Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Characters in Camp Lazlo

This is a fork to circumvent full-protection of List of characters in Camp Lazlo, which has been fully protected. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DeleteThis article starts off saying "This is a list of" so thiers no hiding the fact that this is an obvious attempt to circumvent said article. when the dispute resoloution is through this will be a redundant article Deathawk 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Ditto to what was said by Deathawk. Gh5046 06:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. OfficeGirl 03:39, 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 Keep. Walton^One 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czech Institute For International Meetings

Czech Institute For International Meetings is not notable organization and there are no independent sources. --Dezidor 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Keep - This is an absolutly madness! The Czech Institute For International Meetings is cooperating every year (ca. 10 - 14 events) with the European Parliament (Jaroslav Zvěřina, since 2005 - so colled "Jaroslav-Zvěřina-Series")in the area of Policy, economy and social affairs. The second protector is the Parliament of Federal Republic of Germany (Mrs. Marie-Luise Dött, see also the List of Bundestag Members) as well Konrad Adenauer Foundation (meetings and financiall support) in Berlin and Prague. Please, for more particular information see also the czech-side of Wikipedia (Český Institut Mezinárodního Setkání). --Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Moreover, it lacks in citation as well. Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 08:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources provided or found in searching -- Whpq 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Zdeněk Herl-Stolt: "Czech Institute For International Meetings...Documents from Czech, Austrian and German press", ISBN 978-80-239-8967-0, Czech Republic 2007. Altogether - 296 documents, stories and photos about the Institute. That speaks for itself! --Zdeněk Herl-Stolt 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) — Zdeněk Herl-Stolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as non-notable per Niaz and Whpq. it should be noted that one of the main contributors to this article is Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy (talk • contribs). The only reference source listed for this article is a compilation whose authors are Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy and Zdeněk Herl-Stolt. Also Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy has been listed as a participant in this non-notable organization since the beginning of the article. This article has been sitting around without anyone noticing this little bit of self-promotion for an awful long time, but now I think someone has been busted. OfficeGirl 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep- seems prima facie notable, I also have not seen any justification for removing it. The page is likely to be in another language, any evidence of detailed searches from the deletion parties?JJJ999 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now, and flag for improvement, possibly via a better translation of the Czech wiki page for this organisation [1]. As I've said before in this forum, there's little guidance that specifically relates to learned societies, and there's a problem with them falling through the cracks. The Czech article gives 8 'Publikace', though to be honest, I'm not sure whether that's references about the society or publications by the society. I think much of the problem with the English page is that it has been translated by a non-native English speaker and some of the words used don't convey the intended meaning, leaving the reader unsure precisely what the society does. However, poor translation isn't a reason for deletion, nor is a lack of English sources available via Google search, nor conflict of interest, if the institution is genuinely notable. Espresso Addict 07:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Move to keep thenJJJ999 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the Czech provides plenty of references from different sources, so notability has been established there. Our translated article needs work, that is all. John Vandenberg 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this can be covered, to the extent necessary, in Mongol raids into Palestine. It appears that process is already underway.--Kubigula (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol conquests and Jerusalem

This article was created as a point of view fork and coatrack for pushing the idea that Mongols conquered Jerusalem. There are no reliable sources to support this fringe opinion. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: PHG has ~~disruptively~~ moved the article while the discussion is ongoing. It's now located at Mongol raids on Jerusalem. This should be deleted for all the same reasons. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I've done a Google search, and cannot come up with any reliable sources that state that Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongols. I did find three reliable book sources that cover the topic, but do not make this assertion. Cleveland Prawdin Køppen One source (Cleveland) says that the Mongol Armies were stopped in a battle north of Jerusalem. This article was created by an editor who has been pushing a fringe theory that Mongols invaded Jerusalem. (adding) See the evidence. This article is duplicative, and it's a coatrack. To eliminate duplication and POV forking, any properly sourced content here can be merged into Mongol raids into Palestine or Mongol invasions of Syria. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. The editor who created this article, PHG, has been making multiple POV forks, as he tries to push this idea that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem in 1299/1300. He's been attempting to insert false information into the Knights Templar article about this, and has been edit warring for weeks at Franco-Mongol alliance. He has ignored comments from an RfC, has refused mediation, and is now creating multiple articles such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem to push his POV. I've researched the matter extensively (checking dozens of books and peer-reviewed articles), and there was no such battle, no such "conquest." The most that could be said is that there were a few Mongol raids in the area in 1260 and 1300, during two periods of a few months before the Mongols got kicked out again by the Egyptian Mamluks. Some scholars say that there may have been Mongol raids on Jerusalem while the Mongols were raiding other parts of the area in 1300, but they're not even in agreement on whether or not Mongols were in the city, let alone conquering it or setting up a permanent administration (which is what's needed to distinguish between a "raid" and "conquest"). What they do agree on is that Jerusalem was still in ruins from earlier battles in the Crusades, it had no walls, and even the Mamluks didn't see it as a settlement of strategic importance (see Karen Armstrong's book Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths). In short, Wikipedia is already well-served by the articles History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Mongol raids into Palestine. We don't need yet another article about an event that didn't even happen. --El on ka 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Judging by the input at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment there seems to be little support amongst reliable sources for the idea that there was any conquest by the Mongols of Jerusalem in the period in question. This appears to be a POV fork and problematic as far as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are concerned. WjBscribe 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper User:Elonka. Maybe this would make a good What if story but not a good encyclopedia article--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - There is also a related ANI thread. --El on ka 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not a notable minority theory. Topic covered sufficiently in other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete From the look I gave, all the content on this topic is already in Mongol raids into Palestine, and thus there is no need for this article, as it's just a duplicate, with the title Elonka made considerably better.--Aldux 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Mongol raids into Palestine. Alansohn 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Elonka. Pete.Hurd 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep I am the creator of most of the content on this subject of the Mongols and Jerusalem, and believe its transfer two days ago to a "Mongol raids into Palestine" article by Elonka has not been adequate (too broad, unfocused, title). The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb. The article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am also afraid the other title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. PHG 08:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- PHG, we've already discussed this. Demurger "considering it a possibility" is just him asking the question on one page, "Did they conquer Jerusalem?" and saying that there was a tradition that there was an Armenian royal celebrating mass in the city in January 1300. We've already established that that story is probably false, as it was based on an unreliable source which was promoting Armenian propaganda at the time. No other sources corroborate such a visit. And even if he were in Jerusalem at the time, it wouldn't mean a Mongol "conquering", since there were many Christians in Jerusalem already, especially during the holidays, because such a treaty had already been signed with the Mamluks that gave them access, especially for the holy days such as Easter. As for Jotischky, he had one line in his book, and his information was sourced from a 1979 article by Dr. Sylvia Schein, "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", where she never said that Ghazan was in Jerusalem, she said that there were 1300 rumors that Ghazan was in Jerusalem. There are no other historians that say Ghazan was in Jerusalem, and Schein's article has been extensively criticized by other scholars, who pointed out she was using that unreliable Armenian source. As for Runciman, who I agree is a good source, he said nothing about Jerusalem being conquered, he just said that Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem, which matches up with other "raids" reports. Yes, the Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem in 1260, 1300 (and according to Runciman, 1308). All of which can be adequately covered in the article Mongol raids into Palestine. Not "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem", which is a title designed to push a biased POV. The Mongols never conquered Jerusalem. They may have galloped through raising hell at some point, but that's not a "conquering", that's a raid. --Elonka 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Dear Elonka. You keep using secondary sources to try to discredit other secondary sources (those that don't favour your point of view). Leading scholars such as Demurger, Jotischky, Runciman all have the right to be represented, and they don't need to be second-guessed by you. If you are uncomfortable with the words "Mongol conquests", then maybe the title could be "Mongol raids and Jerusalem" or "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (as you seem to acknowledge that many scholars do mention such raids), I really don't mind. I am just saying that "Mongol raids in Palestine" is much too broad a subject, and that, with 36kb, we already have enough material to have this specific article on the question of the Mongols and Jerusalem. The current article content being 99% about Jerusalem, I also believe it does belong much more specifically to a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" article, than to a much more general "Mongol raids into Palestine" article. Just common sense I think. Best regards. PHG 08:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fringe theory. --Folantin 09:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. OK. I've been bold, did the job myself, and added a lot of content to "Mongol raids into Palestine" (more content on the 1260's campaings, addition of the 1271 campaign). I also streamlined the "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem part" to link it properly to the sub-article. This makes for a more comprehensive 27kb article on the Mongols raids in Palestine in general, with a link to the more focused "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (itself 36kb), a supposedly consensual title. I think it makes more sense, the contents are totally different, and this allows for a content which is more faithfull to each title. I hope everybody likes it and sees what I meant. Best regards to all. PHG 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very disruptive and pointy for you to move the page during AfD. I am adding the new article Mongol raids on Jerusalem to the deletion nomination since there is no evidence that any such raids ever occurred. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete it- as a student of history I am pretty insulted by this article. Either fringe theory or a hoax.JJJ999 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Dear all, apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Honestly, I am surprised by the negative reactions. The article is fully referenced from proper, reputable sources, and I think does a good job of presenting the various elements on the subject. It is actually a very interesting historical subject, closely related to the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, PHG. I request that the next administrator who sees this close per WP:SNOW. PHG, there are reliable sources that suggest Mongol incursions into Palestine (not as far as Jerusalem, though). We have an article for Mongols and Palestine, so I think anything here that can be reliably sourced can be merged into that article. Happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. There are actually numerous sources that speak about the Mongols reaching Jerusalem (the "great" Runciman and several others, extensively quoted in the article). The Mongols actually established garrissons as far as Gaza, at the frontier with Egypt, much further south than Jerusalem. If everybody wants to close this article, so be it, but I do not think it is a proper decision. The content will go into "Mongol raids into Palestine", which will reach 60-70kbs all of a sudden, and probably back into Franco-Mongol alliance for a large part (which is already 130kb or so), but that's no big deal anyway. I just think that it would have been much more efficient and encyclopedic to concentrate the information about Jerusalem in one precise spot. Regards. PHG 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we should drop all this material into that article. No, the content here needs to be scrutinized for WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. The reason this article is being deleted is that there is a consensus that the material violates important, fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Attempting an end run around consensus and policy would be strong evidence of disruptive and tendentious editing. To avoid those problems, I recommend, PHG, that you utilize the talk page of the other articles to obtain consensus before moving any material from here to there, or that you step back and let other editors do the merge. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. All the material we are talking about here was moved two days ago by User:Elonka out of the Franco-Mongol alliance article to decrease its size (and I think, to reduce its visibility, for whatever reason). There, it had been already extensively discussed and scrutinized, and actually pretty much had reached a stable point. I will just reinstate the content where it belongs. Please do not hesitate to participate to the discussions there, we are in need of cool-headed contributors! Best regards PHG 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, meant for Jehochman)I have to contradict you here, this content has been thoroughly scrutinized, only at Franco-Mongol Alliance, and the topic is certainly extremely important, because rumors are far more historically relevant than the stationing for a couple of weeks of the Mongols in Jerusalem, if accepted as true. The effects created in the west and on Armenian sources by these rumours is talken of by a large number of secondary sources, which makes it certainly a topic worthy of being treated with depth. The conquest may be discussed as fringe, even if I don't think we arrive to this point (it is talken of in reliable secondary literature), but the rumours must be given full coverage as I have difficulties understanding how they could fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE.--Aldux 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the rumors from 1300 are worth covering, but I disagree that an entire article is needed to do it. The information can be adequately covered in articles such as Mongol raids into Palestine, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Mongol invasions of Syria. The "Mongol raids into Palestine" title is the best one for this subject, as it's an accepted academic name for the concept, as seen by this title, "Mongol Raids into Palestine" by Reuven Amitai in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.[2] To my knowledge, there has never been any book, or article, or even chapter or subsection of a book which has been titled "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem" or even "Mongol raids in Jerusalem." So it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to try to create an entire Wikipedia article on just that topic. Let's stick with the articles we've got: History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), Mongol invasions of Syria, and Mongol raids into Palestine (which still needs a lot of work, as PHG has been pouring a lot of unrelated information, primary source quotes, and original research into it). But the Mongol conquests and Jerusalem article (at whatever title that PHG has moved it to), still needs to be deleted. --El on ka 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree, Mongol raids into Palestine should cover the argument good enough, and this article is really a fork. What I defended was the legitimate to discuss, even in depth, of the rumours that inflamed the west, but appear also in Armenian sources of an event read as epochal. Schein wasn't ashamed to dedicate it a full length essay, and the English Historical Review.--Aldux 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually plenty of scholars mention Mongol raids on Jerusalem. Tyerman in God's war mentions that "Mongol raids reached Ascalon, Jerusalem and the gates of Egypt" (p.806). Of course Andrew Jotischky in The Crusaders and the Crusader States states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in A History of the Crusades, III stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. Furthermore the subject of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols has been hugely reported by contemporary sources and debated by secondary sources. I am not sure if a paragraph somewhere exist with these actual words, but I do think this is sufficient ground to have a specific article focusing on this subject. PHG 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The other two existing articles are sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge into other two articles; but the present text of Mongol raids on Jerusalem seems to adequately describe an urban legend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems fine to me. Everyking 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment By now it should be rather clear to anyone that Mongol invasions of Syria and Mongol raids into Palestine should be two distinct articles as their geographical subject is different (Syria vs Palestine), although the latter campaigns were a prolongation of the former. Also, Mongol raids on Jerusalem legitimately stands as a large article (35 kb), with its own very technical and specific content, which I think properly works as a sub-article to the much broader articles such as Mongol raids into Palestine or Franco-Mongol alliance. Regards PHG 09:56, 7 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 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Bauer

Singer-songwriter with a myspace page but no record deal nor independent coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Thomjakobsen 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC, I added a speedy delete tag to the article: no assertion of importance/significance. Gh5046 06:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per above. I prodded the original article, but the author removed the tag and expanded it. It still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's criteria though. SteveO 13:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not Notable, and no references. Iamchrisryan 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - If this person was notable then I would be notable as well as the hundred-and-second best bass guitarist in Wembley. Clearly fails WP:Music. A1octopus 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. OfficeGirl 04:44, 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 keep, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the references section and the the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penguins in popular culture

Very trivial dumping ground for any mention or appearance of penguins in popular culture. RobJ1981 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge into main penguin article. Penguins are pretty iconic, not like manatees, and I'd be surprised if there weren't anything written on their use. Agree it needs cleanup cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve. "very trivial" means no more than trivial--just personal opinion. There's too much material to merge. Better sourcing and possibly some more selectivity is needed, as frequently the case with WP articles on this sort of topic--and many other topics as well. DGG (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article works fine in list well-organized list format and indicates the astonishing influence penguns have had on popular culture. Additional references are fine, of course, but no real need to delete. Also, even major newspapers have covered this specific topic: Penguins are pop culture's hottest thing from The Seattle Times, Penguins Waddle Into the Culture Wars from ABC News, Penguins pack pop-culture punch from Pittsburgh Tribune, and Why are penguins such good box office? from the BBC. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Again, the issue is not whether penguins are "iconic", of course they are, but there is a main article about the penguin, this is just a trivia dumping ground that has no place here. Dannycali 02:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as usual, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps trimming would help, but this is a highly notable cultural subject. Chubbles 05:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. Like it or not, penguins are considered "cute" by hundreds of millions of people, because of their upright stance, their waddling walk, and their tuxedo like appearance. Let's not merge this with the article about real penguins, however. Mandsford 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Penguins are cute is not a good reason for an article. Otto4711 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like penguins anymore than I like you, but who are we to argue with everyone else? Mandsford 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, we're individuals with opinions? Are you saying that if there had been multiple delete !votes before you weighed in your opinion would've been different? Otto4711 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the usual collection of stuff with nothing in common. "It's got a penguin in it!" is not a theme. Penguins are undoubtedly notable. That doesn't mean that a list of every time a penguin appears in a movie or TV show or comic strip or video game is worthwhile or encyclopedic. Otto4711 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article is not just triva dumping ground Artw 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Chubbles. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater indeed. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Here are a few animal related afds that ended in delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walruses in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. And these are likely as or more notable than coyotes. Dannycali 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- same as reasoning I give for all arbitrary, long, infillable lists like this, and for the article nominated below this. Clear violation of guidelines and spirit of wikipedia, and a waste of time.JJJ999 05:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting "deleting all the excellent articles." That sort of "oh noes, the sky will fall" argumentation is nonsense. Otto4711 13:36, 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 Keep per consensus and edits that have raised the article to the Heymann standard. This close is not in prejudice to any other article about penguins, beagles, rabbits, etc., nor any future AfD in a few months to this article. Bearian 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coyotes in popular culture

Very trivial and unsourced dumping ground for any mention of a Coyote in popular culture. RobJ1981 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and/or merge into both Coyote the animal and the mythological figure. Agree it needs a massive clanup though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Some parts of this are actually rather well done, and a good sign that the rest can be improved. Sufficient for its own article. There is no hard and fast rule for when a separate article is appropriate, 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, because a well-organized, encyclopedic article that can be only be improved. Also, Barnes & Nobles has a whole category for them: [3]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Another one of those IPC "I saw a coyote on tv" pages. Coyotes are notable, sure, but the issue here is determining whether their role in popular culture is notable for an article, and it is not. Violates the pillars of WP, various trivia guidelines, and so forth. About 100 IPC articles have been deleted already, and this is no better than those deleted already. Dannycali 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Coyote (mythology) seems to do the article's job. Then again this article can be improved and renamed Cultural depictions of Coyotes--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw Coyotes in popular culture run off the side of a cliff, but it didn't fall right away. Then, a roadrunner walked up behind it and said, "Meep meep!", and then this article looked around, realized there was no solid ground underneath it, and plummeted down to the ground. OK, never mind. This particular "In popular culture" article has more behind it than just the standard "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" references. The references in literature and sports make this article worthwhile. My opinion is to keep this article, so it doesn't get smashed by a truck marked "Acme". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wily Coyotes were already a part of American Indian mythology centuries before the Road Runner cartoons. And unlike a road runner, coyotes continue to be an allegorical symbol for slyness, a meaner counterpart to foxes. Mandsford 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The significance of coyotes to Native American mythology is well-covered in Coyote (mythology) which will remain undisturbed by this AFD, so arguing to keep on that basis is without foundation. Otto4711 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - directory of loosely associate topics. Many if not most of the keep !votes appear to be based on the notability of the coyote. Agreed, both the coyote and the mythological representations of the coyote are notable. That does not mean that a list of every fictional coyote or every fictional thing that's called coyote but may not be a coyote or every song that happens to be called "Coyote" whether the song has anything whatsoever to do with coyotes is notable. Otto4711 17:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
ACME keep Artw 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep The coyote article is about the animal, the mythological article is about beliefs and mythos, this article is about noting the pop-culture bridge between the two. It certainly could have a few more pertinent references (and a few less video game references), but that's a per-article editorial issue, one that can't be solved by AfD. Any ideas on improving this list, to show how it's slightly different than Crabgrass in popular culture or Naval lint in Popular culture, seeing as how those lack the same level of historical and cultural mythos? Ronabop 07:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and yanked, well, a bunch of 'oh, a coyote' references. Ronabop 08:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here are a few animal related afds that ended in delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walruses in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. And these are likely as or more notable than coyotes. Dannycali 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The same exact argument was made at the AfD for Penguins in popular culture. I'll give the same response: ::the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Of note is geographical, and resulting cultural, disparity, even within a single en namespace. Growing up in Tucson, Arizona, I saw 3-5 coyotes a day, and my social and cultural mental space has reflected that. There are articles in the uk-en namespace that mean absolutely nothing to me such as British_half_penny_coin, or this loser teenager Prince_William who has done absolutely nothing notable (compared to other teens), which I would sooner delete as totally trivial wasteful nonsense, were I not aware that what is trivial to one english speaker is extremely notable to another. That being said, I didn't see a whole lot of Walruses growing up, or for that matter Cows or even Penguins, so, they must not be important enough for me to vote upon? Ronabop 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete- my vote is the same as for every arbitrary list like this, for the same reasons expressed above by the delete faction. Never ending, pointless list. What is next, "List of dogs shown in Popular Culture? (ie books/TV/film/cartoons/parades/muscials/whatever).JJJ999 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - there is nothing that ties this list together; there is nothing notable about this type of list and it can not be completed and will always be never ending. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm trying to tie the list together by focusing on pop culture references which use the North American archetype of coyote, hence my deletions. That being said, a merge with Coyote mythos does have a point. Ronabop 06:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting "deleting all the excellent articles." That sort of "oh noes, the sky will fall" argumentation is nonsense. Otto4711 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is worth keeping and improving, with time hopefully will connect the coyote dots before the actual species is eliminated. Benjiboi 12:57, 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 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VertrigoServ

Non-notable free software bundle, no reliable third-party coverage. Prod removed without explanation. Thomjakobsen 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No notability, no article. Mystache 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with Mystache and Thomjakobsen. Gh5046 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. No notability. No reliable sources. Reads like an advert. OfficeGirl 05:32, 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. Eluchil404 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Martin

Article is not referenced, seems biographical, and in my opinion doesn't meet notability requirements Carter | Talk it up 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yes, does not meet WP:NOTE. Appears to have done nothing to lift him above the status of jobbing actor and into the realms of significant roles in notable productions or receiving awards or honours and so on. --Malcolmxl5 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, if improved, he's done quite a fair bit of voice acting, look at the IMDB article for him. If the article isn't improved then delete. Gh5046 06:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN IMO Tiptopper 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N & WP:BIO - unsourced BLP invites trouble without a real reason to keep. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as Carlos Suarez has pointed out this is an unsourced WP:BLP violation which even if sourced would likely fail our biographical guidelines anyhow. Lose-lose. Burntsauce 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:13, 7 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 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Dora Golding

Article has essentially no content. No claim of notability and Google comes up with nothing remotely close to significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN and virtually no content. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, just a listing of non-notable people working for a non-notable camp, no indication if the information is even current (as it's an industry with a high rate of turnover). --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of importance, just a list of staff. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Bearian 21:48, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Beauchamp Taylor

In my opinion, the subject of this biographical article doesn't meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contents of the article are, as far as I can tell, entirely derived from the subject's personal web page and this is the only source listed in the article. A search of the web turns up no significant third-party sources on the subject. Cosmo0 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am listing the following:

(a product created by the subject of the above article) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN No meaningful references Tiptopper 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep While there are only 40 results when googling "Mark Beauchamp Taylor" if TOPCAT is notable enough to have it's own article, shouldn't the author be? ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reserving judgement on whether TOPCAT deserves its own article, I don't believe the one necessarily implies the other: the fact that a person contributed (even significantly) to a noteworthy project doesn't automatically make the person noteworthy in their own right. As for the 40 or so results returned by Google, they are almost all mirrors of Wikipedia content, along with a few contributions by the subject to other sites - there is no third-party biographical info. Cosmo0 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply First, inclusion is not notability. The fact that an article exists is not proof that article complies with policy. Second, notability is not inherited. I am willing to entertain the plausibility of notability for either Taylor or Topcat, but if only one is notable then the other should be merged into the one that passes. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable person, fails WP:RS. I added TOPCAT to this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep for him--he seems to have contributed to many other projects as well as TOPCAT--and has had a career as apparently a principal programmer for a very important research group. But this needs attention from an expert. DGG (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, after a search of Google News Archive and Google Books. Possibly merge to TOPCAT if utility is deemed notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
delete no assertion of notability for either the software or it's author, and no obvious grounds for such an assertion. I can't find the user forums, or archived user mailing lists I associate with notable software in the case of TOPCAT. Pete.Hurd 06:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Pete Hurd--Crusio 09:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All I get from the article is "he's a programmer who has worked on a bunch of projects". That's not enough. —David Eppstein 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N, WP:BIO and, charitably WP:PROF - if one's only source of material is a Uni's website, I'd expect at least meeting PROF. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pav Akhtar

