WP:Deletion policy. The ideal AfD discussion leads to a good article and a withdrawn nomination. It is usual to say you've done it, so those who have commented previously will know to go back and see the improvements and consider if they are sufficient. The usual COI considerations of course apply. DGG (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the information presented in the article could be moved to another article. I see no evidence of notability in the article and a Google search turns up less than 20 results (I put the name in quotes) and none of them with any substantial information on the organization, so not only does the article not meet WP:Notability but there is no evidence that it ever can meet it. If anyone can add sources meeting WP:Notability standards before this deletion discussion is over, please contact me and I'll change my vote. Noroton 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you look at the page on the EUDC and other major debating tournaments, all the organisations who've had someone ranked as best speaker have a wikilink. This body is not an individual university, but a body which brings together top university debaters from across two nations to compete in the top international debating tournaments, and has enjoyed significant success in some of them. Dorange 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It is possible that many sources for this topic are on non-english sites, which would prevent them from showing up in the typical google search. If the organization has participated in major events held by notable international federations, however - there should be something in English somewhere. The absence of those sources is hinky. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three references in the article at the moment. Two from the World Universities Debating Council's website, and one from the World Debate Website. I would have thought this enough to verify the organisation's status. Purple Watermelon 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 12:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Non-notable. Dureo 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as irrelevant and context-less. What does a debate team have to do with anything? User:Gp75motorsports 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)