This article was tagged in May as lacking a credible claim of notability - I think that is accurate, and it still lacks any such claim. This person was a student political activist, and is now a borough councillor, but that is the limit of it. These are not achievements that will garner significant independent coverage - there is unlikely to be an independent biography on the basis of such activities, and a local councillor will not normally qualify for an obituary in the broadsheets should they happen to die. Although we have articles on borough councillors it's almost always because they went on to become members of parliament, or did something else worthy of note. I suspect that this article exists to prove a point about gay Muslims, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. The article was started (and is the sole contribution of) an acknowledged student activist, who believes in 100% income tax for people earning over £50,000 (which does not indicate much of a grounding in realpolitik or indeed reality) Cruftbane 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, likely autobiography by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate biographical notability. First Muslim to win an office would be arguably notable, but first to run is not, by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete A local councillor does not meet WP:NOTE. He has quite bit of press in the Guardian as a student activist but nothing of significance or importance that would guarantee long-term historical notability in my view, so I lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Status as a local councillor might be insufficient for notability but the well-documented activity and controversy in student government qualifies. 76.212.213.198 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (Neglected to signin when leaving the preceding - Orphic 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
Weak keep - Please assume good faith; whether this article fails or passes WP:N, it does so very close to the borderline, and as such there are plenty of people, first-time contributors or not, who find Akhtar notable enough for an article, without him having to write his own autobiography. Regarding notability, he has held a notable and conspicuous public office (President of Cambridge University Students Union), and been a councillor. While these are not alone enough to pass WP:N, the secondary coverage and furore created by the Black Students' affair, and Akhtar's activities and such since, mean that he is a well-known figure covered in several independent sources. That said, if there is consensus to delete, I'm in favour of that too (as I said, its a borderline case). Jdcooper 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable politician and activist. Members of state/provincial legislatures (e.g., London City Council) are per se notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- If only he rose to such heights - he is a councillor for some subdivision of a subdivision of London. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Moderate Keep- those are fairly notable councils, and the involvement, if AGF applies, seems sufficient to get over the line. Clean up.JJJ999 05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

KeepIt provides useful information on this individual. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.155.23 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete seems like an interesting character, but fails WP:N & WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - info is good enough to shove this over the borderline - David Gerard 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Local politician. fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice Lambeth Councillor isn't enough to warrant coverage, and everything else is irrelevant. Without prejudice, as Lambeth councillors have been known to rise to more noteworthy positions. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. John Bosco Interparish School

Article on non-notable school Arizona, has existed for almost a year without any significant information added. Has been proposed for speedy deletion twice as non-notable. Macboots 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless significantly expanded and sourced. If this is a primary or intermediate school, then some indication of notability is required as well.-gadfium 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC). Now neutral. The article has been expanded and sourced, but still doesn't adequately assert notability.-gadfium 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question:Where might I find the policy for articles on primary or intermediate schools requiring notability, beyond their existence? If I don't see an answer here I'll hit up your talk page in a day or so. Gh5046 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions on school notability, but I am not aware that any have reached consensus. You can find links to at least some of those discussions at WP:SCHOOL. I am using my own standards, not any policy, to guide my recommendations on whether schools should have articles.-gadfium 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
One possibility would be to merge it into the appropriate neighbourhood article. The article doesn't say which neighbourhood it is in though.-gadfium 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, since it's been updated. ~~Delete if not expanded.If it doesn't have useful information there's no reason for its existence.~~ Gh5046 06:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No claim to notabilty whatsoever.--Victor falk 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete school with no claim of notabilty, no Reliable sources to boot. Jbeach56 21:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- While improved, still doesn't indicate notabilty, and the sources are very poor, either trivial mentions, local news, or very unreliable sources like great schools and flicker, still delete. Jbeach56 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as it looks like sources exist. I'll do what I can with the article momentarily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's much better, I've added an infobox and changed my vote to keep. Gh5046 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Jbeach56. Finding enough sources to justify notability for primary or intermediate schools is difficult, and I don't think the burden has been met yet. The references so far are quite minor. Schools do not acquire notability by having a recycling program. EdJohnston 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem very notable to me. It also lacks the most elementary information, e.g. what level school it is, and how many attend. Richard001 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep the updated version. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The "deletes" mostly have policy on their side; the "keeps" do not; the "move/rewrite" is a good idea but difficult to achieve with this article as it stands. However, if the original author or anyone else thinks they can achieve it, please ask for the history to go into your userspace and I'll oblige. With all due respect to Mr McCallum and for the avoidance of doubt, your input is welcome and was considered but it was not part of my thinking when determining consensus here. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boitumelo McCallum

This one's not going to make me popular, I know... Per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL I don't think this should be here. She appears to be famous solely as the victim of a crime, and as per policy in that case the article should be about the case & not the victim; however, tragic as it is, the case doesn't appear to be unusual/significant enough to warrant its own article. However, I'm not in New York, and the number of press citations makes me think that maybe this case was more significant in the US than it appears to be. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to Murder of Boitumelo McCallum, with a substantial rewrite. Currently has a big problem with the tone of the article right now... "The Jealous Boyfriend"? That's PoV for starters, surely, unless sourced. Infact, a lot of cleanup is needed, of various sorts. But I do think the case is notable; and, as is the case with articles such as Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and ... another story from this year (what it is exactly has completely passed my mind for right now), an article on the case with a section on the bio of the victim seems like the best option (especially considering, as you point out, the sheer number of sources available). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, has the boyfriend been convicted? If not, then he's an accused murderer, not murderer, surely? Loooots of tone/pov issues here... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. An importent and well-known case. And my advice, if you have symphaty for an article, dont nominate it. If it's really that bad someone else will. Dont forget then an article is something someone worked hard on. When he sees a messege like you wrotte he's like: "I worked on it, wrote, found references and he's not shure but nominates it??" So for the future, nothing will happen to you if you don't nominate, esspecially if you're not shure. M.V.E.i. 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What on earth are you talking about? Nowhere do I say I have sympathy for this article, I say I think it's apparently a clear violation of WP:NOT and am bringing it here for a second opinion just in case it's more notable than it appears. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Move and Edit - I have to agree with AllynJ. This article is noteworthy, it hit both New York Times and USAToday, but the POV is a major problem. Icestorm815 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It requires to much of a rewrite, instead of moving it just start over from scratch at Murder of Boitumelo McCallum. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia does not do memorial pages, and that's what this is. Being in the news does not make you notable. This is a sad story, not a notable one, unless you an show this is a historical event. MarkBul 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:ITSSOURCED pretty well, to be true, and there was a lot of news coverage, but apart from her parents this is not an unusual or important crime. Women are murdered by their boyfriends every day, and the only thing that sets this one apart is the academic setting.--Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing distinguishes this from the thousands of other murders reported in the newspapers. Clarityfiend 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete reads like a memoriam. Sad, but NN. Also appears to be local/state-interest only. All refs are New York. Irrelevant to the rest of the English-speaking wikipedia populace. --Sc straker 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I put a lot of work (one month's worth) into this page with cite references and almost everything else. Considering that at least one of her parent's had dealings with Nelson Mandela, dealt with the U.N. and other factors, this should be enough to keep it. "Too much of a rewrite?" Why? It's as POV as I can make it. The girl appears to have been on her way to be famous. Kindly recheck the story and maybe do a few Google searches on her.--MurderWatcher1 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Regretfully, WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep an article. shoy 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete having a parent having "dealings" with a notable somebody doesn't make you (or even the parent) notable. Notability is neither associative nor inherited. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
Weak Keep since a lot of the POV is now (hopefully) removed and sources such as CNN, MSNBC, USA Today have been added. Weak argument but I've seen worse. I also lean towards moving the article per AllynJ if nothing else. --ImmortalGoddezz 07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I notice that the argument is that this is "not notable". The basic notability criteria for biographical articles says that the criteria are the article has a statement or evidence of why the person is notable, and "the person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Nowhere does it say the person must be somebody particularly important, just that they must be the subject of a lot of reliable published works (e.g. articles), and the article should explain why, and it passes on both counts. One might venture that there must be some reason for all the coverate. On the other hand I do agree that people are murdered every day. Her death is hardly unique, but Wikipedia is not paper so if somebody wants to work on it (which people have been) then I say why not keep it? --TexasDex 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenence tags

As the father of Boitumelo McCallum when I read this article most of it is made up from newspaper articles at the time of my daughters death. The newspapers attempted to create scenarios of what had taken place before and on her death. These scenarios are very inaccurate and do little justice to Tumi's life. They are also very one dimensional. While considerable research may have been done to put up the page, this does not justify the reason for it remaining if it is inaccurate. It lacks substantive research and relies only on the media. At no time have the media actually interviewed me about many of these events. Much of the article is inaccurate and to edit it would mean to completely rewrite the piece. I strongly urge that this article be completely deleted, and a more appropriate page replace it that is more wholisitc and balnced in its perspective. The New York Times articles have been more accurate but even they have inaccuracies.(Rob McCallum 6.59 6 October, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmac367 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Robmac367: I had created the page to honor your daughter. When I had posted the page onto Wikipedia, I had informed your wife of the page's creation via telephone. It was my sole purpose to bring honor to your daughter and let the world know of her plight and to somehow ease your family's pain. I'm sorry if, in any way, you were offended by my work. If you will check the other pages that I have created on murdered women re: Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon, then you will see that this was my sole intention also with these other young women. We have had too many senseless deaths in New York City in the past year and one-half, and this was my way of fighting this evil - by creating references for these young women. I have had no other way to research your daughter and her story other than searches on the Internet and her MySpace.com webpage, and barely a few other websites. It is hard to describe any individual and put the totality of that person's life into any written kind of perspective. I am saddened by the page's deletion and I had hoped that others would contribute to the page. I won't attempt any further work on Boitumelo unless you request it. Again, my apologies if there was any offense. All I can do now is pray for your family.--MurderWatcher1 16:13, 8 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doncaster live

Non-notable. Originally deleted once by User:Deb - not sure if it was speedy or just the user's own decision, mind - but recreated and A7 turned down this time, by User:Moonriddengirl. Anyway, nn in my eyes. Only ref is a first-party source, from Myspace. Google search for '"Doncaster live" magazine' brings up a *few* sources, most of which are unrelated (mostly on a namesake festival hosted in Doncaster). Only source I could find was: [4] , which I don't think is reliable enough, and doesn't have any info except verification that it exists. Considering it was only created last month it's far too soon, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A7 doesn't apply to print material, but that doesn't mean it satisfies WP:Notability. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEWS, WP:NOT, and WP:CRYSTAL - it's brand new, free magazine, and may not last a year. Bearian 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 03:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Pykett

Google returns 1 hit for a tennis player of this name, a 14-year-old in Leeds, UK, who won a doubles tournament. Multiple instances of CTA as a tennis organization but all seem to be local to specific US states. Unknown what a "world semi proffesional tennis player" means.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs)

Delete as a hoax or embellished bio of an otherwise non-notable person. No sources available to verify his existence or demonstrate notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The lad in Leeds would appear not to be the subject of this article as he's too young. I cannot find any sources to verify that this person otherwise exists. --Malcolmxl5 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN --Tiptopper 03:20, 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 redirect to Stoner rock. Martial BACQUET 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoner music

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stoner music

Articles for deletion/Stoner music (2nd nomination)

This article was previously nominated for deletion some two years ago. It survived (barely); but with the expectation that it be cleaned up. This has not taken place; the article remains unreferenced and vague. It may be possible that we can have an article on this topic, but it isn't possible now, and hasn't been possible for three years. The article as written makes no claim as a noteworthy sub-genre, and presents no evidence that its claims are truthful or representative. Indeed, commentators at the previous debate reflected skepticism at some of the article's claims--those claims remain, unreferenced. While we are under no pressing deadline to whip articles into shape, we are also not obligated to keep bad articles around in the hope that some day someone will fix them. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Its authors are obviously still too stoned to commit to editing it. To be serious of what it is a subgenre I couldn't begin to guess. --Rodhullandemu 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

- Comment Are there any more cheese doodles? MarkBul 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Mackensen, NN enough to warrant an article. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 22:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is such a thing as Stoner rock, which seems to be in substantially better condition than this article, although it doesn't have the intended scope that this article seems to have. A redirect may be in order. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to stoner rock. That's the most common "stoner" designation used in reputable music journalism. Chubbles 05:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News and the first 100 hits on google proper for "stoner rock" -wikipedia bring up no reliable sources. Many hits (pun intended) on cannabis and music forums, but we can't exactly cite those. The article is OR, plain and simple. --Gimme danger 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete That stoners don't listen to ambient, speed metal, gregorian choirs or Wagner is patently false--Victor falk 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to stoner rock -- Whpq 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete or keep rather than redirect to stoner rock (~~can't make up my mind~~). Stoner rock is a well defined genre whereas stoner music is just a term (not a genre) for music (whatever genre e.g. reggae, hip hop) that is strongly associated with cannabis use. In other words, it's music to listen while getting high. See Rolling Stone articles [5] and [6]. The term is wildly used on the internet, mainly in forums and other non-notable media. Here are some examples of more reliable media that have used the term: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and less notable but nevertheless sources [14], [15] . Some of them refer to stoner rock, most do not. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:44, 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 No consensus to delete - default keep although additionnal sources would probably be require, so I will tag it in consequence.--JForget 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric and the Gazebo

This article about a humorous role-playing game anecdote was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) in May 2007 under speedy deletion criterion A7. The deletion was recently contested on the Help Desk by a person claiming to be the author of the story in question. As the story first appeared in a print publication, the article does not seem to satisfy the deliberately strict requirements of CSD A7. Since there is also some evidence that the story may in fact be notable, and as the deleting admin has retired from Wikipedia, I have chosen to undelete the article and place it on AfD instead. My personal opinion here is neutral, perhaps leaning slightly towards keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, for now. This, along with the Head of Vecna story, are the quintessential RPG stories. There's one source in the article, and it is secondary, but I'm not sure if that establishes notability for it. I'll try and dig something else up on it, the story really has reached "urban legend" status. And we really need to find a better name for the article. Merging into gazebo is also an option, but according to the talk page, it keeps getting merged out. --UsaSatsui 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I laughed out loud, probably because I haven't heard the story in almost 20 years. But unless secondary sources have written about the story's importance as an anecdote or analyzed it as an example of communication issues in gaming, it isn't remotely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The source referenced is a possible secondary source (or at least a reprint of one), and since it's been referenced in some outside products, I think the sourcing issues can be addressed. My main concern (and the reason I don't have a "keep" up yet) is whether or not the story is significant enough to warrant it's own article.--UsaSatsui 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I lean towards keep. DS 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There are definite secondary sources which confirm that this is one of the seminal D&D stories, and has influenced many streams of the gaming culture. All are, however, in essence, retellings of the same incident, the same original telling, and the same influences. In short, it happened once, had its effect and will never be repeated (unlike the Head of Vecna which, with a relabelling and a credulous player-group, almost might be made to happen again). Neutral on the "vote", but can confirm multiple 2ndary sources. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Unless there's a source for notability. E.g. if the statement At least two gaming related businesses have drawn their name from this story. in the article is extended to name those businesses (with source) and they are any notable, that might help. The best I could find myself was a mention in some usenet FAQ. --Allefant 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a classic anecdote among roleplayers. Axl 11:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep remove PROD and put in a source tag instead. Web Warlock 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep But then again, I would say that, wouldn't I? The game companies referred to are probably Wild Gazebo Productionsand Dread Gazebo: I had a message from the author of the original article and those are the two he mentioned. Can I just say I'd be happy to re-write, just as long as someone can walk me through what I need to include to show notability.JustIgnoreMe 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, the requirements at WP:N should be met. Basically, we should find an independent, reliable source which asserts notability, i.e. repeats a claim like "this anecdote had a big impact on the RPG community". Personal homepages are not independent/reliable enough for that, and I'm not sure that FAQ is. And not every D&D story being told in a D&D magazine is notable. To me, it seems this one indeed is notable though, just there's no adequate sources proving so. --Allefant 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What if we redefine the problem? I've always seen this piece as an anecdote, like an urban myth except true. What would be the implications of reclassifying "Eric" as, say, a short piece of non-fiction? Would it then be sufficient to show that it had been printed in two reliable independent sources? JustIgnoreMe 19:11, 8 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 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible Quizzes 1 and 2

Most of this article is comprised of a walkthrough for the "sequel" (or whatever you want to call it). Unsourced, and fails WP:WEB. — Malcolm (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as NN & unsourced. meshach 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO, also a bit lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Out of six popular forums surveyed, I found one off-the-cuff reference to the Impossible Quiz... four months ago.--WaltCip 17:59, 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 keep. Good work, people. DS 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan McAnespie

Delete: Non-notable as one of over 3000 victims of the Troubles. Clear hagiography. Mazur-Grosskopf 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable, useful, interesting. M.V.E.i. 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN Sad story. Inflammatory in tone. Very opinionated. Tiptopper 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E. Sad & tragic? Yes, definitely. But he has no notability outside of this one incident, and so an article isn't suitable for Wikipedia. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The case was highlighted at the The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, held in Dublin Castle, April 1995.[16] I have also added some more info and references to the article and will add more latter.--Padraig 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I've added some more information, and references, although I'm not as happy with some of them as I could be (One's a fan forum article, but it is discussing a Panorama programme.). No strong opinion on the deletion debate. --Kateshort forbob 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Aidan McAnespie's notability comes from the fact that the circumstances of his death were raised every time the GAA was pressed on whether it should continue rule 21 about non-involvement with security forces. He is not just 'another victim of the Troubles' but a very highly publicised case which has had significant political and cultural ramifications. Sam Blacketer 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, sources obviously treat it as a special case, investigations indicate unusual importance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 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 speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Natalie 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthphonia Suprema

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No reliable third-party sources for notability, not listed at allmusicguide.com. The text is also a cut-and-paste job of [17], but I'm listing it here on reasons of notability as I'm assuming it's self-promotion and they wouldn't mind releasing their bio under a free license. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. M.V.E.i. 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep on the basis that they have about 12000 Ghits and clearly have a following which seems to be mostly European. Article needs tidying up however but if this doesn't happen within a reasonable time and include more reliable case for notability, it should go. --Rodhullandemu 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. Notability is a guideline, but copyright is policy. -- Whpq 16:48, 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 redirect. Since they both stood at the same time, a history merge isn't appropriate, and there's no burning need to delete the content either. Just a simple redirect. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telecommunications Complex

The article doesn't really assert its importance for its subject. It isn't clearly notable. Also, the only reference listed, goes to a page that isn't even English. I know it is listed as a stub, but stubs have guidelines also, and this doesn't seem to meet them. Rjd0060 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps it can be deleted and redirected to Telecommunications Tower. - Rjd0060 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since almost all of the content was copied and pasted from Telecommunications Tower and that seems to be the only notable building in the complex, I think redirect is the way to go. I'm not quite bold enough to do it myself at this time, though. Deor 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Telecommunications Tower, since most of the information is already in that article. Since Telecommunications Tower is the tallest building in Uruguay, it definitely qualifies as notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable building. WP is not a real estate listing service. --Gavin Collins 11:25, 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 delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Major

Apparently not credited in the films she purports to have had roles in, according to IMDB Accounting4Taste 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN Tiptopper 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete by the articles own admission, this is a minor actor. No listing on IMDB for any roles. Completely fails WP:V. -- Whpq 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N & WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lodewijk van Beethoven

Person only notable for being the grandfather of the famous composer. Apparent attempt by Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) to push his POV on the naming of Johann van Beethoven. Matthead ^discuß! O 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm, i'm gonna have to got with Delete, not because of anything to do with Rex's edits, but because he(Lodewijk) doesn't appear to show any notability other having musical genes. If Notability is not inherited, does that mean ancestors don't get it either? I'm pretty sure it does--Jac16888 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete/Merge~~ Userfy to Rex's userspace Knowing Matthead's and Rex's history there may be a conflict of interest in the nomination (as well as I'd suggest a rewording to maintain neutrality), still the question regarding the notability remains. And being the parent of a notable figure does not seem to be notable enough for me (worst case we might enter recursion with the parent of said notable parent). Thus, delete or merge. 84.145.195.64 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As Rex has stated he wants to write an entire article regarding the van Beethoven family history, I think he might want to incorporate the contents into that new article. Thus I'd suggest userfy (and I'll be curious to read the new van Beethoven family article once it is done). 84.145.195.64 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. The man was a noted composer/conductor himself. The only reason why Matthead wants to delete is so he can minimize or remove any references to Beethovens Dutch origins other than his name.Rex 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to a work of his, and where we can listen to it? - Looking forward to more Beethoven symphonies! -- Matthead ^discuß! O 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We? You 're not hearing voices now are you? Oh, and he was a choir conductor, so unless you have a time machine ... Rex 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The noted composer/conductor is noted for what? His German grandson. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned. Rex 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus(!) exposing once again his racist, nationalist, anti-German views - the only reason for him to start this article. Besides, his son Johann van Beethoven was an alcoholic, his treatment of Ludwig was questionable if not out-right child abuse. Dutch musical genes seem to rely heavily on Beats? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If hope I misread you calling me a racist. Because 1: Germans are not race (at least, not in the books I read) and 2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes. As for Johans agressiveness... why do you link that to the Dutch side of the family. I think history sort of proves who were the 'agressive' ones.Rex 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

keep the are much less notable biographies on wiki. Being grandfather of someone of the level of Beethoven in itself is already notable enough to me; being able to find back some information on a grandfather is what makes encycplodia reading fun. Arnoutf 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you are then interested in Wikipedia biographies of his three other Grandparents also? If so, feel free to use the info at Johann van Beethoven for a start - voting by doing. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to write proper English matthead. In English also is never position at the end of a sentence. Oh and for the record, I would read about his other grandparents, but there are no articles on them now are they? Maybe his German grandparents were just not that notable... Rex 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would like to read about his other grandparents as well. Arnoutf 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Magdalena Keverich-- Matthead ^discuß! O 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Always nice and interesting to read redirect pages.Rex 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Notability is non-transferable. humblefool ® 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge at worst: Considering the famous composer's incredibly encyclopedic importance, somehow this information can and should be salvaged. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on the father, Johann van Beethoven, where the grandfather and other ancestors can be covered, too. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you really want it to go don't you Matthead? Well, I'd like to use the opportunity to tell you that I'm planning on making a whole article about Beethovens ancestry.Rex 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Soft Keep This Lodewijk is NN Tiptopper 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With NN, do you mean Wikipedia:Non-notability? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - He doesn't have an entry in the New Grove. He's mentioned in his grandson's entry, where he's described as a 'trained musician, with a fine bass voice'. His appointment as Kapellmeister at Bonn is mentioned, although the Grove article says that he 'seems not to have been a composer, unlike other occupants of such a post'. At best a very minor figure. The Grove article, btw, calls him Ludwig with a parenthetical Louis. BPMullins | Talk 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If Rex wishes to write an article on the whole family/ancestry, then keep for now, until it can be merged there. The Bach family article could serve as a model in a way (even though the Bachs seem to be much more notable.) The New Grove contents can serve as enough verification to provisionally justify this article until then, even if Grove doesn't give him an entry of his own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice suggestion, that would make it much better. Thanks Arnoutf 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm willing to be persuaded that the man's career somehow makes him notable (is a 16-year-old vice-conductorship of a choir a significant thing, for example?), but at present the only real claim on notability here is that his grandson went on to become one of the greatest composers around. Notability doesn't go up and down family trees. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete, there seems to be a non-trivial career here in an era when this was an important job, but there are so few sources discussing him and they all do so in the context of his grandson. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If somebody comes up in Google Scholar[18] and [19]Google Books, he is usually notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How do these surprisingly few hits prove notability independent from his grandson? These 5 resp. 25 hits for "Lodewijk van Beethoven" compare to a certain "Maria Josepha Poll" with 4 resp.36, which is hardly surprising, as the two were married. Kudos for digging out this jewel: Beethoven as a Black Composer discussing "Beethoven's African ancestry", "perhaps an ancestor of Beethoven's was Spanish. That would open the door for African background". Yo, man! --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if he had Black ancestry, or Spanish for that matter, it wouldn't mind me. Would it be a problem to you if his family were blacks from Africa Matthead. Yo man?Rex 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, merge or userfy. Non-notable as an individual. -Freekee 04:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Grandaddy Ludwig is mentioned both in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music in connection with the more famous Beethoven. He was a bass at the court in Bonn, which established a family dynasty of noteworthy musicans. Ghits are a bust, as he is often referred to as "Ludwig van Beethoven", elder. Chubbles 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, "in connection"! Not on his own right. And that's the way it should be treated here, too.It's just a sideline. Look at those five pathetic sentences, only three of them contain somewhat interesting info. That's not enough for an article. Gray62 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep-very interesting historical person.--Molobo 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not enough information to warrant an article. Nothing provided so far makes the case that the granddad was an important enough person to be mentioned seperately in any encyclopedia. Gray62 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge to Johann van Beethoven. Certainly it is of interest and notability that Ludwig came from a family with a long history of musical talent. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete His only notability is in relation to his grandson, so any information on him should be there. He was apparently musically talented, but that, in itself, does not establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Beethoven, Johann van Beethoven, or userfy for "entire article regarding the van Beethoven family history." — AjaxSmack 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough. He was a minor choirmaster and a singer; I see no evidence he composed anything. Some famous grandsons have famous grandfathers (see Charles Darwin/Erasmus Darwin or Felix Mendelssohn/Moses Mendelssohn). This doesn't fall into that category and sets a bad precedent for a proliferation of articles about famous persons' non-notable ancestors. --Folantin 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep- being related to someone this famous just gets him in, I'd like some more info though...JJJ999 05:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge to a single article on the lesser Beethoven family members. He appears to be in Grove, and that should be good enough, given that we seem to have articles on every single release by every single band that ever got signed by some indie label, few of which have any references at all outside their own MySpace. Cruftbane 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to son's article. --Sc straker 01:32, 8 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 deleted by Butseriouslyfolks as "nonsense, A7". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MeiMei

Copyright violation.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment; this was speedy-deleted as nonsense and I don't see any pressing need to recreate it. Accounting4Taste 17:56, 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 speedily deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of stuff

It is a list of "stuff," that links to completely random articles in alphabetical order. Domthedude001 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RandomStuffIsGood Flobert 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete; just sheer nonsense, should probably have been speedied. Accounting4Taste 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete what a pile of crap. Completely useless list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Hut 8.5 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep for making me LOL. Seriously though, delete, but mention at the bad jokes page. Lugnuts 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol, why remove it? Keep Cheezychick 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Not in the same league as the Upper peninsular war, otherwise, as it says, just random stuff. Acroterion _(talk) 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Seriously, I think that a list of stuff would be very helpful to many people who look at Wikipedia. Arogi Ho 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Completely useless list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Keep BabbageCabbage 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment, if nothing else, it is a very interesting collection of stuff. 96T 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and replace every other article with a redirect to it. Oh all right then, reluctant delete. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Very useful, very interesting, all notable things, not an indiscriminate list, no original research, no POV, no copyright violation, contains no statistics, author has done a lot of hard work, does not duplicate other list, other crap does not exist, and it is, should be a wikiproject. As it says, a list of stuff, but not just any stuff, though, because every single one of these things gets 100+ hits on google. Plus, Andy Rooney has done a pointless essay about every one of these things. Mandsford 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep why should we delete it; It's an indiscriminate collection of info--Phoenix 15 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (joke)
Delete WP:NOT#INFO. This would fall under statistics. Or maybe WP:NOT#STUPID. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 19:03, 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. Reedy Boy 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996)

I added this using a link from the List of defunct airlines where a redlink showed this as Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996) and not as the previously existing Arizona Airways (1993-1996). I have merged information and and corrected the incorrect link and am requesting this be deleted. Thanks! Patriarca12 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Could've really been speedy deleted. But hey ho! Reedy Boy 19:38, 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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MXPie

Borders on spam, probably non-notable. Also probably original research. I didn't think it was obvious enough for a speedy, so here it is. CitiCat ^♫ 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Spammy, the only purpose of the article is to hype one NN product Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete — no third-party, reliable sources; non-notable product. --Ag ü eybaná 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn product, fails WP:N & WP:V. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 4 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. Hopefully sources will follow.--Kubigula (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E. Upton and Sons

Orphan article on seemingly non notable department store chain. "E. Upton and Sons" on Google turns up nothing but this article. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7 OSborn^arf 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as A7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a bogus A7 - removed. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) If in ANY doubt, it goes to AFD. Which is why we are here - David Gerard 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is notable. its a part of intl retail history. Just becuz Google doesnt yield something, doesnt mean this article is NOT valuable. Doesnt that mean Wikipedia has one up on Google? The point Wikipedia is not for a few control-dizzy users to delete articles. Its to expand the knowlege base that is available to Wikiusers. Lets Keep it! john 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep probably notable if sources are found. Should be possible. Newspapers did exist in the 20th century.DGG (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that if the company survived into the 21st century, that at least one online source would verify it. Even just "Upton and Sons" turns up only a publishing company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

- Keep - certainly notable as a regional chain of stores, although the frequent changes of name and various ways you can format a name like E Upton & Sons doesn't help. I'd guess Googling Upton Middlesbrough -"Upton Park" should turn up something, or Google Upton & Southern which was the name of the holding company for a while. Citywire noted the sale of the stores by Upton & Southern. I've invited WikiProject North East England to contribute to the article. FlagSteward 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:17, 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. The one "keep" proponent conceded the claim was borderline; there seems to be consensus for lack of notability. No prejudice against a recreation in future with a clearer assertion of notability and citations of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Chaim

The man has almost no notability: [20], and the article questionably asserts it: being a DJ and releasing an album are not claims to notablity. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7~~ OSborn^arf 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried that. The Evil Spartan 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Changed to Delete as non notable DJ. OSborn^arf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep There are a lot of hits for his moniker "Anonymous Twist". There are also a lot for "DJ Apollo", but it appears that more than 1 DJ goes by that name. Here's a review from CBC Radio 3. Now Magazine named him best hip-hop artist in Toronto, information on his record company's website, review from JIVE Magazine, information from URBNET, more from Now Magazine. Bláthnaid 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N & WP:V - the cites above are not the significant coverage from reliable sources expected to establish notability - the coverage differs little from that accorded any local on-air personality of even passing duration. WP is not the yellow pages. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment 2000 album review and 2007 article from Exclaim! magazine, which is a national magazine/website. I can't find any music charts that his music is on, though, so he's borderline N. Bláthnaid 10:26, 5 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 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Of Life

Unreferenced and apparently non-notable, ranging from this to present version. Very likely a hoax. GregorB 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Actually sounds like an attack page. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm still not sure if this is a film or a book but neither sound notable and no Google hits that make sense. Accounting4Taste 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Looks too much like something made up in school one day. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JJL 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ATT, WP:N and WP:MADEUP. Carlosguitar 21:23, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shade 45

The article is essentially just a radio station guide, which violates WP:NOT#DIR. Notability is not inherited and unless there are sources to show the station is notable by itself, there is no reason to keep a page that is just a directory and with no potential to expand. Spellcast 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Sirius is a notable, non-local media provider, hip-hop is a notable cultural phenomenon and Eminem is a notable owner. To me this is equivalent to a high-power radio station. The schedule information should be removed, however. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Satellite Radio is certainly notable. But I don't think that necessarily means every station on the channel is notable. A Google search reveals little to no in-depth coverage from secondary sources. Spellcast 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete or Redirect to Sirius Satellite Radio I hate to say it, because I love my XM, but most of these channels aren't in and of themselves notable. There are certainly exceptions to this (or individual programs on some of these channels that would merit an article), but I don't think Shade 45 gets over that hurdle, as it has no real reliable sources. Neither will most XM or Sirius channels. Does anyone know of any precedents? Surely Shade 45 isn't the first one to face afD. SkerHawx 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be many similar channels in List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations with questionable notability. Spellcast 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Are you kidding? Ugh. This is a nationally-broadcasted station operated by a internationally-known celebrity. This should be kept, and removed from nominated status as quickly as possible. Because this seems like it was probably only nominated because someone has a problem with either rap or Eminem. -Josh 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:N. Vague assertions of notability mean nothing if you can't provide sources. Spellcast 01:31, 8 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 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dermot J. O'Reilly

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dermot J. O'Reilly

I see absolutely nothing confirming this man's notability. The only google hit is a marriage notice: [21] The Evil Spartan 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not yet notable. Tiptopper 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The most he's been cited by is 11.--Sethacus 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And on top of everything, it appears to be an autobiography. GregorB 16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I cannot find any significant papers. The Google Scholar refs [22] are to another Dermot O'Reilly, a demographer. Web of Science shows one paper only, Bellucci S, O'Reilly D, Nonminimal string corrections and supergravity PHYSICAL REVIEW D 73 (6): Art. No. 065009 MAR 2006 , cited zero times. arXiv has two additional unpublished papers. [23] and [24]. I know the word "vanity" is depreciated, but .... DGG (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A physicist with a PhD in 2006 would need to have done something special to have yet attained WP:PROF standards, and there is no evidence that this is the case here. I've also failed to find any evidence that the book he edited (Accepting the Challenge: The Memoirs of Michael Flannery (2001)) is notable. Espresso Addict 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A lot of largely-unsourced detail but nothing stands out as notable. —David Eppstein 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete vanity page. JJL 22:51, 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 as hoax. Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tobikunashiotomono Matsubara

Apparently a hoax. GregorB 16:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - based on this search: 2007 September 29 - appears to be a hoax. Addhoc 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's quite incredible that this article managed to survive for nearly five months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorB (talk • contribs) 16:46, 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 and Salt Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to formally record my reasons for the decision. Basically its indiscriminate information. Even the way it was framed meant that inclusion was too hit and miss to be properly encyclopaedic and its too broad an area to properly define a manageable list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christians

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Christians	Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination)	Articles for deletion/List of Christians (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/List of Christians in entertainment and media

This was deleted (by me) several weeks ago after a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). It's not an identical recreation so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. The assertion on the talk page is that the problems identified in the previous AfD, including the arbitrariness of the criteria for listing, are addressed in the recreation. I think that assertion needs to be tested at AfD. Please do not let this be a repeat of the previous AfD verbatim. The question before us is simply: Have the issues that caused the previous incarnation to be deleted been addressed? Chick Bowen 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Adolf Hitler and a serial killer? I see this page is much improved. MarkBul 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seven individuals... only a few billion more needed to make this list complete. More being saved every day. Mandsford 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your argument here? That the list is incomplete? Of course it is incomplete, and ever will it be. That's not a criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's Nick Graves again. Hi, Nick. Nice to see you again. Mandsford 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be sarcasm. It's hard to tell in print. In any case, what is your response? Are you proposing a change in deletion criteria to include lists that are incomplete? Or do you have another reason for recommending deletion--one that is consistent with existing policy or guidelines? Nick Graves 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sarcasm. I think I speak for all ten of us who have voted to delete, when I say that we appreciate that you take the time to respond to each of us individually. And we respect the fact that you want to fight to keep your article. And, being a Christian myself, I'm all in favor of encouraging people to make that decision during their lifetime. But honestly, what's your agenda here? Do you plan to list every notable person in history whose upbringing included trips to a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc. church? Or is this one of those articles where you start with a handful of people and ask everyone else to "contribute"? I'd vote the same for a List of Moslems, List of Jews, List of Zoroastrians, etc. Mandsford 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing appreciation on behalf of yourself and other editors who recommend deletion. But appreciation is not what I'm after when I make these individual responses. This is a discussion, not a vote, and I'm asking people to specify the policy-supported rationales that may or may not be behind their recommendation. You still have not explained how you believe your delete recommendation is supported by policy. In this latest comment, it seems you object to the supposedly indiscriminate scope of the list ("every notable person in history whose upbringing includes trips to... church"). But that is most certainly not the intended scope of the list, whose inclusion criteria specify that these are persons identified by reliable sources as Christians who are particularly important to Christianity in some way (its development, its public face, etc.). If that is your objection to the list, your are objecting to a straw man. You seem concerned about how this list will be formed, whether by me individually, or through collaboration. The means by which the list will be created has no bearing on whether it should exist. You say that you would vote the same way for other lists of this type, but this just begs the question "Why delete?" So I ask you again: Why delete? Incompleteness is not a valid criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt - The membership criteria listed at the top of the article appears to be closer to meeting Criteria for inclusion in lists. However, it fails to mention anything about independent reliable sources. Including those people who have identified themselves as a Christian as noted on the article talk page violates the independent requirement of the general notability guidelines. The implementation of that criteria for individuals clearly is original research whose selective inclusion in the list are designed to give a WP:POV negative view of Christians. Despite the message sent by AfD#2, that message was not received by those who re-created this article. The re-creation of this article after deletion in unencyclopedic form and against policy creates a need to protect this topic from further re-creation until a new group of editors become interested in the topic and the old editors have moved on to other topics. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. RS1900 posted a strong delete at AfD#2 but was the one who added the Hitler reference to the present article.[25] This seems like WP:POINT, but those editing the article discussed the matter on the talk page and declined to remove the Hitler addition to the list, even though it did not meet the listed membership criteria. The only thing I can make of this is that those presently interested in the article lack the experience to maintain control over this article, which supports my salt request. -- Jreferee t/c 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the other editors, but I have extensive experience with lists of people by belief, including List of atheists, and List of agnostics, which (under my former account) I helped save from the brink of deletion by tightening inclusion criteria and providing sourcing. I have also heavily contributed to List of Telecaster players, also helping make the inclusion criteria more strict, and providing reliable sources for the entries there. It went on to become a featured list. Please forgive my apparent lack of vigilance at List of Christians, as I have been involved in an AfD discussion and collecting evidence for alleged sockpuppetry. Please also see the changes made there since the current AfD. Nick Graves 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee, in what way did the re-creation of this article go against policy? You also say that it has been created in "unencyclopedic form." Surely, it is not yet in a form that in any signficiant way replicates the encyclopedic ideal, but is this not a consequence of the sheer newness of the article? Rare is the article treating any substantial topic that finds itself in a very useful and pleasing shape within the first few days of its creation. Nick Graves 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is clear that very strict criteria are needed. Some editors have not gotten the picture yet, but after this latest AfD, I'd wager they will. Please do not expect this article to be in perfect condition, or anywhere near a complete or substantial state so soon after being created. Of course, it would be asinine to try to list all Christians in the world, but no one has suggested doing so. Please see the list in its latest state, with new, strict criteria. Nick Graves 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you describe here what you feel the criteria to be? It's not entirely clear to me what "notable as Christians" (which is the only definition of criteria in the article itself) means. After all, no one is notable only as a Christian. Most of the people on it currently seem to be either clergymen or people whose Christianity is somewhat surprising (like Hitler) which seems to me to be somewhat different. Chick Bowen 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - "Notable as Christians" does not mean "notable only as Christians." I don't think most people would assume the latter based on the former wording. If you've got a better idea for wording, I'm all ears. This criterion is put that way to specify that not all notable people who are Christians belong in the list (like, say, Hitler). I suppose Britney Spears is a notable Christian, but she is not notable as a Christian. Constantine is notable as a Roman emperor, but he is also notable as a Christian, since he was so influential in the religion becoming the state religion of Rome. Nick Graves 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    - So presumably the list could include David Koresh, Fred Phelps, Joseph Kony, Joseph Smith, Jr., Eric Robert Rudolph, Vlad III the Impaler? Thomjakobsen 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Sure, if reliable sources are found stating that they are notable as Christians. If you or anyone else finds this to be a distasteful possibility, might I suggest considering it anew within the context of WP:NPOV. The job of lists such as these is not to document only the notable Christians that everyone likes. It's not a List of good Christians. After all, List of atheists includes such monsters as Stalin and Enver Hoxha. These lists should not serve an apologetic purpose, pro or con. Nick Graves 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Whatever inclusion criteria the article's creator may have in mind, they're certainly not clear from the article's text or from his actions after this AfD started. For one thing, he deleted the C. S. Lewis entry from the list; and if CSL isn't "notable as a Christian" the meaning of that phrase must be escaping me entirely. Every individual clergyman with a WP article, every Christian theologian throughout history, every saint in any Christian denomination's calendar—why would not all these and many, many more folk merit listing here? If the list's maintenance depends entirely on the creator's "knowing one when he sees one," without a way for any other contributor to judge whether a potential entry does or does not meet the inclusion criteria, then the list is effectively unmaintainable. Deor 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis is the type of person who definitely belongs, but he could not stay on the merits of the former source cited, as it reported on his personal profession of faith, rather than confirming his notability as a Christian. This change was made in response to Jreferee's comments above, with the intent to forge a new list with inclusion criteria every bit as strict as editors in this AfD and the former one believe should be in place. I'm not sure how the inclusion criteria text could be made any clearer than it already is, but I am open to suggestions. You seem to think a clearer set of criteria are possible. What, pray, would those be if not the ones already in place? The list's maintenance absolutely does not depend on the creator's "knowing [a Christian] when he sees one." Every individual listed so far depends on independent, reliable sources for such identification. C.S. Lewis and many more notable Christians can be added by myself and other editors using reliable sources if given the opportunity. I am certainly eager to begin that work. Nick Graves 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete On the basis of what use is it? Who would need such a list? By definition it's never going to be complete anyway per above. And I can see endless edit wars breaking out. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be of use to people wishing to survey those figures who are notable among Christians. Maybe this is not something of interest to you, in which case the list is of no use to you personally. But that does not make it of no use at all. Sure, it'll never be complete. The collection of human knowledge in encyclopedic form is always an ongoing process, and in no other format is this more evident than at Wikipedia. Are you saying we should not try to collect information here just because there is too much of it? If you're right, then all of Wikipedia and its 2 million plus articles ought to be abandoned. Imaginary future edit wars are not a criterion for deletion. There are a great many fine articles that have gone through numerous and/or lengthy edit wars. Nick Graves 02:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename as Lists of Christians and delete section for individuals. That will be specific and of some encyclopedic navigational value. Or would a category be better for this? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete While theoretically defined and limited, in practice - as pointed out above - every saint, cardinal, bishop, rabbi, eastern orthodox whatever-they-are, would make this impossibly large. And that's without thinking about references. And what about all the American politicians who make a stink about their religious values - do they all get in? And does Thomas Jefferson get in? He edited his own bible. There's just no end to it in practice. MarkBul 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever happens, I don't think that rabbis would qualify. :) Deor 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Agree, I doubt if rabbis would appreciate being included in a list of Christians. I can also see arguments breaking out along the lines of the Peoples' Front of Judea versus the Judean Peoples' Front. Unhelpful & difficult to manage. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No doubt it's a massive undertaking, but it will not be an impossibly large article, as it will naturally be broken down into logical subdivisions which will then be split off into separate articles as length merits, and as is customary with other lists of this type. Why should there be a List of Zoroastrians, but not a List of Christians just because there happen to be so many Christians? And yes, I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I do not think that the Zoroastrians list is crap, other than the fact that it needs sourcing. Nick Graves 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see it is somewhat improved over the earlier discussions here today. some of the people added show a possible desire to sabotage the list by making it ridiculous. suggestion: make it List of lists of Christians, referring to the other specific lists that e already have or could make. DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete There are so many christians and it would be very difficult to maintain a list like this. I think it should be deleted. I would say, strong delete. RS1900 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly can be difficult to maintain lists. Sometimes, people insist on making POV-motivated additions to lists such as this, without proper regard for inclusion criteria.Take this, for example. But any article can be vulnerable to that type of thing. That shouldn't stop us from trying. Many potentially controversial lists have gone through rough patches, but have been hammered into good shape in the end. Some even end up achieving featured status. Nick Graves 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete far too many people in the English-language WP will qualify. Might as well have a List of English-speakers artcile. JJL 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The current inclusion criteria would exclude the vast majority of notable people who happen to be Christian, since their Christianity isn't a big part of their notability. A better comparison would be with a list of notable Anglophone orators, or a list of persons widely regarded as influential in the development or spread of the English language. Nick Graves 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - I believe we have several guidelines and policies which indicate that neither completeness or length are ever to be considered reasonable criteria for deletion. Having said that, I believe that, in conjunction with all the similar articles in the Category:Lists of Christians, these articles together could in time become reasonably complete. Also, an article such as this clearly would be useful as the central article for that category. I acknowledge it will need substantial work, but the same can be said for every stub article that currently exists, and we don't see them being nominated for deletion on the basis of being incomplete. John Carter 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt Whatever inclusion criteria, they are bound to be hopelessly arbitrary. --Victor falk 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is simply false. The inclusion criteria currently in place are far from arbitrary, and tie inclusion to what is reported in reliable sources, rather than the opinions of individual editors. Nick Graves 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think it will be possible to maintain this list without succumbing to point-of-view arguments. I also think it's potentially so large as to be unmanageable. NawlinWiki 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- The possibility that there might be future disputes about content is not a criterion for deletion. In any case, the possibility of POV arguments is reduced by linking the content of this list with what is reported in reliable sources. This makes inclusion not a matter of an editor's individual opinion, but a matter of what has been reliably reported by others. The list is potentially very large, but it can be broken down into manageable and useful sections and then sub-lists as length merits. Such sub-lists could include List of Christian philosophers, List of Christian apologists, or List of Christian activists. Nick Graves 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a question here. C.S. Lewis is described as a "Christan apologist" and is well-known as a "christian author" (Screwtape, Narnia). If we had List of Christian apologists and and List of Christian authors, would he appear in both? And how would St Thomas Aquinas or Thomas a Kempis fit into this structure, each belonging to several possible categories? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with someone being listed in more than one list, provided they fit. Many of those included in lists by profession would also fit into a certain list by denomination. That sort of question is a "bridge we can cross when we get there," assuming the current list survives. Nick Graves 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless and unmanageable list. Axl 11:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is not pointless. One of the purposes of the list is to collect in one spot or nexus of lists the figures who are widely regarded by reliable sources as being particularly influential as Christians, as a supplement to the articles Christian and {[Christianity]]. It is customary for articles on religion to have lists of such figures, as they can help a reader better understand the subject and its cultural relevance. Such lists have an advantage in this respect over categories, as they can be much more selective. Also, unlike categories, they can have references, supporting quotes, descriptions of how a figure is notable as a Christian, and pictures. The current criteria represent a reasonable and non-arbitrary selection threshold that will help the list continue to have a point as names are added and the list becomes more useful. The strictness of the criteria will also help the list remain manageable. As the list becomes more populated, entries may be divided into logical and useful subsections, and eventually, separate lists, such as those suggested by me above. I have extensive experience managing such lists in the past, and with the help of other editors, I have no reason to suspect that this list cannot be kept manageable if it is allowed to survive and be improved. Nick Graves 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So the article's title is misleading; it isn't actually the "List of Christians", but rather a group of specially selected people: "persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources". How about renaming the article? Axl 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete and block recreation the community has spoken that a list like this - regardless of who makes the cut and what the criteria are - really is neither encyclopedic nor maintainable. We have umpteen categories for every stripe of Christian, this is not needed. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would direct you to my comments above, in which I point out the many ways in which lists fulfill a role that categories cannot. You say the "community has spoken" on this type of issue, but that ignores the fact that other lists of this type have been nominated for deletion and survived. The will of the community is not at all unanimous on this. And, regardless of what preferences community members express, I have yet to see a well-supported, policy-citing argument for why this list ought to be deleted. "Unencyclopedic" is a vague objection, that amounts to little more than "I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia." Ok, that's a position, but why do you think it doesn't belong? In what way is it unencyclopedic? You say it is unmanageable, but many similar lists have proven manageable in practice. Why do you think this list in particular is unmanageable? What evidence do you have? You say it is not needed, but that depends on what one intends to use an encyclopedia for. I suppose an article that includes a list of the typical ingredients in a bloody mary is not needed by me, but it is surely informative and "needed" by others who have an interest in the subject. Similarly, this list of Christians, as it expands using reliable sources and reasonable inclusion criteria, can be of use to persons researching Christianity and the most notable figures within the faith. Nick Graves 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of Mark 1:3 here? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a near-infinite and largely indiscriminate list, that's why. There a couple of billion Christians alive today (1/3 the world's population) and probably a few billion others who have died in the past 2000 years. What do have they in common: Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker, and about 1/3 (or more given WP's Western bias) of the people whose biographies are on here. And the good thing about lists is that they can have the redlinks too, so we're back to the billions. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're objecting to a list that no one is even trying to create. The vast majority of these billions of Christians aren't even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. And of those persons who are notable enough for an article and happen to be Christian, the vast majority of those aren't important enough to Christianity to be put into the list by the existing criteria. The Adolf Hitler, GW Bush, and KF Tucker examples you give wouldn't cut it, according to these standards. My own policy on redlinks in lists is don't have 'em--persons are presumed non-notable for list purposes until someone has seen fit to create an article on them using multiple, reliable, independent sources. Then and only then can such a person even be considered for inclusion, and even then they might not pass muster, depending on what the sources say about their notability to Christianity. Nick Graves 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, and forgive me if I'm wrong: actually, forgive me anyway; the topic of this discussion is "List of Christians". Not "List of Notable Christians", and even that would have its own problems. I see a lot of old ground being re-ploughed here to no obvious benefit and my feeling here roughly follows Matthew 14:30. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The title says it all: the purported limitation in the article - today it reads "This list is limited to persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources. That is, individuals are not listed because they are notable, and also happen to be Christians or profess Christianity. Rather, they are listed because they are notable as Christians, as confirmed by independent, reliable sources. They are widely regarded as people who have been influential in the development or spread of Christianity, people who are prominent spokespersons for the faith, or people who have had a significant effect on the religion's reputation." is not a persuasive limitation as explained above: again it's unmanagable and OR/POV injection to boot "widely regarded" "influential" "prominent" "significant effect" are pure POV weasel words: given my examples above (Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker) all would qualify, and it's anyone else's POV to add or not anyone else. See Mark VIII.30-33, those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation. Where do we draw the line? By deleting this article as unworkable. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Much as I rely on my Faith to provide answers here, I can't help thinking that the appropriate metaphor for this debate is not to be found in the Scriptures, but in Greek mythology, and the word "Sisyphean" springs to mind. This debate should be closed without further delay, not that I have much confidence that it won't recur, and I blame Luke 14:23 for this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, in all such lists, it is generally assumed that the persons listed must be notable in some way, making the "Notable" in the title usually redundant. At a bare minimum, persons listed must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. In some cases, where stricter criteria are needed to make the list of greater use and manageability, the notability criterion is tightened further such that a person's notability must have a certain relationship to their identity as an X (where "X" represents religiosity, a profession, a political persuasion, etc.). Besides, a list having the wrong name is not a criterion for deletion, but a criterion for renaming. I'd support renaming to "List of notable Christians" or "List of prominent Christians" if it meant keeping the list. In lists, the inclusion criteria elaborate on what is suggested by the title, which would often be too long and cumbersome if they had the level of specificity you seem to be demanding here.

Carlos, the inclusion criteria are not subject to OR/POV problems as you claim, because all of the inclusion-tightening restrictions you cite are not subject to an individual editor's opinion on a person's notability as a Christian, but explicitly tied to and limited by what has been "confirmed by independent, reliable sources." I heavily doubt you or anyone else will ever find a reliable source stating that Tucker or Hitler, etc. are particularly influential for having been Christians. You say that "those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation." Making a judgment as to someone's notability as a Christian on that basis would be an example of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since it would rely on your personal opinion that anyone who makes sacrifices or witnesses for Christ has a signficiant effect on the religion's reputation, and that's exactly what the inclusion criteria are designed to eliminate. Again, this list is and should be all about what the reliable sources say on the matter, not what the individual editors think about the matter. Nick Graves 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete and block recreation: haven't we already discussed this? I'll use the example that I gave earlier: "I'm a Christian. Can I add my name to this list?" This list will never be complete, and don't we have categories for these types of things? Ksy92003(talk) 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kay: The former list was discussed, and the reason for deletion then was that the list maintainers had not addressed concerns about sourcing and inclusion criteria. The current list does not have these problems--it is thoroughly sourced (what little there is so far), and inclusion criteria are strict. This is a different discussion, since the reason for deletion, if any, must be different from in the earlier discussion. You express concern about people wanting to include their own names on such lists. This is primarily a newcomer's inclination, and is easily dealt with by answering "No," and quickly deleting non-notable persons' names from the list if they are added. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. There are many incomplete lists containing the dynamic list template, and many such lists are nevertheless in fine shape. One such list that I heavily contributed to even achieved featured status. You say we have categories for these types of things. I can only assume you haven't read all of the above discussion, in which I explain the many ways in which lists fulfill roles that categories cannot. Nick Graves 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. ~~Pointless list,~~ This page will need lots of work to improve it (but that is what Wikipedia is about), but it doesn't violate WP:LISTS so there are no grounds for deletion. WP:LISTS should be changed instead. Hard to believe it was deleted before when there was no consensus to delete. Assize 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "offending" section seems to be the listing of individual Christians. Isn't this really a case of somebody editing it to fix it up. Since when is a content dispute resolved by deleting an article? The balance of the article is a list of lists, which clearly falls within WP:LISTS. There are many advantages of lists over categories. Assize 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If the muslims can have their list, why can't the christians have their list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemrw (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category This article is actually not a list of Christians, but a list of lists of Christians. It has a short list of disparate individuals, who are oddly placed together. The main value of lists is that they can include red links for articles that are needed, but this has none. The introductory text could also adequately be put at the head of a category page. If the decision is to keep, I would recommend that the individuals section should be removed and its contents added to appropriate lists (or categorised). Peterkingiron 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a category for Christians. Please see my comments above about how lists and categories serve different purposes. Redlinks for needed articles are just one use for lists, but not the main one. In a list such as this, where persons must be particularly notable as Christians to be included (since a list of all notable persons who happen to be Christians would be huge, unfocused, and of little value to those using the pedia for research on the topic), redlinks are a bane, rather than a bonus, because someone who doesn't already have an article at this point is highly likely not notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. This list currently is admittedly underpopulated, but this is due to the newness of the article, and the fact that wholescale addition of entries is potentially a waste of effort as long as the existence of the article hangs in the balance. This list will become more useful as names are added and subsections and then subarticles are created to organize them logically (for example, apologists, philosophers, theologians, etc. would eventually have their own lists, rather than being kept together alphabetically). I think the main question here is not how useful is the list currently (not very, because it is so new, and therefore a stub), but how useful will it be once it is substantially populated using the inclusion criteria that are in place? And if the inclusion criteria are not restrictive enough, then the question is, how can they be changed to make this list most useful in its future forms? Another important question to answer is: Does this list, in fact, even violate policy? As Assize points out above, this list is within the policies set forth by WP:LISTS. Nick Graves 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete as an ill-conceived list, redundant with categories, and unimproved after several AfD nominations and semi-recreations. Salt. Cool Hand Luke 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The old "we have categories, so we don't need lists" argument just doesn't hold water. I could reiterate what I've said above, but instead, I'll let other editors make the case. Please see Disadvantages of categories and Advantages of lists for reasons why a list can fulfill certain purposes that a category cannot. It is flat false that this list is unimproved since the last AfD. The old list had zero inclusion criteria and zero sources. The current list has rigorous inclusion criteria, and every entry has a reliable source backing it up. It addresses both of the major deletion grounds cited by the closing admin of the last AfD. If you or anyone else have ideas of how this list could be improved, I am eager to hear them and put them into practice. Nick Graves 17:53, 8 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 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Pelosi Jr.

Nothing notable about Nancy Pelosi's son. He's working for a company that is under suspicion, but the article doesn't say that Paul is under suspicion or give any other reason why Paul is independently notable. NawlinWiki 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete There could, conceivably,be a stub article on Pelosi, Jr. as president of the San Francisco Commission on the Environment, but this isn't it. Smells like a windbreaker,too.--Sethacus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete In the "real world", they call this Swift Boating. I guess Karl Rove has a new job now. MarkBul 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Let him achieve some notability of his own. Tiptopper 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, falls short of WP:BIO. Significance of link to InfoUSA is largely original research buttressed by weasel words ("has been criticized"). --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there is notable info related to this subject, but it probably better belongs in the article on Nancy Pelosi.Orphic 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Nancy Pelosi, per lack of notability of the individual aside from the issue of his company and that he is the son of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Leader--JForget 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable separate from his relation to Nancy Pelosi. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:53, 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 delete. "Keep" proponents did not address arguments to delete, particularly the utility of this list beyond the individual family member articles and relevant categories. Chick Bowen 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beazley family

Beazley family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isnt a valid argument. Gnan garra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a completely valid argument. The person doing the AfD'ing did it to every single political family of Aus - including undisputed ones such as Downer and Playford. The argument I put forth is that the subject itself, political families in X country, is a valid subject as per the US example, and that being a stub is no reason for deletion. Timeshift 02:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in the afd guideline arguments to be avioded at afd. Gnan garra 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The Playford family, also up for AfD is much more accomplished and numerous. These individuals are notable, their "family' in not IMO. Tiptopper 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete only two members? JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Beazley family is one reasonably notable political family, not only in WA politics, but Australian politics too. Twenty Years 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The family is notable, but it isn't yet clear that this article would serve any purpose beyond that achieved by the two biographical articles and possibly a category. JPD (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- You said it yourself: the family is notable Twenty Years 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - How does that address the arguments given? JPD (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment But the point remains that this article makes no claim of notability for the family. The fact that two politicians are related does not make their whole extended family a (notable) dynasty. I don't see any raeson to believe that such a case could be made based on the page, which is a mere two-item list. (Note the absence of a Clinton family article.) By all means make pages for families comparable in multi-generational influence in politics, industry, and society to the Bushes or Kennedys or Roosevelts, but not for every pair of related people who get into office. JJL 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a WP:SYNTH due to implied political heraldic dynasty, relevant family information is within the individual bios. Gnan garra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gnangarra - individual articles for famiy members are far more helpful and useful and can be linked Satu Suro 07:58, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burke family - Australian politics

Burke family - Australian politics is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete not enough members to justify a page, nor enough justification that the family as a unit is a notable entity. JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable family, some of the literature I am reading at the moment regarding Labor politics in the 1970s suggests that the family as a whole had a status which was either respected or detested by those around it. The article's status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft Twenty Years 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OIC's suggestion that the family itself had some sort of status suggests that there is material that belongs in this particular article. Of course, if it is kept, it should be renamed in line with standard disambiguation style Burke family (Australian politics). JPD (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaney family

Chaney family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete two people? JJL 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Highly notable family spanning three generations in Western Australian politics and culture. Its status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft. There is another who belongs in this article - Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) Twenty Years 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough in a purely present tense he's probably the most immediately recognisable member of the family, although the Freds did more. Like some of the others the family itself had status. Orderinchaos 01:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the case for notability of the family made in the article? This is an article about a family that makes no assertion of that family's importance. It's a summary of the Fred Chaney article plus a slight expansion of what that article says about his father. It doesn't even mention Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) who apparently merits his own article too. Bush family and Kennedy family both assert the notability of the families. If the article doesn't make the case, complaining that the nomination is "AfD cruft" or biased against Australians, as some have here, is simply an attempt to deflect the blame from where it lies: The creator of this two-element list masquerading as an article. If the family is notable, edit the article to reflect that. I'd be happy to change my vote. JJL 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:17, 5 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court family

Court family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Relist separately. Michael ^talk 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete only two members are notable? JJL 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Highly notable family spanning two generations in Western Australian politics and culture - a Wimbledon champion tennis player, two State premiers and a business leader amongst them. Its status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per OIC. Twenty Years 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Rebecca 01:12, 4 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 of the discussion was Keep--JForget 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Downer family

Downer family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I created this parallel to Playford family. Is Australian political families not relevant on wikipedia? Requested more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Timeshift 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep:

you don't delete a stub because it is a stub, it should be deleted if there is not enough sources out there to be able to expand to a decent sized article
I don't know much about the Playford family but the history of the Downer family and it's role in politics has attracted significant coverage over the years. Either an article about the Downer family would cover a lot which would not fit into any of the individual biographies or worse the material would have to be duplicated in each of the articles.
If debate is broadly about noteworthiness of political families use Category:Political families of the United States as examples. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Townsvillian nailed it right on the head - its a stub, it cant be deleted because its a stub. Deservant of an article on the family, three very important political figures in Australia, could easily be made to GA-Class. Twenty Years 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable as a collective subject, with plentiful material for an expanded article [26] Melburnian 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above for both this and Playford family. EDIT: See Category:Political families of Australia, more have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine. Timeshift 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable family. John Vandenberg 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep may be notable as a family. JJL 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

??? JPD (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to keep this, as this family is well-known as an Australian political dynasty. However, I can see that the nominator's concern is not that the family is not notable, or that the article is a stub, but that it is short list that is not likely to grow without simply duplicating the contents of other articles. The question is indeed whether there is material that belongs here, rather than individual biographical articles. If not, perhaps alternatives to this list such as a category such as Category:Ablett family, or inclusion in a list of Australian political families should be considered. I would argue that this article be kept and the alternatives implemented, especially the list of political families, which would include other families where there is not enough material for an article. JPD (talk) 14:29, 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. A comment on the nominator is not an argument. Chick Bowen 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawke family

Hawke family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note for closing Admin the above comment was added on the 7th October by Timeshift not the 30th as part of this my comment was remove in regards to the points raised by other editors. diff. Gnan garra 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument as described in arguments to be aviod at AfD. Gnan garra 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete two members? JJL 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Timeshift. More AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm on the fence for this one - it was a family which produced a 1950s WA premier and a 1980s-1990s prime minister, but it's hardly a political dynasty as such. Orderinchaos 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It's not the number of members as much as the lack of political interrelation. The Court family politicians represented a consistent political approach and operated within the same field of politics. Their family political viewpoint was uniquely theirs and shaped WA politics for generations. The two Hawke family politicians are each notable and the views of the elder influenced the views of the younger, but collectively there is no "Hawke dynasty" approach to political thought. Euryalus 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Euryalus. JPD (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Timeshift. More AfD Cruft ExtraDry 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sufficient info in separate articles. -- MightyWarrior 09:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Same as the other family articles nommed by Jreferee. It produced a prime minister, for god sake! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete notable people should have their own article and associated family members should be presented within that and where appropriate they should also have an article. While the family connection is real the article is creating a WP:SYNTH by implying some perceived heraldic political dynasty. Gnan garra 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gnangarra and Euryalus - and yes Hydrogen - both families thought they were god or had produced one :| Satu Suro 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playford family

Playford family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep How many does it take to be important as a family--this list has 5 people, 2 of them Premiers of South Australia. I think that is sufficient. (I think we have no formal standard) . DGG (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above for both this and Downer family. EDIT: See Category:Political families of Australia, more have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine. Timeshift 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is not a list, but an article about a political family, with plenty more to be added. Influential Pastors, councillors, Senators and Premiers? Surely enough for an article. Michael ^talk 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable family. John Vandenberg 07:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable family. --Roisterer 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Never heard of them, but they're the Kennedys from down under. Tiptopper 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep sufficiently many members are notable. JJL 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:03, 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, with a clear majority for deletion. As several editors have pointed out, the framing of the article also raises obvious POV and OR problems. -- ChrisO 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

Article is a list or repository of loosely associated topics (see WP:NOT). Furthermore, the collation of which may be construed as OR. If we keep this we may as well have Surgical abuse and Abuse by Republicans. Are the individual episodes noteworthy? absolutely. Are there controversial ethical issues in psychiatry? You bet! The correct structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. The whole slant and title of the page is POV and written by someone with an agenda. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - in parallel with Medical malpractice, Medical error and Iatrogenesis. I agree it needs work on coherence - for instance, it completely omits the historical roots (maltreatment of inmates of asylums). It also needs explicit reference to organisations with an overt agenda on psychiatry. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure these are actually parallel. Medical malpractice has a clear legal definition; medical error and iatrogenesis are also well-defined and widely used in the scholarly literature and even lay press. "Psychiatric abuse"... not so much. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - CommentHere are two references which show the term 'psychiatric abuse' in use by psychiatrists in a fashion consistent with the definition in the article:

Psychiatric News, August 6, 2004, Dr. Abraham Halpern uses the term psychiatric abuse to describe torture and fraudulent diagnoses of Falun Gong members http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgu/content/full/39/15/2 In the article by Drs. Lu and Galli, 'Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' the term is used throughout the article in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf

comment- there's already articles covering this topic, such as antipsychiatry.Merkinsmum 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

article title is intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists (it may well do, but this title is not NPOV.) Maybe a POV fork?Merkinsmum 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists?" This article isn't "antipsychiatry," either. If you find me a psychiatrist that we can quote in the article who agrees that psychiatrists (human ones) are never abusive, and, of all the professions, not just the medical one, they're the one that has never had practitioners that never inflicted abuse on another human being, we should include that article in the references, and meld it into the text. But no such psychiatric authority exists. KP Botany 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be rewritten not to be one, but I agree that the title is fairly leading (and the article is going to be a magnet for antipsychiatry POV). Gordonofcartoon 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

delete due to the above reasons, both mine, and Casliber's belief the article's a bit OR.Merkinsmum 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV, OR, WP:NOT repository of items, creating POV by association. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- The NPOV policy is not "No point of view." The volume of published scholarly research that specifically addresses "psychiatric abuse" is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:N and also make it a valid point of view that should be covered. The fact that the material is published in this context in RS make it specifically not OR. As far as NOT, the sources validate the context, so that does not apply either. Dhaluza 11:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keepThe article deals primarily with modern psychiatric abuse. A section could be added about historical abuse. The antipsychiatry article does not have the same or even remotely similar data as Psychiatric abuse. This article is a work in progress, and should not have been slated for deletion. Someone has wrongly removed the underconstruction template so he could slate the article for deletion. I've been editing this article every day.S. M. Sullivan 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
comment

Most of the article is simply a collection subtitles with selected stories and statistics inserted into each subsection. This is clearly WP:SYN because we are given no context...nothing is qualified or quantified for the reader. Readers are simply left to make the association between the subtitle and the contents of the subsection. All of this has been pointed out in talk. Furthermore, this information can also have no significance to the subheading and by placing several bits together the reader is given the impression that there is a serious problem. For example one subsection is entitled "Electroshock: A Concern for Women and Elderly". First, the term Electroshock is no longer used in the field. I fixed it to ECT but it was reverted. Secondly why is it a concern? These are typically two vulnerable populations within society but the title nor the text indicates that the visible minority population is vastly under represented to receive treatment. The selective association of the these two populations mixed with the words "electroshock" and "concern" creates bias in the reader. The first sentence states, "Some sources indicate that the use of electroshock treatment has been increasing as anti-depressant drugs lose their effectiveness over time". I had tagged the word "some" with "weasel word" and made a citation request for the sentence. The weasel word tag was removed and the citation request was removed and replaced with citations that clearly didn't show that when people's drugs don't work they use ECT. In fact, these people generally use another drug. ECT is mainly used for severe clinical depression. Next comes statistics from Ontario where we breathlessly learn that, "..in Canada, a Freedom of Information act request revealed", that older women get more ECT then any other population. So what? This is common knowledge, older people and women tend to be much more likely to get severe clinical depression. Next we a get a single report from a Dr. reported in the USA today that most ECT deaths are in the elderly. There is no internet link to this story and again no context. The final sentence of the first paragraph again breathlessly states, "these Ontario statistics are especially troubling in light of Sackeim's research, described below". Well what do we next learn about Sackeim? I'll let you guess...stats are again cherry picked and we have the omission of other information that gives context. This section goes on but I'll stop there.

Pragmatically, correcting the article places an undo burden on editors who seek to contribute. This has been an incredibly frustrating experience.Notwithstanding personal attacks and faulty accusations, no forward progress has been made. Editor Sullivan is too much of a roadblock to the forward movement of the article. No edit but his is left undone. This article could be good with a title change, topic focus, and a cooperative editor who wanted to do all this, but editor Sullivan has clearly demonstrated that it can't be him. I do not want to expend the energy to rework the whole article. I simply want to make sure that this article is not a springboard for fringe elements to bash all of Psychiatry.--scuro 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make a point about your battle with an editor by supporting a nomination for deletion of a clearly notable and encyclopediac topic.[27],[28] KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That an article is poorly written or the subject of dispute - even intractibly so - is not reason for deletion. However, the editorial issues need tackling also: S.M. Sullivan's recent canvasssing of pro-Scientology editors suggests an affiliation and that this article as it stands may well already be a springboard for antipsychiatry POV. More varied editorship would help. Gordonofcartoon 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)]

Then tackle the editorial issues, instead of nominating and supporting the nomination of a genuine subject with a body of research for deletion--this AfD is a monumental waste of time that could be devoted to fixing the article. I request the nominator withdraw this. KP Botany 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep ~~Strong delete~~ This is the equivalent of the Rock climbing nomination. I believe that the ridiculously high rate of editing on this article without any proof reading means that this article will be impossible to have on Wikipedia as a truly enclopedic article, no matter the scholastic value of its content. The editors appear unwilling to read anything that has been written, and edit at such a high rate of speed that no troop of Wikipedia editors could keep up with them. At this stage, the article should be deleted to stop this farce.
Comment Changed my mind again. I voted for delete, but the deletionists clearly disagree strongly with me, so whom I to vote delete when even the deletionists don't seem to think I'm right to vote delete? KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

KP the whole structure and title is POV and needs to be restarted from scratch. see above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not delete articles to change the title, and we also do not delete articles because the structure is poor. The GFDL license requires contributors are credited for their contributions, which means that if any of the content is useful in a rewrite, it should be credited to the original contributor, no matter how bad the title or format. Your statement that it needs to be restarted from scratch is also a POV. Dhaluza 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge content with relevant articles, then Delete. The content in this article has value, but the article itself is so loosely defined as to violate WP:NOT#INFO. Reports of abuse are important, but should be placed under the article in question such as Medical restraint, Electroshock, etc. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some fixes and improvements, but thats another story. Definitely keep. M.V.E.i. 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It seems like a legitimate topic. I agree the article could be improved. Steve Dufour 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article has taken several references (of which I've read through) and has come to its own conclusion. This is original research. If we can get some references using the term "psychiatric abuse" and/or references talking about its actual prevalence, and not just a bunch of opinion and individual case study refs lets keep it. Until then, its a delete from me. Chupper 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are two references of psychiatrists using the term 'psychiatric abuse' in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. One is 'Psychiatric Abuse Of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' by Lu and Galli 2002 http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf and the other is an article by Ken Hausman, August 6, 2004, in Psychiatric News, which quotes Dr. Abraham Halpern using the term psychiatric abuse to describe incidents of fraudulent diagnoses

,torture, involving the Falun Gong prisoners: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/15/2

- Response - Ok so we have a couple sources using it as a term... I'm still not sure that justifies an entire article on it. But this wasn't my main concern. What about references talking about its overall prevalence? Can we get more than limited demographic studies and individual case studies? Chupper 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, disparagate incidents and synthesis of events in attempt to discredit psychiatry as a field of medical practice. At very least it is not psychiatry itself which is abusive (that would suggest all use of antidepressants was misguided, or that legitimate compulsory admission in psychiatric hospitals for those with psychotic illnesses who at risk of harm to themselves or others was unjustified). There have been abuses of inmates at other types of institutions with prisoners experimented upon, disabled children in paediatric wards, elderly patients in nursing homes or geriatric wards. But that does not make for Prison abuse, Paediatric abuse or Geriatric abuse as attack articles of the need for the relevant services. An article setting out Abuse of institutional inmates could legitimately cover issues of regulation, inspection, appeals pannels, Habeas corpus, respect of rights of the individual etc etc. Whilst USSR did abuse Dissidents by forced treatment, that counts as an evil act by an authoritarian regime, and is quite different from sexual abuse by staff at a Britol institution, where presumeably there were valid psychiatric reasons for the patients being admitted to the unit and also valid that they had initially required psychiatric therapy (it was rather that they were then abused whilst in care). So as per comment by M.V.E.i. above, whilst some of the topics listed are clearly notable, indeed are important, and require a mention in wikipedia (eg Soviet dissident abuse, Nazi Euthanasia and Sterilization), this all-things article is the wrong place. David Ruben ^Talk 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
delete or rename and stubify per Casliber. The article is written with a transparent slant ("Electroconvulsive (ECT) Therapy: A Danger to Women and Elderly" WTF?) and cleanup would just leave it lying around because few editors would want to actually rework that into something neutral. Circeus 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Most of this article has nothing to do with psychiatrists. This article starts off with a citation from harvestingorgans.net about behavior in China to reference the "fact" that psychiatrists regularly rape, harvest organs from their patients etc. Every reference citation is to an advocacy group (at best), lobbying group, or personal blog. Most of it has nothing to do with psychiatrists, or even medical doctors, or even mental health professions. The article does not distinguish between financial advisors, politicians, religious groups, ethnic groups (blames psychiatrists for Islamic extremism and the Unification Church), parental behavior—you name it. --Mattisse 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, and forgot psychiatrists are responsible for Hitler, ethnic cleansing, genocide . . . --Mattisse 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentThis article is about psychiatric abuse, not psychiatrists in general. It does not state that they regularly do anything bad at all. You have not looked at the references if you can mischaracterise them as you have done, claiming that they are all blogs, personal websites, etc.. S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and --equally strongly--a NPOV rewriting to give a suitable outline, with subsidiary articles for individual instances. Of course there is a strong anti-psychiatrry movement that uses these abuses or purported abuses for their own purposes, and the article at present seems to reflect an inordinate influence by those supporting that movement. (even so, that point of view needs to be fully covered). . But there is also real abuse that is recognized even by the most convinced supporters of psychiatric treatment as a branch of authentic medicine, and a general coverage is fully appropriate. The emphasis on individual accounts of misadventures is another matter, and should be dealt with by the rewrite. I can understand the motivation for the AfD , for the tone of most of the present article is indeed highly unencyclopedic-- but the topic is suitable. Bad writing, even prejudiced writing, is not reason for deletion but improvement. DGG (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but a nonsensical heading is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying that the title is inappropriate, then the proper forum for this is Wikipedia:Requested moves. We do not delete articles because of disagreement with the title. If you were under the impression that we do, then you should withdraw your nomination. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

comment why can't anything useful in this person's essay be simply placed in Psychiatry#Main_criticisms? We don't often allow a POV fork, but place criticisms of a subject or noteable instances of abuse within the article on that subject (Psychiatry). Can't people see that this 'article' is a POV rant from start to finish, editing it would require for instance changing most of the words probably, definitely those in the intro. Following on from Matisse's comments- I'm surprised this article doesn't accuse psychiatrists of human sacrifice.Merkinsmum 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is possibly a much better standard term: psychiatric malpractice It's enough for an article--there are multiple books on just that subject, not all from cranks. So we can propose a move, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't even like psychiatrists as I work in a profession that is at war with them, but this is such a hatchet job that even I have to rise up and defend Wikipedia standards in this case. --Mattisse 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - Possibly merge into another article, but there is POV stuff that should disappear. I don't think the presence of some POV material is grounds to delete an entire article. Shawn K. Quinn 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
comment I was just reading the article's talk page and someone had said it is an example of WP:SOAP. I had forgotten about that one but of course it is. At least in the current form.Merkinsmum 02:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
speedy delete - This article fits the definition of an attack page WP:ATP. An attack page fits general criteria #10 of Criteria for speedy deletion]] WP:SPEEDY.

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.--scuro 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

not speedy that's not the way G10 is meant to be applied. What entity exactly is being disparaged? All psychiatrists--that is by no means obvious. Please dont try to short-circuit the discussion. Speedy is for unquestionable deletions, not those challenged in good faith. The criteria are meant to applied narrowlyDGG (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - It's definitely POV, but it is on a legitimate subject, which under a new name and organisation, could be a good article. As it stands, it needs to be deleted. It's obviously biased, and despite the references, sounds a bit OR. It can also lead to a speight of new, POV articles such as those the nominator suggested. Spawn Man 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions. I first looked at this article to give a 3rd opinion. Two significant problems would seem to support the AfD. First, the article appears to be an original compilation of disparate items, without sufficient reliable sources that tie these items together. Hence, doesn't this article represent a synthesis of items that the author considers connected? I raised this question and, while there may be some better sourcing of discrete items, the overall article still has this rather fatal flaw. Second, the article title is not based on neutral terminology drawn from reliable sources. Instead, the title seems slanted and more likely to draw an array of controversial allegations (i.e., anything that is called or seems to be an abuse, i.e., a quote farm) rather than a coherent analysis and critique of psychiatry. Having raised this problem, I do wonder, why hasn't the article title been verified from quality sources (pref. academic)? Perhaps the title "psychiatric abuse" is mainly notable a term-of-art in Scientology. If so, then the article might be restructured and revised as an explanation of Scientology or CCHR doctrine or the like. Would the author (Sullivan) consider adding this content to Scientology and psychiatry? Or as an article growing out of that Scientology context? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) PS I don't think the "potential" to be a better article is sufficient grounds to keep content that significantly fails on neutrality or original research grounds, sorry.
- That is an excellent summary. Not to mention that a significant amount of the article is dedicated to abuse not by psychiatrists, but other persons involved in the process that put someone in psychiatry, so that elements like abuse by professional conservators and declaring political opponents psychically unstable (e.g. in USSR or China) are lumped together which have little reason to be. Circeus 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - It may be an excellent summary of something, but not of reasons to delete. A simple Google scholar search turns up hundreds of scholarly works that use the exact term "psychiatric abuse". Although this article may be a more comprehensive compilation than those in the existing sources, that is a good thing, not a bad one! Collecting related items is part of building an encyclopedia. So taking source material on psychiatric abuse in the Soviet Union and merging it with material on psychiatric abuse in China is not only acceptable, it is desirable. This is not synthesis to advance a position by the editor (if the references are advancing a position, that is dealt with by including other positions, not excluding them). As far as the neutrality of the title, the term is used in the title of these scholarly works in various forms, so the title is appropriate since it is supported by reliable sources (this does not mean that further research could not find a more appropriate term that would make a better title, but it should only come from research on terms in use, not a contrived compromise neologism by WP editors). There are many articles that could attract inappropriate content, but that is reason to watch them, not delete them. The speculation on Scientology is unfounded. As far as the follow-up comment on psychiatrists vs. psychiatry the article lead sentence clarifies that it covers abuse while under psychiatric care. Dhaluza 12:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A laundry list of instances where people have come to harm while they were under psychiatric treatment. The opening sentence of the first paragraph says it all: "Since psychiatrists are medical doctors, they are, in principle, bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which states, 'never do harm to anyone.'" This is a pure anti-psychiatry diatribe. One cannot possibly compare situations in developing countries with the Western world in the 1950s; attempts to do so become WP:NOR almost instantly. If kept, needs to be renamed to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients and drastically NPOVed. Main editor keeps using {{inuse}} to stop AFD; main editor also declares that he has an interest in dianetics/scientology. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per DGG. Article has already been significantly cleaned up, which shows the assertions that this was a hopeless case clearly lack vision. The nom seems to be taking issue with the name, which is properly dealt with in requested moves, not AfD. The comparison to white supremacy in the nom is over-the-top hyperbole. I find the nom completely without merit, and this whole discussion an unnecessary distraction. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment on appropriateness of the title. A google scholar search turns up numerous journal articles on "psychiatric abuse" not only of apparent political prisoners in China, but also behind the Iron Curtain, and also in relation to sexual preditors in the U.S. It also turns up at least three books published in the 1980's with the term in their title, which shows it is not obscure or a neologism:
- Bloch, S.; Reddaway, P. (1984). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: The Shadow Over World Psychiatry. Gollancz. ISBN 978-0813302096.
- Stover, E.; Nightingale, E.O. (1985). The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Health Professions. Freeman. ISBN 978-0716717331.
- Van Voren, R.; Bloch, S. (1989). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse in the Gorbachev Era. International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry. ISBN 978-9072657015.

-- Dhaluza 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but this article reminds me more of this site [29] the shock! the horror! and this is the way in which the term is being used here.Merkinsmum 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is grounds for deletion of a legitimate topic? Just because a group co-opts a legitimate term for its purposes does not mean we cannot cover it here (in fact, that and similar groups' activities should probably be properly contextualized in this framework). Dhaluza 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if a legitimate topic is presented in a slanted manner or under a one-sided rubric, then the article would need to be deleted. The material can be recovered for use in a more balanced piece. If the article synthesizes a range of topics (a concern which the above sources don't dispel), then the content should be disseminated to the article from which it is (in effect) a POV fork. Also, I would note that if the sources primarily come from Scientology-related publications (as I noticed discussed in Talk), then this only sets up notability as a Scientology doctrine. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a novel interpretation of WP:DP--the actual policy is not to delete articles on encyclopedic topics, and specifically not to use AfD to settle content disputes, or as a form of punishment for perceived transgressions. The GFDL license specifically prohibits deleting an article and then re-using some content without giving proper credit, which is normally done through an edit history that is lost after deletion. The real problem here is that AfD is not the correct forum to resolve the problems here. If the problem is POV, we edit to provide NPOV. If a user's POV pushing is obstructing that, we use proper dispute resolution processes, not AfD which is not a dispute resolution process (although some try to use it as a nuclear option). An article that collects a range of related topics is acceptable, it is synthesizing pieces of material that is OR. Dhaluza 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about at least rename/redirect to something like psychiatric malpractice, because we have a medical malpractice article, but not a medical abuse one? Yes other authors might have used the term, but they were not required to be NPOV as wikipedia is. Like it or not, 'abuse' is a loaded word.Merkinsmum 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Malpractice implies inadvertent or non-intentional harm. Most of the cases here are at least alleged to be deliberate. The sources for "Psychiatric Abuse" abuse actually support splitting this article to "Political psychiatric Abuse" for dissenters and undesirables such as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China, and possibly treating other forms of psychiatric abuse separately. Dhaluza 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Psychiatric abuse" when it is used in scholarly papers is used to describe oppressive federal systemic method of abuse. Once you get away from this particular grouping it is very hard to discern any difference in abuse between other populations and the Psychiatric population. For instance serious abuse has also occured with these populations under the states care: prisoners, the elderly, mentally retarded, and aboriginals. Noted Antipsychiatrists and Scientoligists such as Thomas Szasz also use the term, but again, they do so as a springboard to make a wide based attack on everything that is Psychiatry, as this article does. I could see a title such as Oppressive Regime Psychiatric Abuse existing with a significant truncating of the definition and subsequent article. Any subsection not fitting that definition could be merged into the articles which already exist on that topic.--scuro 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Oppressive Regime Psychiatric Abuse" gets zero Ghits, so it is a contrived title that is not advisable. It also requires a judgment that the regime is oppressive, which would encourage OR. It is best to stick to the RS and use terminology they use. Dhaluza 20:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Who is User:S. M. Sullivan? He has reverted all edits made within the last 24 hours to the body of the article. How is there a chance for the article to change if User:S. M. Sullivan controls all edits? --Mattisse 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem and why no other editors can possibly improve the article unless he is warned or something, as he completely WP:OWNs the article.(why not, as it is not an article, but is written in the style of an essay/polemic of which he is the sole 'authorMerkinsmum 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then run through the various levels of vandalism warning or whatever else is appropriate until he gets blocked. Wikipedia is not his soapbox--make this clear to him via the warning templates and getting him blocked for violating Wikipedia policies. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: perhaps Divide There are really four topics here: Psychiatric malpractice in the ordinary sense of malpractice--negligence, inadequate care, etc., Psychiatric political abuse as in the Soviet Union, Psychiatric experimentation upon humans, and perhaps Anti-psychiatry movement. The present article is an unsatisfactory blend, with a decided POV bias towards the 4th, using arguments from the others. DGG (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non-encyclopedic and inappropriately POV compilation of individually notable incidents. Are there notable instances of repression in which psychiatrists have been involved? Yes. Is there notable criticism of psychiatry as a field? Yes. Have some of the rogues' gallery of 20th century villains utilized the trappings of psychiatry? Yes. But this article selectively cherry-picks and mines a variety of disparate incidents (which, so far as I can tell, no particularly notable source has grouped as a whole) into an article which is a clear POV fork. It is exactly analagous to the problems with Allegations of Israeli apartheid (or any of the "allegations of apartheid" articles"). Collecting a bunch of potentially notable quotes or incidents and compiling them into a POV-slanted essay is original synthesis and an abuse of the encylopedic process. If the verdict is to keep this article on grounds that the incidents compiled are individually notable and someone somewhere has used the term "psychiatric abuse" in a notable context, then at the very least this article needs a complete rewrite and restraint of what appears to be a single-purpose account with a clear agenda to push. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What exactly is your agenda here? Here is what a "single-purpose account is:"
  - "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles."
- Here is a list of the users first 500 contributions.[30] While there may be an anti-psychiatry bent, as there are a lot of edits to scientology articles, I haven't investigated this. What I did note is, in spite of your claiming this is a "single purpose account" there are dozens of edits to a huge variety of articles. Exactly why did you claim this is a single purpose account when a 20 second look shows it clearly isn't? What is your agenda? If this can't be deleted without incorrectly stating what is going on, if this can't be deleted without stating that it is being edited by a single purpose account when that is not the case, then maybe we should examine the urgency of this deletion. KP Botany 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While that's the case for early edits, the great majority of recent ones [31] have focused on this and related topics. Add, as I mentioned earlier, the canvassing of pro-Scientology editors when the AFD started, and I think there's sufficient reason for suspecting an agenda. Gordonofcartoon 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, currently the agenda seems to be edit the hell out of it and maybe it will be kept. But it just had the opposite effect as far as I am concerned. If the editors prove that it can't be accurate and neutral it simply has to be deleted. KP Botany 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My agenda is that this article is completely unencyclopedic, for the reasons I listed above. You're correct about the earlier contribs of User:S. M. Sullivan; however, I looked at the last 500 contribs and virtually all were dedicated to advancing a fairly strident anti-psychiatry POV. Hence the WP:SPA citation. I think the comments below about 3RR/30RR/300RR amply support my comment above, regarding the need to somehow restrain this account in the event that the article is kept. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

- I find no problem with merging similar incidents under a single title, though this one may be too broad as discussed above, but that is dealt with by normal editing. This is specifically not OR synthesis, it is encyclopedia building. If the scope is incomplete, whether from cherry picking or not, we expand the scope. If a single purpose account is trying to push a POV under an otherwise encyclopedic subject, then we deal with that accordingly--deletion is not appropriate in that case. Dhaluza 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What would make this encyclopedic, rather than synthesis, would be a sufficient set of reliable, independent sources that merge the incidents under a single title. (And what title do significant, esp academic sources, use?) Thanks. HG | Talk 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Cherry picked references for POV pushing. Some of it can be merged into exsting articles such as medical malpractice. But will need extensive mopping.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the references have been cherry picked, the proper action is to add more references to establish balance, not delete an article on a valid encyclopedic topic. AfD is not the Gong show. Dhaluza 10:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - I've changed my view in the light of discussion. I think the article is unsalvageably WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's got to figure out the 3RR (more like 30RR) sitauation; methinks this is going to be long-term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've asked editor Sullivan to leave the article alone for a while and this has been agreed to, so the 300RR (that was generous of you, 30RR) situation should end for a while. KP Botany 05:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

THE UGLY TRUTH is that the article is acurate. We might not like it, we might want to see it but it is still the truth. I would like to see more about the positive things that have come for mental patients human rights. The fact is that we need this article to remind us the mistakes we have made in the pass so we do not commit them again. So my vote is KEEP. Lets fix the article so it is more competorary.Bravehartbear 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Email to Weekly World News, I understand they appreciate this sort of POV rubbish, sourced only by questionable sources of unquestionable bias. Proceeds to be donated to the Wikipedia Foundation, of course. Note to closing Admin: this means delete, in case you were wondering. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved Independently of its content, the name of the article is not medically or generally correct. Psychiatric abuse doesn't refer in any context to the abuse of patients. The article has been moved to Abuse of the mentally impaired which is the correct terminology in medicine and ethical conduct commissions. As for deletion or not, no comment Jenny^Len☤ 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: In general, it's really not a good idea to move an article in the midst of an AfD. It creates a huge amount of confusion, aside from the fact that moves of controversial articles should be performed after discussion rather than unilaterally. Best to suggest an alternate title, should the article be kept. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
keep: Potentially quite a valuable article, on a notable topic. Just the standard operating procedures of psychiatrists are replete with civil rights and human rights abuses (e.g., a recent study^{[unreliable source?]} showed that psychiatric interns are routinely disinclined, 97% of the time, to bypass informed consent processes, unless prodded to comply) not to mention the systemic flaws associated with illegal --and quite abusive-- off label marketing of atypical anti-psychotics that are strongly associated with long term central nervous system damage. Ignoring the validity of this topic by purging from the Wiki namespace would be tantamount to suppression and spin doctoring. Ombudsman 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- So to paraphrase, "Keep so that the world can recognize psychiatrists for the evildoers that they are"? An excellent illustration of the fundamentally unencyclopedic nature of this article. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - I think the editor must mean inclined. What he is saying is the psychiatric interns are routinely (97% of the time) refusing to bypass the informed consent process, unless prodded to do so. I wonder who prods? --Mattisse 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - very notable topic, and the article has plenty of valuable content. OR is unsubstantial, and the article is hardly a list of loosely associated topics (very closely associated, notable event descriptions with plenty of more general analysis). Let's not use AfD to solve content disputes. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (et al.), question: Even if the potential content under this Title may be substantial, how is the range of material compiled? If the title refers to the Scientology doctrine, then it would cover a broad set of non-academic ("religious") allegations of abuse. If the title refers to terms used within academic and comparable secondary sources, then the content would be quite narrow (e.g., Soviet and Chinese oppression). Because the title is so vague, the article is getting a mish-mash of compiled allegations. This is either WP:SYNTH or, by default, the Scientology approach. Even if you don't change your Keep vote, how would we get this article onto an encyclopedic track? Thanks. P.S. Note that some articles are deleted via AfDs due to original research without verifiable independent sources for the synthesis. HG | Talk 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Salt under current title to prevent recreation. (I think that it needs a fresh start, with a less-loaded title.) Encourage recreation of topic under the title of Psychiatric Malpractice, without the PoV-pushing and grab-bag nature of the current train wreck. Because of the nature of this topic, (notable subjects with an association), it might be more appropriate to turn it into a category, rather than an article. Horologium t-c 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It already is a category with plenty in it. --Mattisse 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename and clean up. The subject deserves an article, the title is not only suggestive of POV but also incorrect, some cleanup is needed. Psychiatric Malpractice seems reasonable.ℒibrarian 2 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is badly written and most of the text is unsourced. It reads like an essay and any relevant material should be merged with the article srespective of the subject matter. For instance Falun Gong with the Falun Gong article, if indeed need be. The article reads like Original research as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for Deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Shortcut: WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Copyright infringement
Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
Inappropriate user pages
Inflammatory redirects
Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
Overcategorization
Patent nonsense or gibberish
Redundant templates
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Vandalism that is not correctable

Please note if you are here to do AfDs on article, these are the criteria for deletion. If you have an issue with an article don't make a point and waste the time of the community with your complaints by making up criteria for deletion that do not exist. Tag OR as such. Warn the owner. IN this case by forcing good editors to argue for the keeping of a topic that is appropriately encyclopediac in nature and does not meet the criteria for deletion you are giving ammunition to a bad editor. Cut it out. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out yourself. And it is *Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, in effect would probably not be allowed on the users own page, is an inflammatory POV fork of various articles, all of which are criteria for deletion. I cannot say how much I think it's sick, but that's by the by, there are a good few deletion criteria it overlaps besides being a loopy rant that probably somewhere in it blames psychiatrists for 9/11 and other WP:BOLLOCKS.. It blamed shrinks for organ harvesting, then had to go back on that on the talk page as being misleading, but that shows how much this article on 'psychiatric abuse' has been created as a polemic, effectively a fork from various articles created solely to push a POV. This author should be sectioned, involuntary medicated, amongst other things. Psychiatrists exist for a good reason which he is a prime example of.Merkinsmum 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Another article I just noticed with which this could be merged, which has I would think the exact same subject matter, is Psychiatric survivors movement.Merkinsmum 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, content not suitable for an Encyclopedia. Not withstanding the current attack style of this article, even if it were to be "cleaned up" the term "Psychiatric abuse" is far too broad and denigrates all with one sweep of the brush. Using the definition in the article, poorly trained staff, or shortages of staff could be construed to be Psychiatric abuse. Most Psychiatric care is not noteworthy. The article topic needs to get specific exactly as the scholarly papers about Psychiatric abuse were specific.--scuro 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Further articles in which material could be merged Soviet psychiatric abuses and Persecution of Falun Gong--scuro 22:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

comment I think this article is getting a bit more NPOV and better. Please everyone take a look at the new version. There are lots more editors working on it which is making it more NPOV and hopefully sourced a bit better, and people are getting on with each other ok too.Merkinsmum 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merkinsum for the update. I'm still keeping my vote at Delete because the references themselves haven't really changed. In addition, ECT is still listed as a section and classified as abuse. It is not. I feel like I'm back in the 1960s... Chupper 02:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

commentThat must of been earlier today that you looked, it's undergone significant editing today. It's as big a mess as it ever was.--scuro 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what you think has made it worse??, as far as I can see it's a lot more NPOV? (in as much as it ever can be in it's current form.) :) And other editors have put some more sources in and removed some of the more dodgy ones.Merkinsmum 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work being put in, but I question whether this piece is salvageable as an encyclopedic article. It's essentially like creating an article entitled Vegeterian involvement in genocide to discuss Adolf Hitler. You could put in a lot of work and find solid sources, but the concept of the article is still fundamentally unencyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The article's name has been changed. Therefore the AFD appears to be at an end as the template on the article page no longer leads here. --Mattisse 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the AfD template still leads here, and this discussion needs to continue and close. Still, it's pretty bad form to move an article in the midst of an AfD. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Because of the page move, this whole AFD has become very misleading. I do not see how it can go forth under these conditions. --Mattisse 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Geez, it's really not that big of deal. I just moved it back to its original title for the duration of the AfD at least. Please don't anyone move it again until the AfD is over... this is already enough of an ugly mess. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I put this on the talk page but will also here as that is such a wrong move and I don't want anyone to think it's good. As someone who has suffered from depression, I'm not 'mentally impaired', a term I thought might mean learning disabled or developmental delay, or special needs until now. I have a first class BA (Hons.) from a respected university. Also this article covers psych abuse of those presumably with nothing wrong with them such as political dissidents. The term 'psychiatric abuse (in as much as it might be a real term) covers psych. abuse in any form, naturally. This is one of the problems of the article title, it's vagueness, but I'm certainly not mentally impaired and I don't make random page moves without discussing it with others.:)Merkinsmum 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. All problems cited are fixable within the context of the article. NPOV re-write. Bacchiad 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
BE BOLD Yes all problems are fixable. I think I fixed most of the problems with an article that more accurately accounts for how the phrase is used and whom it is used by. Here it is.

Psychiatric abuse is a phrase most often employed by Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics to categorize together all forms of real or alleged Psychiatric abuse and Psychiatric treatment. These fringe critics of Psychiatry who use the phrase, lump past and present cases of horrific abuse in with current forms of Psychiatric treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy and the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs to demonstrate that Psychiatry has, and always will be, a false and detrimental science for humanity. This controversial viewpoint clashes with the views held by virtually all mental health organizations and government agencies who deal with mental health around the world. Much more infrequently the term is used by scholars to describe horrific state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. --scuro 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Scuro, it now looks like the "no psychiatrist was ever less than god" camp is pushing their/your agenda far harder than the "all psychiatrists are the devil" camp ever even attempted. I am stunned at how uncylopedic, how desperate, and how creative the forces to protect psychiatrists from any mention of wrong doing are--what exactly do psychiatrists have to hide? I thought they were just like most other professions, with the caveat that they do look at the inner workings of human beings. How incredibly embarrassing for the profession, though, this attempt to cover up any mention of wrong doing--and rather silly as no one, least of all psychiatrists, believes they are gods. It is the most desperate push I have ever seen in an AfD, though, and I certainly didn't realize there was so much truth to what was being said that it had to be covered up, and any attempt to hide the truth, no matter how poorly approached and obvious, would be worth it. I now have a sudden urge to do medical library research about psychiatric abuse to see what is so damaging that it has to be hidden behind an OR compilation of opinions that every mention of psychiatric abuse by scholars or anyone is simply a conspiracy of the scientologits. At this point I smell a news article, not a Wikipedia article. KP Botany 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW KP could you be anymore judgmental and false. "Cover up"? "Hide the truth"? We are to discuss the contents of the article and not to be shrill and personal.

There was no attempt to hide anything in my edit. It is the most encyclopedic entry to date because it is the most accurate entry clearly focused on facts. All of it can be referenced with excellent citations. My edit sticks to what can be clearly referenced and that is who and how it is used and THAT IS ALL that can be said about the phrase because as MastCell clearly states about PA,..."this discussion points up the fundamental problem with this article: it's a totally arbitrary and unbounded collection of incidents. Since no reliable secondary source has defined what exactly constitutes "psychiatric abuse", you could include or exclude whatever you like". This is NOT a question of giving Psychiatrists "what they deserve".

I strongly object to it's total removal. A revert to a lesser state clearly shows bias.--scuro 11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe your position would have been stronger if you had provided good reference citations to support your edit. As it was, your edit was unsourced and therefore OR. --Mattisse 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you are not a Scientologist KP:) but no-one is denying there are current present cases of abuse, if you read scuro's edit carefully. I can understand him feeling annoyed. But I thought the article was getting gradually more NPOV and the consensus between the 2 sides building. We should try to do that, if the article is to live.:)Merkinsmum 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "most encylcopedic entry to date" about an entry that has no references and is a synthesis of someone's select feelings about a topic. Even a single reference might have made my statement inappropriate. As there was not even a single reference to support your feelings it doesn't belong anywhere in the encyclopedia. The article was not really getting more NPOV. If I were a Scientologist I would be supporting the mostly POV crap that the article consists of now, wouldn't I? I'm pro Wikipedia. KP Botany 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse is a phrase often employed by Antipsychiatry ~~and Scientology~~ critics to categorize together all forms of real or alleged Psychiatric abuse and Psychiatric treatment. Fringe critics of Psychiatry who use the phrase lump past and present cases of horrific abuse in with current somewhat controversial forms of Psychiatric treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy, and the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs to demonstrate that Psychiatry as practiced is false and detrimental science for humanity. More infrequently the term is used by scholars to describe horrific state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. True cases of psychiatric abuse are generally considered as psychiatric malpractice. Hows this one? I think it fairly describes the current use of the term and can act as a guide to the necessary other articles. Psychiatry like other medical treatments can be used wrongly and rightly. DGG (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you just provide some reference citations? If it is what you "think" fairly describes the current use, then isn't that OR? --Mattisse 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reiterate, the main difficulty of the article as it now stands is, "it's a totally arbitrary and unbounded collection of incidents"...that can't be consistently organized in a meaningful way into a cohesive whole. It is a shopping list and no one knows exactly which items belong on that list and which ones don't. No secondary source can give us that information. Wikipedia does not do lists. What a huge and fatal flaw for the article. No encyclopedia would allow such an article.

While some authors may have been moving towards a consensus of what they believed AP to be, other authors were blocked from editing and/ or clearly expressed the major shortcoming. They were ignored. Do we insist that it must stay as it is because a lot of good work was done?

My second edit had three citations before it was deleted. They were excellent. DDG's version is also acceptable. The point is this, while my version may have been far from perfect...still, it was the first entry that was truly encyclopedic. --scuro 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a recent ArbCom decision, and Scuro's user page User:Scuro, coupled with Scuro's editing the article entirely to an opionion piece show that Scuro should be discussing his edits on the talk page and allow someone else to make them:

===Conflict of interest===

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

===Disclosure===

4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Scuro's user page:

"My father was BiPolar, as was my grandmother and aunt. My cousin is also BiP. As an adolescent I experienced something which perhaps no one else on this earth has ever experienced. All of the aforementioned people and I, were jammed into a sub-compact car, and by pure chance, all of them were manic on this particular day. It was at that moment in time, and at a young age if I may add, that I realized that mental disorders are very real. It may have also been the first time in my life that I realized that life is fleeting and that death can strike anyone at anytime, and for no good reason!

Much of what I will initially be doing on Wikipedia may have a kernel of motivation from that incident. I also dislike disinformation and faulty information that obscures the truth."

I wouldn't necessarily put someone's youthful realization that mental illness is real as a motivating factor to an edit of the nature that Scuro made, but someone else did and posted this information on my user page.

DGG, problematically, I didn't read any of the Scientology articles on the topic, I merely did a google scholar title search. Which of the articles are Scientology connected? Again, as pointed out, the problem with Scuro's edit is that, without tying it in to the research, it's simply a synthesis of his feelings on the topic. KP Botany 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

what I suggested was the lede, intended to be a summary --I assume there will be further contents with documentation. The Scientology opposition to psychiatry is well known and can be documented, but I agree that it is over-specific for the lede, & I've so marked it. I never intended such a paragraph to stand alone. I t would need to be followed , as a minimum, with a paragraph or two on each point linking to subsidiary articles. In any case, this is not an article where individual cases should be discussed in depth. There is no shortage of material. I am willing to copyedit, but not to do the writing. DGG (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology stance against psychiatry is well known, and it's also well documented, in specific with their anti-psychiatry group that they gave a name implying it is a general human rights organization. However, for some reason, this isn't documented or discussed within the article. The part about Scientology and their anti-psychiatry claims and their claim that all psychiatry is abusive, which is what reading any of their sites give you, should be in the introductory paragraph on an article of this nature, but, I can't find outside sources or references to this with a quick net search, only Scientology pages promoting the concept, which can't be used as the sources. Yes, there is no shortage of material, and the cases should not be individually discussed in depth, they also require an outline, and the entire article requires an outline, among other things. KP Botany 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

KP, thanks for your thoughtful point. Were the article to be kept, the brief mention of Scientology would obviously have to be expanded somewhat. However, the Scientology views against psychiatry are already developed in several free-standing articles, linked from the article (e.g. this diff) The lack of outside references indicates that the Scientology approach to "psychiatric abuse" happens to be a fringe rather than mainstream view. It doesn't make the view wrong, but it does mean it's hard to naively mix the Scientology stuff (psychiatry is intrinsically abusive) with the far more narrow mainstream view of when abuse occurs. In general, fringe theories -- when notable -- should be given separate articles, not given undue weight with mainstream analysis. For this reason, I'm inclined to believe that the article needs to be deleted, and the material put either under separate titles (e.g., "Scientology doctrine of psychiatric abuse") or merged within mainstream or Scientology articles. Thanks for hearing me out and for your own analysis. HG | Talk 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about the Scientology. It should be given stronger weight in the introduction, but dealt with in its own article, as it already is. KP Botany 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin and whomever else it may concern: Idiosyncratic, non-encyclopedic, or agenda-driven compilations of individually notable incidents are a recipe for disaster. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid for an example of where this is headed. It's just a magnet for argumentation, soapboxing, policy violations, etc on all sides. It will make the encyclopedia measurably worse and more antagonistic. I've already !voted above, but I felt this to be worth repeating; the notable incidents here should be covered in more encyclopedic articles, and this particular editor-driven compilation of incidents should go. Otherwise I can almost guarantee it will be at ArbCom sooner or later, like the Allegations of apartheid series. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin and whomever else it may concern: Deal with the article and the evidence, not with threats that leaving controversial subjects on Wikipedia will cause ArbCom decisions to have to be. There are plenty of topics more controversial than this one all over Wikipedia. KP Botany 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- KP, it is quite obviously not a "threat". Please calm down and look just at the AFD discussion. Given the tension, it's not difficult to see how easily this can of worn could devolve into an ArbCom case (and I also honestly believe it will if it is kept). Circeus 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename - My first instinct was to vote weak delete as this seems to just ask for POV inclusions and generalizing from anecdotal evidence. This article reminded me of cult apologist which I was active in a while back. That article also tends toward being inherently POV. However, there is a valid subject for an article here and I do not mean "anti-psychiatry". The valid article is the systemic use of psychiatric facilities and "treatments" as a means of punishment in some regimes. That is explored in the article. I do not think the current title is appropriate to that subject, perhaps something like Psychiatry as punishment would be better. The anecdotal evidence of the nature of psychiatry in general according to critics and statistics of that nature belong in the anti-psychiatry article. --Justanother 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

comment you can see on this user's talk page that he was canvassed to join this AfD debate by User:S.M.Sullivan], a main contributor to this article, and is a fellow scientologist.Merkinsmum 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Laugh, I can see that you were waiting for me to comment, weren't you? And my being a Scientologist means exactly what?? Sounds like some sort of implied WP:PA to me (saw you had some trouble with attacking other editors earlier). S.M. Sullivan telling me about this is hardly WP:CANVASS. --Justanother 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he was clearly canvassing Scientologists. I'm not sure he had seriously nefarious purposes or that his canvassing had much impact, but it looked pretty straight-forward. Still, I don't know that there is a ban on Scientologists editing Wikipedia articles or participating in AfDs, even this one, no matter how you got here.

I'm not keen on the title "Psychiatry as punishment," as this sounds like you're ordering the person into psychiatry or jail--I have a friend who was arrested at 17 and ordered to either enlist in the armed forces or go to jail by the judge at his trial. But I can see moving all of the information of that nature to a separate article, as I think that Psychiatric abuse as a title implies misuse of position of authority, but state-ordered is more a political crime, or the most challenge is in the behaviour of the politician and the state not the doctor, no matter how complicit. A title in the literature can probably be found quite readily. I still think there is place for an article on Psychiatric abuse or malpractice directly related to the position, that is not anti-psychiatry, nor is it torture. KP Botany 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't thing sci's shouldn't edit or anything, but canvassing is usually frowned upon in AfD, and those who respond to it's contributions to an AfD should be noted as due to encouragement.:)Merkinsmum 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CANVASS is not policy and some degree of informing others that might be interested in a debate is not inappropriate. If someone wants to point S.M. at the policy that would be fine. Merkinsmum, instead of commenting on my remarks, chose to attack my reasons for being here and marginalize me by bringing my personal beliefs into the discussion in violation of WP:PA (comment on the edit, not the editor).--Justanother 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, Justanother, I found your comment helpful. However, I would point out that, for me at least, the strong need to rename the article could be sufficient grounds for deletion in an AfD. Without putting words in your mouth, I'd say that the main reason for a more narrow title such as "Psychiatry as punishment" is due to the problematic scope and naming of the current article. An article worth keeping would be based on a subject matter that is verified by reliable sources and not an original synthesis. HG | Talk 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary Break

So since my father and other relatives were bipolar I should refrain from commenting because of possible bias but..."Oh, he was clearly canvassing Scientologists. I'm not sure he had seriously nefarious purposes or that his canvassing had much impact, but it looked pretty straight-forward. Still, I don't know that there is a ban on Scientologists editing Wikipedia articles or participating in AfDs, even this one, no matter how you got here". The irony of this vein is so rich and deep.--scuro 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment You're right, it is so rich and deep. I hereby thoroughly detract my apology to you to remove the irony 100% as it is clear by this comment of yours that my initial estimation of your intentions was and is correct. KP Botany 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your insulting personal characterization appeared not only on this page but also on the talk page of PA. While I did accept your apology on the talk page I also asked you to make a public apology on this page which you didn't do.--scuro 11:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

ongoing and systemic problems with the article

The term/title can't be defined to even a basic majority agreement.
No history of citable phrase development has been given, or citable history of PA.
We have no citable and reliable secondary sources which states what constitutes PA.
No citable standard comes into play to determine when PA exists. What makes it different from regular abuse?
No citable standard comes into play to determine which populations are involved and also who can be considered abusive.
No citable standard comes into play to determine degrees of PA.
No citable, precise context given to the phrase and it's relationship to everyday people. Also why and how it exists.
Confusion between Antipsychiatry's and Scientology's use of the phrase and legitimate scholarly use of the phrase makes singular definitions impossible. Scholars use the phrase but don't define it. Also different branches of critics have different standards and I assume definitions.
finally, this process brought many good editors to the article. Since their introduction the article has been highly unstable with a clear lack of any sort of consensus.

--scuro 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All your objections except the last one seem to assume that "Psychiatric abuse" is a neologism or term of art of some sort. Admittedly the first session does seem to carry this implication somewhat ("Definitions and standards" for example), but it's not really accurate. It makes more sense to treat "Psychiatric abuse" as a general term, since that's how it's used in most of the relevant academic literature (contrasting with terms which scholars frequently define -- corporate personhood is a random example that comes to mind). We don't need to compare examples with some formal definition to see if they qualify -- we can just use common sense. And we don't really even need to worry about gray area examples, because there are enough examples which fall outside the gray area by any reasonable standards. (That's not to say that I'm necessarily opposed to including gray-area examples; I think they can be integrated as long as we make it clear that the condemnations are contentious and some wouldn't consider them instances of psychiatric abuse; but if we decide to err away from those, that's fine too.) — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PA is rather obviously different from abuse in general by being perpetrated by psychiatrists or their colleagues--and this applies to all the various meanings discussed. When there are multiple definitions, we explain them all. Scientology, as I understand it, refers to anything hat might interfere with their methods. the anti=Psychiatric movement is diverse, but the Szasz libertarian element is distinct enough. So is the political movement that sees any attempt at recognizing the reality of mental disease as coddling in in separate way. there is certainly enough literature. I am prepared to give support and applause to anyone willing to sort this out from a neutral but knowledgeable perspective. But the solution to the difficulty is not to refuse to discuss the concept. My personal suggestion is to start at the definable end of what counts legally in the US at psychiatric malpractice--there are some reasonable firm standards there: sexual or business relations with patients, violation of confidence, failure to protect the patient and the public. etc. . DGG (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The best place to start discussing is from a neutral and well-balanced fork such as Ethical issues in psychiatry and go from there. Note that each of the components of the article has or should have its own page. These article headings and locations are distinct enough to warrant scrapping of the page as is and starting afresh. Having a page like this is equivalent to just about any other inflammatory statement you like eg racial inferiority of/cultural imperialism of...(sustitute whatever nation or ethnic group here) and work backwards.

I absolutely agree that all these issues should be discussed, just not in the inflammatory and arbitrary structure of this article. And yes I should disclose that I am a psychiatrist. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are separate articles, this one can be written in WP:Summary style to refer to them (as it does). That is not a reason to delete an article on a comprehensive topic. As a psychiatrist I would expect that you would be appalled at PA, because it falls outside the norms of what your profession is about, but I don't see this as inflammatory, just an ugly confluence of government and medicine. And as an expert you can probably help us get to some of the literature published behind paywalls or otherwise not readily accessible (I posted a long list to the Further reading section). I've tried to step in as well, but don't feel comfortable enough with the material or my access to sources to make substantive changes. Dhaluza 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just think the individual subjects are too disparate for one article to summarise and the very existence of such article implies a cohesive link where none exists. I note the article has been significantly pruned and I feel the emphasis misrepresents the role of psychiatrists in what is left. At some stage I'll develop (or assist in developing) an article pertaining to ethical issues in psychiatry but had desisted to now as editing much on mental health is like pushing a proverbial **** uphill and no fun. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

comment having a title such as 'ethical issues in psychiatry' as someone suggested above, would be good as it would get round the problem of defining the title, to the actual meat of the issues. Someone has put on the talk page a quote from a shrink or someone using the term 'psychiatric abuse.' The problem is dozens of people can use this phrase, that doesn't mean they all have the same thing in mind, because it's just a couple of words put together to go in a sentence. If you see what I mean.Merkinsmum 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactor into multiple articles as suggested above, and then turn this page into a disambiguation page. As per DGG's suggested titles, I like the following: Psychiatric malpractice for the ordinary sense of medical malpractice, Psychiatric political abuse as in the Soviet Union, and Anti-psychiatry movement for the rest. -- The Anome 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine suggestion. Please note, though, that there is already a locale for both Anti-psychiatry as well as mainstream criticisms. While there may be more mainstream criticisms to add, there's no reason to add them under this fork and under a Scientology term as title. Perhaps there's a need for the Scientology view of "psychiatric abuse" itself, but if that's the remaining raison d'etre of this article, a disambiguating note and a new title would be in order. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG, we already have that article Scientology and psychiatry which could cover their views of this term, and covers their view of this issue.:)Merkinsmum 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse is a generic term, mainly used by those who oppose psychiatry, to categorize all real and alleged mistreatment of people placed under psychiatric care. There are several highly polarized views of varying standards about what constitutes "Psychiatric abuse" in the field of psychiatry. What is categorized as mistreatment can range from simple malpractice, to human rights violations up to and including torture. It can also be used by those who oppose Psychiatry to identify proven mainstream treatments that have been shown to be clinically effective such as Electroconvulsive Therapy. In the extreme certain Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics would also include the lack of psychiatric institutions or neglect by poorly trained staff in these institutions as Psychiartic abuse. In another vein the term is also used by scholars who use it specifically as a descriptive term to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. Within the field of psychiatry the term is not used. In Psychiatry "abuse" refers more narrowly to certain forms of malpractice by individual doctors and to the misuse of psychiatry by governments, such as the Soviet Union. Generally accepted forms of psychiatric care are not considered abusive by the profession itself or, in principle, within the broader field of psychology.

The above is the quoted current form of the intro and feels accurate in all the different ways the phrase is used. Whether all these different uses are best served by being put together under the same umbrella is another question.--scuro 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it feels good or not is irrelevant. It included too many unreferenced assertions, and needed to be cleaned up. I have put inline citations for what was supportable, and removed or replaced what was not. Dhaluza 03:31, 5 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 DELETED per speedy deletion A1. Moonriddengirl 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronex

Non notable engineering product. In the history of the article the subject was first listed as " RoNEX " with a list of the "technical team" who worked on developing the medium voltage metal-enclosed switch gear and control gear, one of which was Gaser Zaher (talk • contribs), the creator of this article. The team names were removed and the article was reduced to an unverifiable stub.

I can find no evidence that this term is used in the way that the article suggests-- not even commercially. The article has been tagged for cleanup since June 2006. I don't see where anyone could add to this article or even verify its contents. The term is used in other ways, however:

According to this [32] "Ronex is a water soluble, water stable chemical that has extremely high safety margins. It can be used at any stage of the birds breeding cycle to combat protozoal infection. Ronex will not make the male birds infertile."

According to this [33] "RONEX shipping & forwarding is a freight forwarding company operating from Rotterdam." (Worldwide coverage, including war- and terrorist risk.)

According to this [34] "Exxon RONEX MP is a premium quality multipurpose grease that can be used in a wide range of automotive and industrial applications."

According to this [35] "Ronex Industries is a large electronics distributor that has been in business since the 1950s and recently reinvented itself in a way that made the talk of the entire electronics distribution industry."

According to this [36]RONEX d.o.o. is a private Underwater engineering company founded in 1990.

According to this [37] Ronex is the consort of Hinguar, King of the Danes in the tragic play "Alfred" written by John Home, Esq.

I think we just need to DELETE this OfficeGirl 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete A1, no context, so tagged. Good finds, Office Girl! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Die die die! no content, no sources provided, no sources on the first page of the search on Google, not been cleaned up (although Wikipedia has no deadline) - I think it's a hoax. How has it survived this long? Jake the Editor Man 14:27, 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. DS 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrapsychology

A neologism (unrelated to the established psychogeography) coined for the title of a 2007 book. Article created by a single-purpose account with the same name as the author of that book. A search brings up bookstore listings and blog postings; no evidence that the term is in use outside of the (presumably non-notable) book in question. Thomjakobsen 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Query - is the book fictional? Jake the Editor Man 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether you mean "a work of fiction" or "doesn't actually exist" :) The answer to both is no, here is its entry at Amazon. Thomjakobsen 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE Non notable neologism. Book for sale. This is a coatrack for spam. OfficeGirl 14:54, 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. W.marsh 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club

this sports team is not notable Clay5X 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Champions in their division in 2006 - but I don't know whether this is a sufficiently major league for that to constitute notability. SamBC(talk) 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Thomjakobsen 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm saying. I think it's Keep for now. It needs to be expanded but Wikipedia has no deadline and AfD is not cleanup. The topic may be unnotable, though, i suppose. It only gets 296 hits although I know that the Google test is not a proper indication of the notability. Perhaps you should discuss the notability with the author/editors of the page. Jake the Editor Man 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This sports club has not received coverage from reliable independent secondary sources and so there is insufficient evidence of notability to warrant a stub. --Goochelaar 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, appears to play in second division of some local league. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This cricket club has been in existence for 144 years. This rich history - older than Manchester United and every professional baseball team - makes it notable. Their First XI seem to be doing well enough currently but cricket isn't about winning. Colonel Warden 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - local cricket club with no apparent signs of notability. - fchd 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lots of ghits some of which to reliable third party independent sources (e.g. BBC) as well as adequate coverage in books on cricket [38]. --Kudret abi^Talk 19:38, 8 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 under WP:CSD G11, advertising. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marilenedecoracao

From what I could tell from a babelfish translation, this looks like an advert for a interior decoration company (correct me if I'm wrong). Certainly no assertion of notability. Article is in Portuguese for those looking to translate it better, otherwise here's a translation [39] A^RendedWinter 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It shalt be transwikified. - alas, it is in Portuguese. What is it doing here? Transwiki to the portuguese version and let them deal with whether it is acceptable or not, then get someone to translate it. Jake the Editor Man 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete again It was speedied twice before (once by my nomination). It's advertising, it asserts no notability, and it's in Portuguese. Acroterion _(talk) 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt - doesn't need much Portuguese to see from the link that it's just a shop. Gordonofcartoon —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and SALT. Machine translation reveals it's just unsalvageable spam for an interior decorator who would not be notable under any circumstances I can imagine. Zero Google hits other than this page. Accounting4Taste 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I can muddle through enough Portuguese to see this article makes no claim of meeting notability. --Fabrictramp 20:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nantwich Town F.C. 2007-08 season

I don't believe an article about one season in a Unibond League team's history is that notable. PeeJay 13:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Die. or rename to Nantwich Town F.C. and expand to full history of team. The page, if you read it, seems to include quite some detail. It is probably not notable however- I live in england and have heard neither of Nantwich Town F.C. or of the Unibond League. Jake the Editor Man 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments

1. An article on Nantwich Town F.C. already exists and already contains a history section.
2. I'm guessing you don't follow football, as the Unibond League is one of the most notable semi-professional football leagues in the country.
3. Nantwich Town is a very significant non-league football club, having won the FA Vase last year ChrisTheDude 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I believe this is excessive detail for a club at this level, so delete ChrisTheDude 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The football club already has its own article, which is fair enough, but this does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Michig 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Just so we're clear, I'm not against all clubs having individual season articles. I just don't think clubs like Nantwich should have them, because Nantwich Town F.C. is barely notable as a club in the first place. - PeeJay 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I'm surprised that anyone living in England and having some interest in football would be unaware of the Unibond league, but that doesn't mean teams in that league should get season-by-season articles. Merging to the club's article would invite expansion to an unworkable size, and we'd be back with a string of deletion arguments again. Best not to go down that road. BPMullins | Talk 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I am unhappy about professional clubs having season-by-season articles, but to have one for a semi-professional club four divisions below the Football League is quite pointless. Number 5 7 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons given above. If the club achieves something notable in the present season (relatively likely, I would say, given that they won the FA Vase not long ago), it can be written into their main article, rather than this one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as being far too non-notable. Qwghlm 22:42, 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 The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK. Bearian 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pernilla Ouis

A lecturer at a university. The article does not state that she holds a professorial chair, there is no evidence that she has been the subject of any non-trivial independent coverage. I believe this article fails the "professor test" as failing to demonstrate how this academic is in any way distinguishable from any other. This appears to be a "coatrack" article designed to publicise her conversion to Islam and a mention of her in a book on converts to Islam. Cruftbane 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per your reasoning. This individual does not appear to be notable, and it appears that the presence of this article is a muted example of WP:COATRACK#Some Dude Did It So It Must Be Good. That is to say, the article appears to have been created as a result of the fact of her conversion, rather than because of her unremarkable professional or personal contributions (not to talk down about the woman). While conversions themselves can make a person notable (e.g. Abdul Rahman), there is nothing notable in this respect, either. I don't see any sufficient case for keeping this article.--C.Logan 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROF. As P Ouis, SP Ouis and PDSP Ouis, she's written a handful of articles on Islam. The problem is they've only been cited a total of 7 times, per Google Scholar. There's no evidence to indicate her books are that much notable, either.--Sethacus 15:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Michig 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
'Delete NN Tiptopper 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I see no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 21:18, 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zedstar

Self promotional article failing WP:COI. Perhaps not a speedy A7 but no references, major assertion of notability - Fails WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - indicating that someone is a popstar isn't a meaningful assertion of importance. Addhoc 12:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Pure self-praising crap. Not particularly well written either... "14teen" and "16teen" - show that perhaps the author doesn't have a full grasp of English. Scarian ^Talk 12:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I don't think that any person familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would (could?) argue for the preservation of this article. It is clear that this individual is not {yet?} notable. This article seems more a vehicle to achieve notability.--C.Logan 13:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and now tagged as such - I was clearly not awake when I decided not the tag it for A7 at the beginning - Peripitus (Talk) 13:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - it looks like something that belongs in the sandbox!! Jake the Editor Man 13:22, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 03:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoot Rumpus

This "upcoming" show has no information regarding the airdate for it or any citations to this show actually existing. treelo _talk 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - His "official" site [40] says that he is working on an upcoming show of the same name for Cartoon Network. Scarian^Talk 12:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - Aware of that but the case is that it's only a short, not a series and may not even be picked up to be developed as a series. It's notability is questionable and being so far ahead it's more a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if nothing else. --treelo _talk 13:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The lack of verified content is a major concern here. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, this article is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with above. Scarian ^Talk 13:59, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of television stations in North America by media market

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of television stations in North America by media market

The lists are owned by Nielsen and should not be listed here Ph992 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If these lists are truly owned by Nielsen, would that be a copyvio candidate? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's possible that the copyright holder allows use for this purpose (as with the map .gif, which has a copyright statement). General information from Nielsen, such as national television ratings, is usually made available to everyone, and I suspect that's true about size of TV markets. On the other hand, specific information about how a station performs in the market is intended only for the subscriber to the ratings report. Mandsford 13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete To be fair, I would say this should be deleted in the same way that another list was recently deleted (List of United States radio markets), which was the list of radio markets owned by Arbitron. Both lists should likewise be deleted. --DavidTheLion 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: That article has been here at least the last few years, unopposed, and never contested until now. While most Nielsen data is, indeed, copyrighted, the market names and their rankings are common knowledge, and can be found anywhere on the internet, even if Nielsen does own the data. Likely Nielsen has granted permission to list the market rankings, with few reservations. As for the map, permission was indeed granted for its use here. In my opinion, this article should've never been nommed for deletion. I would go on, but my blood is boiling right now. -- azumanga 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This seems to have been a misunderstanding from a new user (user:Ph992). This list is widely available elsewhere (such as here, here, and here. Do you really think Zap2it.com maintains pages in violation of copyright? The rankings change on a yearly basis. As Mandsford says, specific information about how well a station performs is sensitive information that Nielsen would rightly want to protect, but the market rankings are widely available, have been since the 1950s (Ingram, 2002), and figure greatly into U.S. television industry operations. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Nielsen widely distributes such information and makes market rankings and size available to anyone via download. The image used on the page is also widely distributed and should also be acceptable for use in Wikipedia, as long as a proper fair use rationale is provided. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - The markets data can be found on a number of websites from 100000watts.com to LostRemote. The lists are, like Firs said, widely available. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close I almost said "strong keep," as the market rankings have been widely available for over half a century, and are an important part of television industry operations. Also, you can't copyright facts. But I notice that this user's very first edit was to nominate this article for deletion. Blueboy96 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: By the looks of his edit log, it seems the only reason he's here is to delete this article. -- azumanga 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Follow-up: And as of October 1, he has not made any further comments on this dispute -- nor did any more edits on Wikipedia. -- azumanga 00:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Per the other reasons above. The information is common knowledge and even used beyond Nielsen for other purposes. Nate 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What evidence is there that this nomination was made in bad faith? It looks like a newbie mistake to me (misunderstanding, nomination made to the wrong page, etc.). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, my apologies. Redacted my starting comment. Nate 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Firsfron. Maxa megalon 2000 05:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This page is an incredibly useful resource, and you can't copyright facts. People seem to forget that a lot on WP. Also, any way to restore the radio rankings page based on that principle? 216.15.42.170 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Per the reasons stated by those before. The information is widely available and is used by just about every relevant website out there. The page is a great source of information and is the sort of thing that belongs on WP.

If the rather pedestrian logic in play here for this article's deletion were taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no articles on WP about the Academy Awards, since the term Academy Award and Oscar are copyrighted - maybe we could call them "motion picture salutations" and "anthropomorphic achievement totems," respectively? - we'd have to delete the pages of past winners, since you could argue that that's proprietary information for ABC, the broadcaster, and the Academy, and you would have literally a few hundred thousand articles on WP deleted based nothing more than on rampant paranoia and a subsequent wave of self-censorship. There would be no articles on commercial products, which have copyrighted or trademarked names, no articles on mascots, cartoons, movies, etc, since all of that is coyprighted/trademarked. We wouldn't be able to use passages from books, either, since that would be unauthorized reproduction of coyprighted materials.

Nielsen posts the market information on its website every year, makes it freely accessible and everybody and their brother in the television industry and beyond use it. It's not a big secret. If it were essential proprietary information, they wouldn't post it and they would sue those who post it all over the Internet, which they haven't. Once you release facts into the public domain, they cannot be recalled for royalties later. The fact that the page acknowledges that Nielsen is the source should be enough to put this to rest. They give the information away, it's not locked behind a paid membership or anything of the sort, so our acknowledgement of their kindly making it available is enough, just as it is with any other source.

I have no idea how this line of thinking was able to steamroller over the radio markets page, since that information is also freely available. Can we get that page back?

This article is a fantastic resource for the media-minded, as everything is neatly categorized and one doesn't have to search for individual stations but can just look at all of those in a market. It would be a tremendous shame to see such a valuable page, into which so much effort went, deleted based on ill-founded logic. If in the future Nielsen asks for it to be taken down, that's another issue, but that hasn't happened. The page should be kept. Canadian Bobby 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I too think this is a great resource and should not be deleted. STRONG keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amschulman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Macauley

Non-notable footballer and manager. Has never played in a professional league, nor managed in a professional league. Mattythewhite 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Scarian ^Talk 12:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is also non-notable:

Speedy Delete - Agree with nom that he is non-notable and his article reads like a bio off of a fan site, POV. Scarian ^Talk 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Woodym555 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Carl Macauley - has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). I have speedy deleted Sean Lake as it was a blatant copyright violation (it was copied word for word from the Vauxhall Motors website). Number 5 7 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - straightforward. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:22, 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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terran Battlecruiser

This is game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE) accompanied by statistics (WP:NOT#INFO), neither of which adhere to our fiction-writing guide (WP:WAF) and the subject is unlikely to have any out-of-universe context of note. No notability outside the game is asserted (WP:Notability), and no independent references are provided (WP:Verifiability). Marasmusine 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The nom pretty much sums it up - NN outside game, unsourced and gives game-guide material. Delete. Spawn Man 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment How can you say this articles not asserting notability outside the game is justification for deletion when articles you created don't do it, either? see, for example, Planet Harriers and Xconq. and a lot of other articles have shoddy assertions of notability. Styx (Spectrum game), for example. do you think that single mention in a magazine is enough to justify notability? in other afd's, editors have commented that multiple non-trivial sources must exist and yet you only have one trivial source? proving that the game existed is not enough, according to some wikipedians - proving that it had an impact beyond that of a normal game is what is necessary. frankly, i think you have quite the double standard.

as for the article, itself... it does need to be cleaned up. whether or not it should be deleted is something i'd only be able to say after the cleanup 209.209.214.5 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take those articles to AfD. They were mostly created on request, I don't mind one way or the other if they stay or not. Marasmusine 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: An article for a single unit for a game? Aside from the fact that the article does not assert the subject's notability, I highly doubt that any source would single out a Terran Battlecruiser as a notable subject. As it stands, the article is exactly game guide material that is disallowed by WP:NOT#GUIDE. In regards to 209.209's comment: if other articles fail to meet Wikipedia guidelines, please tag that for deletion. What the nominator has contributed has nothing to do with this debate. --Scottie_theNerd</font; 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

i can't nominate other articles for deletion because i'm an anon user. also, what the nominator has contributed is relevant. why are the other articles seemingly exempt from the notability criteria? this is something i need to know if i'm to have a hope of understanding the nominators position. scientists improve their understanding of the world through tests. ie. our science tells us that when you put element A and element B together, you should get molecule C. that's all i'm trying to do. i'm trying to put two and two together to gain a better understanding of the nominators position. i, at the moment, attribute this to simple hypocrisy, but maybe the situation is complicated then that? maybe the nominators position is more complicated then that? i don't know but i sure as shit am not going to find out by holding my tongue as you seem to be suggesting 209.209.214.5 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you create an account. The nominator's articles and edits - or anyone's contributions for that matter - are not exempt from Wikipedia policy. If you believe those articles violate Wikipedia policy, either discuss it on the respective Talk pages or tag the article for AfD. If you are unfamiliar with the deletion process, I wish to inform you that editors like Marasmusine systemically tag articles regardless of their personal disposition. Some of them get deleted based on consensus; some don't. Some go through more than one AfD process. This happens all the time, and this is how articles that violate policy are removed or improved. I advise that you debate the deletion based on interpretations of Wikipedia policy rather than waging a personal war with the nominator. --Scottie_theNerd 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Though in agreement with Scott, I have to note that in practice, an article written by an anon is much more likely to be deleted than the very same article written by an experienced user. This is contrary to Wikipedia's policy, but fact nonetheless. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete individual units in RTS are never notable. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is a simple one. I'll bet dollars to donuts that legitimate secondary references will be found for this topic. Do scholars write books on Battlecruisers? Maybe the New York Times does feature articles in the Sunday magazine section? MarkBul 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki so Delete The page is transwikied to the Encyclopedia Gamia. It can now be found here if anyone want to edit it. So delete it and prevent re creation --Cs california 08:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop spamming your site. and frankly, i think the idea of transwikification as a viable alternative is a joke. there's wikipedia, the wiki, and there are the tens of thousands of smaller wikis that no one cares about or knows about. if something can't be found on wikipedia it's on one of those 10,000+ other wikis. which one? well, that's anybodies guess

and of course, your "prevent recreation" position is decidedly self-serving. "if i can get wikipedia to delete every single article and i host the official mirrors of all of them, my wiki will be as popular as wikipedia! wheee!", you seem to be thinking 209.209.214.5 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well where else would game guide material go? Wikipedia gaming project allows game related material to be moved to one of these large gamimg pages at early 2006 because wikipedia decided to massively delete these pages because it is not a game guide. and the second thing is it is not my site I am just an admin on the site. Third you can also redirect the page. This article was created multiple times already thats why I put prevent recreation.

I also use to a creator of these pages until wikipedia decided to massively delete them. --Cs california 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the not-so-small matter of 209.209.214.5 not assuming good faith and not being civil. Marasmusine 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Terran (StarCraft). Exceedingly game-guidey. JavaTenor 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why delete? This is an article about a capital ship from StarCraft SciFi Universe, not a game guide. A game guide would explain, how to use that or another unit in game, explain tactics etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian Spetsnaz (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why keep? Please explain how a single unit in StarCraft is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So, may be you explain me why a widespread starship in the StarCraft Universe could not have its desciption on Wikipedia, and a ONE starship Pillar of Autumn from Halo FPS (by the way, destroyed in the end of the first mission) could
- Please provide sources that state that the Terran Battlecruiser is widespread. It is one unit in one video game plus an expansion, soon to be two games. The Pillar of Autumn may differ in that it is the prominent setting for Halo and mentioned in Fall of Reach, but you will also realise that the article has not established its notability - something that may lead to an eventual AfD. Remember, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you're going to refer to other articles, use articles that are proven to be well-written by being designated GA or FA status. If you don't consider Pillar of Autumn to be notable enough for its own article, tag it for deletion. --Scottie_theNerd 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Terran Battlecruiser is one of the most significiant space warship from StarCraft Universe...So why don't allow this article to stay on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.209.3 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As above, please provide sources that state that the Terran Battlecruiser is "one of the most significant space warship from StarCraft Universe". Apart from several named capital ships, the Terran Battlecruiser has no featured role other than as a top-tier unit. More importantly, there are no independent sources that established the Battlecruiser's notability, which is really what the nomination is about. --Scottie_theNerd 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for this particular unit to have its own article. At the very least, a description of the units in a game or its abilities should be kept within the main article about the game itself. Outside of the context of this game, a "Terran Battleship" has no encylopedic use. I support this deletion. --Cncamp 12:04 03 October 2007
Delete per nom (WP:NOT, etc). Fin ©™ 09:08, 4 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Finch

Not Notable DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - There is absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Finch is a step further down the "associated with Lou Pearlman" notability ladder than AfD Ahmed Ayman El-Difrawi (closed/delete) was. It may be appropriate to make passing references to both Finch and El-Difrawi on the Lou Pearlman page, however at present every argument that was made about the non notability of El-Difrawi also applies to the Finch article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well, it was fun while it lasted and it inspired me to do some writing I had been stalling for too long. For both articles goes: perhaps "not notable" to Wikipedia standards, but most certainly NOT "not true". Alec definitely is a career criminal and Finch is his current patsy. Either because he's evil too and gets paid for it well enough, or because he's been forced to it. I estimate the latter, but I may be wrong about that. Ayman's latest patsy before Finch, Michael Fomkin, most likely was blackmailed with Alec's knowledge about one Peter D. Luterek. --SooperJoo 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - NN. Spawn Man 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn, and it reads like a shopping list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Agree with all above. Scarian ^Talk 12:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't remotely meet WP:Notability and, as per Tiptopper, reads like a shopping list. Ugly and unnecessary. Accounting4Taste 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Mr Finch incorporated Internet Solutions Corp "a global company with a who’s who of Fortune 500 clients"[41], and apparently is this company's Vice President. Being so high up in such a huge and respectable business seems to have high notability to me. Please, don't tell me it may be a scam. --SooperJoo 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To add to my credibility: I have been working a long time on the article on Lou Pearlman, describing his nefarious activities while he was then mainly notable for his pop music ventures. Now he's in the slammer for big time scam. Mr Finch is associated with one of Pearlman's main scam "consultants". --SooperJoo 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for scoring a "Dicky" (Dutch slang for reacting three times in a row ), but another thing crossed my mind. Speaking of notability: the article may be considered an extension of the Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi page, which is strongly related to the Pearlman page. Read them both, think about it and make up your mind again about the notability, thank you. --SooperJoo 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The rationale that this article should be considered an extension of the Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi article no longer applies; that article has been deleted. DylanKate 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Which was to be expected of course. El-Difrawi Not Notable to Wikipedia, heheh. Perhaps it will be back one day. Until then [42]. The Alex Finch page will probably follow soo. Who cares. --SooperJoo 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN. DylanKate 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:56, 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. Carlossuarez46 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Shepherd (Indoor lacrosse player)

Hoax. No such player has ever played in the NLL. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 11:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a reference, this page contains a list of every player who ever played in an NLL game. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 11:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is most definitely a hoax. A quick google search shows up absolutely no links at all for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN. Tiptopper 16:32, 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 Boldly redirected by myself to Gough Bunting. They truly are the same species. No need to keep AfD open if redirect has been made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gough Island Finch

is the same species as Gough Bunting and should be merged with it. Gough Island is part of St. Helena Dixonsej 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Then put up a suggested merging sign, or simply merge the stuff yourself and redirect the page there - There's no need to bring this one here unless it's a redundant redirect. Spawn Man 12:07, 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. W.marsh 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions to the War on Terrorism

These articles do not have any references. They are confusing, because this information is compiled by Wikipedia users: not by US Government anknownledging US Allies. For example, Finland and Sweden only have peace keepers in ISAF and UNIFIL, yet they apparently are hunting for terrorists and are US Allies. Why we should have these articles? They're useless, we have articles such as Multinational force in Iraq, ISAF, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies. There we can use sources and list them in appropriate places. Combining an unofficial list of allies in "WAR ON TERRORISM" may be politically biased, useless and inappropriate. We can list the countries in the appropriate articles, not combine some unofficial political list which does not have any references or anything. (Yeah, also Iran is a US ally in War on Terrorism :-) Pudeo ⺮ 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I support deletion. --82.183.224.40 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can't vote keep, based on the problems described above with lack of sourcing, and it does have a heavy POV that would need to be edited. However, statistics about the amount of participation by other nations in Afghanistan and Iraq is notable, and if this isn't located elsewhere, deletion should be deferred. Mandsford 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Flush Countries are described as "allies of the United States" to qualify as part of the "War on Terrorism". For those who don't know, this is why people around the world hate us. They see Americans as acting like the world revolves around Washington DC, and this kind of juvenile drivel just proves them right. People around the world were dealing with terrorism long before Sept 11, 2001. This topic and the way it is written make me embarrassed to be an American. MarkBul 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per the nom. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete There doesn't appear to be any way to make these articles neutral, and they currently seem to duplicate the material on War on Terror (which seems to have major problems itself). Can I point out that War on Terror: Allies and Allied Powers of the War on Terror redirect to these articles so should be deleted too (I don't know whether this happens automatically, so I thought I should mention it). Bistromathic 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment oops, forget to mention that there is another similar article that should be deleted if these two are, Targets of War on Terrorism. Bistromathic 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into relevant articles (Afghan war, Iraq war etc) before Deleting per Mandsford Deniz^T_C 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If kept, an alternate name could be given to the second article (it is a list), something like 'international contributions to US-initiated efforts', though I am not sure it would be encyclopedic. Deniz^T_C 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Basicly, most of the RELEVANT information is already available in articles such as Multinational force in Iraq, ISAF, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies, so there isn't much reasons to merge anything really, since those articles don't have "original research" on "war on terrorism", and are more accurate.--Pudeo ⺮ 09:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Topic exhaustively covered in articles mentioned above.--Victor falk 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
KeepWe should keep this article, this is to not have to add all these nations to the infobox of the War on terror article. The list has been made out of the information of the articles were it is about so if combatants are removed on those articles they can be removed here. And if this article is removed there is no other place you can see all combatants of the war on terror. The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know it's for the list of War On Terror combatants. But still I prefer deleting it, as reasons stated above. Does the article really need such lists? ISAF & UNIFIL peace keepers aren't really combatants on "war on terrorism". They are still listed, and so, how do we classify "war on terrorism"? Since there is no reference of nations "participating", it's not necessary to list them. Is Russia a combatant on war on terrorism, because they are fighting in Chechenya? Maybe, who knows. But we can't really a compile a list like that. --Pudeo ⺮ 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Because there are several wars part of the this war on terror, Russia is fighting their own one and that is not part of "the" war on terror. I don't think we need any sources for this article as it is common knowledge that the US if fighting in Iraq together with Britain and for instance the name Insurgency in the Phillipines indicates the Philipines is a combatant. The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just a pointless list of nations that says nothing of any detail or context. Details should and can be found in articles like Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies, Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006, ISAF, Multinational force in Iraq, Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa Operation Active Endeavour etc etc Chwyatt 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT, nothing worth keeping. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I was just checking up the status on my prods and was to nominate it myself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivory

I have been there- it is a field (unless this is an Irish Brigadoon then that would be notable!) Aatomic1 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ unless anyone can provide evidence that it's an actual settlement. Even the article states it appears to be a townland. Huh? So far I can't find anything conclusive. --Oakshade 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Reidrect per user:Aatomic1 below. --Oakshade 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability; probably also falls under speedy delete criterion A7. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hold on: The two links on the page show it is a real place. At minimum it is the name of an electoral district. But, it may be *just* the name given for an electoral ward, rather than the name of a village or town. But if it is a town then we normally assume notablity. I'll come off the fence when we figure this out.Obina 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Keb25 08:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Butlersbridge, the nearest village. A townland is not a town, it is the smallest official division of land in Ireland. They are often just some fields and a few houses. Having individual articles for all 60,000 of them is probably overkill. Bláthnaid 10:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I Afd'ed this version of the article - a hoax possibly only known to those with knowledge of the area. Sarah777 has removed the hoax element leaving only the WP:V bit. I am quite happy to Merge and redirect as long as no one relies on me to do this as I do not have the technical knowledge. Aatomic1 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ Redirect I mean - nothing much to merge beyond that this place is on the list of electoral wards. But the ideal place to redirect it to would be a list of all the local electoral districts. But if no one creates such a page a redirect to Butlersbridge is fine.Obina 22:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The eras history of prowrestling

Unreferenced, unfocused, factually dubious article on a subject already covered by History of professional wrestling. Alksub 07:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. redundant. Besides, History of professional wrestling does a better job than this article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: a nice idea, but perhaps the author could put his knowledge to use in existing articles? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Redundant & OR. No sources for claims. Spawn Man 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete some content could be merged into History of professional wrestling, which, as Lenticel states, is superior to this new creation. The other article could use some additional content concerning the different organizations (there were others besides the AWA prior to the Vince McMahon era). Alternatively, this could be changed from a "history" article to one about the different circuits that have come and gone over the years. Leave history to historians, wrestling articles to wrestling fans. Mandsford 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant info and original research. Nikki311 14:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Very redundant with other "pro wrestling history" pages. Dannycali 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note, the author and only substantial editor of this article redirected the page to History of professional wrestling. I undid the edit because this AfD is not yet over. The redirect The uncencored history of prowrestling was also redirected to the History of professional wrestling. I have also fixed it and redirected back to its original article. Nikki311 16:50, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mom jeans

A contested prod. This is from a Saturday Night Live sketch and doesn't even come close to the notability threshold. UsaSatsui 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy delete~~. Non-notable concept from a minor bit of sketch comedy--obviously does not warrant an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to Keep per KP Botany. I should have checked this more carefully--did not know this had been written about in such a serious fashion. Someone should really get cracking on the article though--maybe delete what's there and add in a stubby sentence or two sourced to a couple of the newspaper articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Obvious OR & NN. Wikipedia isn't a list of jokes; go to Uncyclopedia for that... Spawn Man 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is a joke and definitely not notable. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep this is a notable concept that has been written about in women's magazines and discussed on talk shows for years and years. Just because it's not in your venue, doesn't mean you should delete the article without some more information. They were parodied on Saturday Night Live, but the show doesn't own the concept. The Seattle Times knows what mom jeans are,[43] so does the Washington Post,[44] the on-line Urban Dictionary,[45] and they've been a subject on Oprah for years.[46] This article needs desperately sent to the ICU, not deleted. Siva, you obviously didn't even try to verify the content.[47] KP Botany 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here's an article from last week in the New York Times.[48] Apparently they're making a come back and Wikipedia's readers should be able to pop on line and accurately find out from the encyclopedia what they are. KP Botany 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete 1. The Urban dictionary doesn't count. 2. A nickname, even if legitimate, for a style of jeans isn't really encyclopedic. 3. The article is in terrible condition. Merge if necessary, but delete is better. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read AfD criteria "Article is in terrible condition" is not one of them. Urban dictionary doesn't count as what? It doesn't matter if it counts, as there are enough mainstream press resources. And, yes, clothing styles are encyclopediac in nature. Print encyclopedias have articles on clothing styles. Fashion is the subject of entire schools. KP Botany 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - This isn't a "clothing style". It's a joke perhaps, a pejorative term for a type of clothing maybe, but hardly a style. --UsaSatsui 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even if it was encyclopedic, it would belong in wikitionary. Mbisanz 22:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete While an actual term, does not need a separate article, NN. Dannycali 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep I had PROD'd it, but the Washington Post article looks like a convincing source. DGG (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Seattle Times, WaPo and NYT references convinced me, though they need to be added to the article itself. Note: This article is now placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per KP B Orphic 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I tried to fix the article a bit. Mom jeans are not an actual fit of jeans, more of a satire of womens "comfort jeans", but they are often referred to as such, as to point out the unflattering nature of the jeans. I even recall on the channel TLC, they had these series of goofy commercials called "Life Lessons" where they were supposedly hawking figurines for sale and one of them was about mom jeans. Here's the pic of that figurine: [49]--Section8pidgeon 11:25, 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 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnitheism

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Omnitheism

Articles for deletion/Omnitheism (second nomination)

Unreferenced soapboxing about a religion found to be non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnitheism. Alksub 07:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's true that the article needs serious improvement in order to meet WP standards. However, the article has already been repeatedly deleted, causing replacements that are less rounded, researched & referenced than the previous attempts. It is true that omnitheism is a relatively new term, but there are reasons for its emergence at this time, and I think those need to be contextualized. I would like to access the version just prior to this one and merge the information, adding some references and "missing links" in the information flow in order to meet a higher quality standard. I believe that all of the concerns are valid, and I believe that they can all be addressed. Mahalo!--Laualoha 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)
Delete. Questionable notability. Even if notable, the article should go as per WP:NOT#DICDEF.--Michig 07:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - neologism, total lack of sourcing, non notable --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. --Agamemnon2 07:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Keb25 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Might wanna "salt the earth" to prevent recreation as it seems like this is the second AfD that it has gone through and the first time the result was "delete". nat^tang 09:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable, soapboxing, neologism, completely unreferenced. Salting might be appropriate here. Hut 8.5 11:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Burn and Salt - Article has already been deleted. NN neogolism... Spawn Man 12:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If you love something, set it free because it wasn't meant to be. Salting is an extreme measure, but this greeting card is extremely inappropriate here. Get the salt shaker. Mandsford 12:27, 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, notable but unsourced is not a reason to delete. --Stefan ^talk 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Rave

This biographical article violates WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:NOR. To the minimal extent it is sourced at all, it uses non-reliable internet sources that mostly address the article's subject only in passing, not at all or are unreachable. Sandstein 06:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment While it could use a few more sources (BTW, WP:BLP is basically just a collection of other policies), but he is very notable on the indy circuit and is now a full time roster in the second largest wrestling promotion in North America (TNA). TJ Spyke 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Just throwing out a list of WP:'s don't make it so. Jimmy Rave is plenty notable per above. Shortage of sources is reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Bacchiad 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have edited the above comment to read "keep". Please do not alter the comments of others; see WP:TPG. Sandstein 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, Sandstein. That edit was an error, I think from blind of use cut-paste too late at night. Thank you for assuming good faith. Bacchiad 12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
Keep and question why this is here Since when is deletion a solution to an issue of sourcing? The sourcing issue itself is a whole other ball of wax - there aren't "reliable" sources on the topic enough to satisfy many editors. The solution to this issue is not deletionism. Nosleep1234 05:18, 5 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles John Spencer

This biographical article violates WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:NOR. It has no sources and has been so tagged since January 2007. Sandstein 06:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep but move back to Tony Mamaluke with no redirect. Probably can be sourced, in that Tony Mamaluke is notable within the pro wrestling world. But nobody talks about this guy as "Charles John Spencer" (Not to be confused with Princess Di's brother) anymore than they talk about "Terrence Gene Bollea" (lookitup). Mandsford 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reason to keep. If it can be sourced, please do it now. Otherwise, the article still fails WP:V, etc. Sandstein 13:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do it now? Oh, I can't do it now, Sandy. I'm eating lunch. But you start working on it, and I'll be along to help later on this afternoon. I promise. Mandsford 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No. According to WP:V, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you want to keep the article, you have to do the work of sourcing it, not I. Also per WP:V, "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".

Aw gee too bad. And if you want to delete the article, it looks like you will have to find someone else besides yourself to speak up. Doesn't look like it's going too well, but please keep trying, my friend. Mandsford 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. --Naha|^(talk) 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
Keep, He passes the notability policy for having held the ECW Tag title and the another major independent title, the ROH Tag title. I've also begun to source the article and will continue to do so, but you'll have to bear with me and assume good faith, as I have several midterms and papers due at school this week, so Wikipedia isn't exactly my top priority for the time being. Nikki311 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, almost definitely passes notability, however, article needs major rework. Davnel03 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Niki311. --Naha|^(talk) 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. My main issue is the sources - if Nikki311 can remedy that, then the article is fine. I don't see any WP:BLP violations, except as incidental to the lack of sources - perhaps nom would elaborate? Tony Mamaluke redirects to this article; I'd recommend leaving it that way, simply because Mr. Spencer might get another gig, with another character's identity (See also Mick Foley; his characters such as Cactus Jack and Dude Love redirect to his main article, under his real name). Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Except Mick Foley competed under three different names in the same company at the same time, as well as competing under his real name. Charles John Spencer has been performing under the name "Tony Mamaluke" consistantly for nine years. Nenog 15:43, 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 a speedy deletetion as per CSD A7 by Irishguy. Non-admin closure. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FierceApple

No reliable sources can be found to establish notability (A google search yields three results) Sasha Callahan 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non notable website, Wikipedia is not an advertising rostrum. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable website. Keb25 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NN & SPAM. Spawn Man 12:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. its some wankers ad for his site 216.197.255.21 23:38, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 3rd Birthday

no assertion of notability, no sources except a third party 2 sentence statement that it was announced, violates WP:NOT, Crystal ball, game only exists as an announcement, no real information about the game whatsoever exists. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Square Enix is a highly notable company, and a search for ""The 3rd Birthday" Enix" revealed quite a lot of results seemingly related to the game.Darkcraft 11:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment square enix is a highly notable company, but everything I've seen regarding this future game is nothing but speculation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable game from a notable series from a notable developer/publisher. Deathawk 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Not sure if I can do this since I'm not a member but I do agree with Deathawk (sorry if I'm not allowed to vote in these sort of things). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --Gavin Collins 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable game from a notable publisher --Raistlin 20:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notable game? There is ZERO information about the game other than an announcement that it exists. How can you establish notability for THIS game? Square Enix's other games are notable, but THIS ONE is not yet. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment a google search reveals: A few hundred forum posts, a couple youtube comments, more forums, a few announcements that the game has been announced, speculation as to how it fits into the parasite eve series......and NO solid information whatsoever. No notability, no nothing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You are looking at this in very black and white terms. In trying to assume good faith I'm supposing that you know little about the politics surrounding the game, but let me tell you when Square announced that one of thier beloved franchises was going exclusively to mobile phones, American Gamers were absoloutly outraged. When a game evokes that type of reaction, and is made by a notable publisher, I think that alone deserves a Wikipedia article. Deathawk 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Really? There was controversy? Because, you know, I don't see it anywhere other than on random forums and youtube, neither of which are reliable sources. While you're assuming good faith, I've been in the games industry for almost a decade, from journalism, to development, to advocacy. This game's article CURRENTLY violates WP:NOT a crystal ball,WP:V, WP:RS, and lacks notability. As such, it cannot merit an article. Maybe in a few months when it's further down the development pipeline, or next year if it gets announced at E3, it will. But as of right now, the ONLY VERIFIED INFORMATION IS THAT IT EXISTS AND IT IS SET AFTER PE2. That is NOT enough information to warrant an article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment the notability of Square Enix is irrelevant. We're talking about the notability of THIS GAME. Ford creates dozens of concept cars yearly. We don't have wikipedia articles on them because individually they are NOT notable. Notability is not transitive: It does not transfer from Square to this game, nor does it transfer from Parasite Eve 2 to this game (which doesn't even have the name Parasite Eve in the title).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I have added a source to the article and some info about the game. Its a notable series from a notable publisher, notability is inherited in this case (as it would be if Spiderman 4 was announced tomorrow). Details will emerge over the next few weeks/months and we can guarantee that we will eventually have an article on this. Fosnez 01:31, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Although the COI issues are a cause for concern, the community feels that these issues should be dealt with through editing and not deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred de Grazia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia

Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia (2nd nomination)

This particular article was nominated for deletion a year ago with no consensus. There are basically two problems with this page. First of all, it is written primarily by the subject's wife as a promotional spot for the person in question in violation of vanity regulations. This was the rationale for the first deletion, but there is a more important consideration to be had here. Our standards for including articles on academics are listed at WP:PROF. This particular person does not appear to me to rise to the level outlined there. In particular, he does not seem to be any more distinguished or well-known than an average professor -- indeed he may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor. He has published some books, but none seem to have garnered any mainstream notoriety. Nondistinguished 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. Colonel Warden 06:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

By what criteria? Here are the ones from WP:PROF:

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. -- None are indicated.
The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. -- None are indicated.
The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. -- Arguable with respect to some of his books, but I see no evidence for academic significance and his work certainly isn't "well known".
The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. -- Not the case.
The person is known for originating 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. -- Quantavolution is his original concept, but it has received no reviews nor studies.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. -- None are indicated.

So please let us know what standards you are using. Perhaps you don't think this person should be evaluated as an academic? Nondistinguished 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Subject seems notable as an author with many published works, but the article needs serious work to trim it to factual, referenced information.--Michig 07:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep But but take a sharp pixel cutter and remove the unsourced material. I share the frustration of the proposer, but delete is not the answer here. Also note those WP:PROF criteria (per the intro on the page) mean an academic is certainly notably. But lack of them does not mean he is not. (sufficient but not neccessary) This guy is notable per WP:BIO as an author. But Nondistinguished be WP:BOLD in your efforts to improve this article.Obina 09:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only contentious unsourced material that should be removed per WP:LIVING, the rest can be tagged. --Tsyko 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable.Rocket000 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia does not ban biographical articles written by oneself or family, it just says that "you have no right to control its content", and there is no sign of that. The suggestion that this was a vanity article was dismissed in the first AfD. Notability is exceeded in numerous areas, and I wonder whether the nominator has read the article? The subject has had books published by several mainstream publishers ("Size of Corpus and Its Distribution"), co-founded the American Behavioral Scientist which has been running for nearly 50 years. I have no idea how the nominator assessed that subject "may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor". The subject seems to not only meet WP:PROF, but exceeds notability in others areas too. --Tsyko 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete He's an interesting guy, but this seems like an extensive vanity bio to me. Not really notable. Tiptopper 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Uhhhh, the man's name returns THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE hits on Google Book Search alone, a HUGE portion of them being books/pamphlets/etc. written by him. Also, he's been notable since the '60's,at least. That's just one of a handful of articles I found. Some non-lazy editor(s) should go through that article, source it and weed out the unsourceable. Also, I find it interesting that the nom is so certain the wife wrote the article as she's been dead at least ten years.Do some research! --Sethacus 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That was his first wife. It does appear that the article was written by his second wife Ami (Special:Contributions/Amideg), not that that's a reason for deletion per se.--Michig 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Though, per the article, his second wife's name is Anne-Marie, I'm willing to believe it was written by her. Per the article, Anne-Marie is French and there's a phrase "joined with him" that caught my eye. The French word for "to marry" literally means "join with".--Sethacus 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's confusing. The article later states "In 2002, Alfred and Ami sold their house..." and it's presumably this Ami that wrote the article. Another thing that needs fixing in this article.--Michig 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems to be both. Anne-Marie refers to herself as "Ami". That should be discussed on the talk page/fixed, though.--Sethacus 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment When the only reference in an article this long has something to do with Velikovsky, you need to take a very close look at the whole article. If you strip this one of the peacock language, there's not much left. An article this long that's been around for a year, and no good references? And the people here who recommend Keep haven't added any? If it looks like poop, and it smells like poop... MarkBul 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and stubify immediately after closing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
weak delete~~keep~~ ~~and trim to stub.~~ The article is a huge COI hagiography of a kook, while he may approach notability, this article does not have the balance and tone required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Changed to weak delete, my keep thinking was based on my recollection of notability standards for authors , but I don't see this under WP:BIO (creative professionals) anymore, and so, in the absence of a realiable source demonstrating secondary coverage of Alfred de Grazia as a subject himself, I think he stands as a non-notable author of many books (none of which demonstrably pass WP:BK). Pete.Hurd 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He seems to be notable. But, as others have said, the article needs to be rewritten. Steve Dufour 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the BIO & COI issues raised by Pete Hurd. I am somewhat dismayed at the breezy, even inattentive opinions expressed above to retain this, as well as the offhand way with which editors feel COI concerns can simply be swept away with a "needs rewrite." This is a serious problem and a major stain on reputation. Eusebeus 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood that this debate is about the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. p.s. There are lots of articles written from a negative and hostile POV here on WP and I think that is just as bad as ones written from a positive POV. Steve Dufour 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(My 2c worth on this off-topic thread are here Pete.Hurd 03:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Keep Co-authorship of "Congress and the presidency: their role in modern times" with Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. is a rather strong claim of notability. This is an awfully written and formed article for an individual who is clearly notable. Alansohn 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but He is certainly significant; Pete concerns about COI and appropriate weight are however altogether appropriate, and I have begun a preliminary rewriting on the initial parts of the article to improve it while it is at AfD. I am not the best qualified person for the more technical portions later on, so I hope someone else continues this. Eusubius is correct that we should not delay dealing with this.DGG (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for grabbing the bull by the horns and attempting to recraft the article. Unfortunately, User:Eusebeus' "solution" for dealing with the problem is to flush it down the toilet. Alansohn 05:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Ummm, I think it was Nondistinguished that put it up for deletion. Pete.Hurd 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    - DGG referenced Eusebeus' comments above. Alansohn 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Person clearly notable. But the article is in horrible condition as the majority of it is unsourced.Vice regent 21:07, 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. Carlossuarez46 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O-Luv

Wikipedia isn't a crystall ball, enough said. I'm surprised the article survived for the last 3 months. Spellcast 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Blatantly against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (at WP:NOT).

Jake the Editor Man 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; it can always be restored if a release date is confirmed and there are some sources for the content of the article. --Paul Erik 16:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, very obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation, no release date, no sources, all speculation. shoeofdeath 02:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as spam/CRYSTAL. I also deleted the 19 year-old would-be director's article Andrew McCarrick as speedy for failing to state notability. It was the only link-to. Cool Hand Luke 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agent: Undercover

"Agent: Undercover is a feature film that is to be shot in late 2007, in New York City, New Jersey, Washington D.C.". Plot section was a copyvio from http://www.makethemoviehappen.com/index.php?synopsis but the rest appears to be original content. Note the banner at the top of the plagiarized page: "Make the Movie Happen - Current tally: $14357.34, target: $2,500,000". I guess that sums this "article" up pretty effectively. MER-C 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or userify - and I haven't even looked at the article. Nice idea, maybe on someone's user page but not in article space. Jake the Editor Man 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind, delete. It has is own website. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Jake the Editor Man 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This was posted by the filmmaker, and we are not advertising. This has nothing to do with the Make the Movie Happen website. If it did, we would have linked to it, as you can tell we obviously did not. We are just providing information of the film. HDFilmMaker2112 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That would make it spam, then. MER-C 06:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

delete'thenJJJ999 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete looks like either advertising or spam, there is also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COI issues. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:02, 8 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 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical access

Two word term means what it sounds like, and therefore is not restricted to computer security, or even to security. Term might be used in contrast to "remote access" but is not notable. The citations given on the page are not about the coining of or the history of the term "physical access." It might also be considered a neologism. Speciate 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The article is accurate and adequately sourced. And no real reason to delete this article has been provided. Colonel Warden 06:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO are real reasons. See also this similar AfD case, which ended in deletion. Speciate 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Important concept needing better sources, which exist in abundance. --Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Important IT concept. Captain Zyrain 13:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The term is in widespread use in IT, and more can be said about the topic than a dictionary definition. I wouldn't consider it a neologism. The article is about the concept, not the term, therefore no absolute requirement for "coining [and] history". Finally, if the words can be used outside of the context of computer security, the title can be disambiguated--if it ever becomes necessary--to something like Physical access in computer security or Physical access (computer security). --Itub 11:30, 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. Jreferee t/c 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universe of the Metroid series

This article was merged together with the best of intentions in order to make one, notable quality article out of many stubs. However, it appears that there is little to no referencing available for the universe of Metroid, and therefore I propose it be deleted. --Judgesurreal777 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy Keep~~. So, you're not actually proposing a deletion? In that case, the article's talk page is the place to bring your concerns. --UsaSatsui 07:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This isn't "articles for merging", if you merge material you have to keep the original history intact for GFDL reasons. Moving material around between articles can be done through routine editing without needing to get AfD involved. Bryan Derksen 08:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DUH, THIS IS ARTICLES FOR DELETION. I am saying that anything useful should be transferred, thought in my opinion there is basically nothing to save, but in case someone cares to trans wiki it before its deleted, do it now. Judgesurreal777 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people might get confused AfD can stand for "Articles of Discussion" like the category page does. Rocket000 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy Keep~~ Nominator wants it merging - page must be kept for GFDL reasons in that case. Will ^(talk) 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the opening, clear enough now? I want it "DELETED" :) Judgesurreal777 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Metroid (series) then. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment If you think it's a Keep, then go get me three good references from secondary sources. Not fanboy sites, Not userboard discussions. Because without references, it's a definite Delete. MarkBul 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Without a reason for the deletion, it's a definite keep. He didn't have one when he first nominated the article. --UsaSatsui 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy ~~Keep~~ ~~Merge~~ Delete per Will The article does need work on references, but as a single-unified resource for Metroid on wikipedia this is an amazing body of work. I'd like to see some of tags left up so editors can continue to address the sourcing issues, but I feel deletion based on the current grounds is not justified. For sources I'd suggest checking the information against several types of sources such as the game manuals, Tokyopop Manga series, strategy guides, any game reviews which include backstory info to start with.--Torchwood Who? 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to, you are free to transwiki it to Wikitroid fan encyclopedia before it is deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what Judge? You're right. Most of this stuff is already on wikitroid. I think we get caught up in desire to have EVERYTHING on wikipedia just because most people are most aware of the "wikipedia" name. If we didn't have these articles on wikipedia wikitroid would probably pop up higher in google anyway (for appropriate searches). I am, however, going to be sure there's a further reading link on the metroid article that directs interested reader to wikitroid. I think that's a fair compromise.--Torchwood Who? 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear crhist in heaven delete overly long, needs vast amount of references and frankly pointless. Viridae ^Talk 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's an excessively long plot regurgitation with no references (third party, please) or real world content. It'd be better to burn this and start over. ' 05:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Apostrophe and WP:IINFO. Severely excessive for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Could be considered fancruft. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. BTW, this is ranked #4 on the Top 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia entries [50] hbdragon88 06:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with deleting material because it makes mocking us easier for those who want to mock us. --Kizor 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ~

It's a painfully accurate criticism, and the writer does point out that Metroid (series) is a better article overall. ' 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Burn it with fire: This is pointless cruft. Even the most die-hard Metroid fan would agree that this belongs in a Metroid Wikia instead.--_ZXCVBNM 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: it is better to have one big article with all this stuff than having hundreds of little articles lacking notability as it was before. Maybe we can all work in this article to make it shorter and to look for references and reliable sources. Lord Opeth 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda what we were thinking, but then after we merged it, it seems that there isn't enough real world stuff to sustain it on its own. I personally haven't found much on the concept and creation of this stuff, just a lot of fan sites. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - A disgrace to WP:FICTION -- that is, an article dedicated on meticulous detail of in-universe detail. Our articles on the games is good enough, as well as Metroid (series) and Samus Aran. Basically, we should do our best to merge this stuff into Metroid (series) (this does not mean a massive merge of the two pages). MessedRocker (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Thousands have played this game and are familiar with the characters; if a wiki article on the game Starflight or Leisure Suit Larry is notable enough for wikipedia, so should this be. Both of the aforementioned games have little to no referencing available, but have no flags for deletion. Video game minutia is hard to reference, but that doesn't make it non-notable.--pvonmalt

I disagree. Those articles you mentioned are on the games themselves, not (for the most part) the in-universe fictional story in those games. We have the same sort of articles with each of the individual games in the Metroid series. It's this giant article that is solely about in-universe info that's under debate, due to the fact that in-universe information has to have citations from proper sources, which this article does not. Arrowned 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. We shouldn't be afraid of getting rid of crud on the basis that it makes it easier for others to mock us. Wikipedia has its standards and it is those standards and those standards alone which should decide whether something is suitable for Wikipedia; not how it makes us look to those who don't like us anyway. This article comes nowhere near Wikipedia standards for either notability or article content. B1atv 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but not in its current form. Yes, Wikipedia has standards, but this article, if properly sourced and about twenty times shorter, would be interesting and informative for anyone interested in the Metroid series. Some of the info (for example, the descriptions of the planets) is pretty important - at least as far as information on elements in a fictional series can ever be "important". Other aspects are pointless and excessive (the trivia section needs to go, for starters, and I don't believe any but the most obsessive Metroid fan cares about including every single fact about the Space Pirates). I therefore propose that the article be completely rewritten, preferably in a much shorter form. RobbieG 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But again, the question is "do we have the references on how all this stuff was conceived? As of now, we don't have even a single one, and to sustain an article like this, it would take potentially dozens. Judgesurreal777 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources could probably be found to sustain a shorter, better written article. The series is not as obscure as you seem to be suggesting; plenty of journalists and games websites could confirm that the series contains a planet called Zebes, for example. RobbieG 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that as of now, there is no evidence that there is plenty of anything discussing the concept and creation of these metroid plot elements. Judgesurreal777 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but everything unreferenced should be removed--so, this will be a stub and since finding reliable sources for all of this will be hard it won't be able to grow so huge again. gren グレン 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as entirely in-universe. To comply with WP:FICT this article is so out of whack it seems that a complete restart may be in order. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Judgesurreal777. Better to do this now, because if it is kept, I can just see this being nominated for deletion over and over again as it is such a blatant contravention of notability guideline WP:FICTION. --Gavin Collins 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:FICTION because it's very unlikely that secondary sources will ever cover any of these topics. Acct4 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and per WP:FICTION. Extensive plot summary. -- Wikipedical 23:33, 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 Speedy delete as copyvio; it'd probably have gone too if the AFD had run its course. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Cat

Relatively nn cat; probably copied from the web. OSborn^arf 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The concept of a species of green cat is relatively non-existant, and this article does not even address multiple green cats which as a collective a person may attempt to justify as notable. This is a specific cat which had a green coloration at one time, and although it may be interesting, I see no notability to justify an individual article. Calgary 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~ There are no green cats species and there are no one of a kind green cats, however green cats arise due to the copper content in their drinking water. I have read this in a Mysteries of the Unexplained book before. But I cannot ref this properly since I do not have access to our university library yet (have to work). I suggest someone notify the Cryptid Wikiproject for now --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to Delete per Rocket000 and as copvio. My keep argument still stands but I think it would be better if the thing is re-created without the copyvio history--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as it's a copyvio of the external source mentioned in the text. --Agamemnon2 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Keb25 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Lenticel. Delete a fresh start would be better. Rocket000 10:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as Copy Vio - Copy vio of [51] (Large chunks of the material from this web page still exist). Speedy delete as CSD g12. -- Spawn Man 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as copy vio, per source given in the article. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:18, 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 speedily deleted as copyvio at 13:24 29 September 2007 (UTC) by Philippe (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Non-admin close. cab 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Reformed Church of St Marys

Looks like an ad; probably copyright violations. (Not sure what to speedy this under) OSborn^arf 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a directory entry without attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete copyvio from [52]. Tagged. Hut 8.5 12:00, 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 per CSD g1. — madman bum and angel 04:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trisophagus

Looks like a hoax. OSborn^arf 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 04:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Zero Google hits suggests this is indeed a hoax. Espresso Addict 04:34, 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 Delete. No arguments for notability. CitiCat ^♫ 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Women Writer's Conference

Probably non notable conference - no assertion of notability; possible SPA. OSborn^arf 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable event. Keb25 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - NN. The article was created on the very day the event is supposed to have finished, suggesting someone who had been decided to write an article on it. This is not the place for NN events. Spawn Man 11:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There is now some info on its history, some refs, and mention of recent participants, including Maya Angelou and Vertamae Grosvenor. Novickas 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The more information that we have about this subject, the more it is confirmed that it is simply not notable. Maya Angelou is notable, but every writers conference where she has given a speech is not. See WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no evidence that this writers conference has had its own impact anywhere. It's just another similar project among myriads of similar conferences throughout the U.S., Canada, England, etc. It's probably a nice conference, but it does not have any notability of its own. The "sources" mentioned above are nothing but promotional materials, calls for papers and blurbs. OfficeGirl 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you define as the threshold of notability? Surely if every notable writer in the US showed up at a conference, most of us would consider it notable; but how many is enough? In addition to Angelou and Grosvenor's participation, quite a few academics (from LSU, Dickinson, Ole Miss, College of William and Mary, etc) list their appearances at this conference as part of their curriculum vitae (Google ""southern women writers conference" vitae site:.edu). Calls for papers at major universities are not generally considered blurbs. (Google "southern women writers conference" "call for papers"). I don't have the time to expand the article and work all the notabilities in, and the author is a WP newbie. Just let's not delete it. Novickas 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A call for papers is the same as any other announcement or press release by a University. It does nothing to establish notability. There just isn't significant coverage of this Conference. It's no different than any other University sponsored conference. If a whole bunch of notable people got together to have lunch one day, that wouldn't be a reason to have a Wikipedia article on the luncheon. Notability is not inherited. There isn't significant coverage demonstrating that the conference has had any impact other than to line the pocketbooks of the keynote speakers for the hefty honoraria that they always charge. The Conference is not notable-- no matter how famous the speakers might be for other things that they have already done to gain distinction. I am not going to change my vote and allow an article on a clearly non-notable subject just to make a new Wikipedia user feel welcome. Standards are standards.OfficeGirl 05:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per OfficeGirl. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is the only conference that focuses on Southern women writers. It may be considered non-notable by some because it's not as heard of, but Southern writing has had a profound impact on American literature, and a good percentage of that writing has come from women. This is the only conference that focuses on that, and scholars and writers from all over the world come to it. This year there hundreds of grad students who were required to come with their professors, and there was also a professor and scholar from the university in Copenhagen. In years past more international scholars have come. Not to mention this year Maya Angelou, Kaye Gibbons, Jill McCorkle, Lorraine Lopez and Jo McDougall all came. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpuckett (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 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 Speeedy delete both as nn-bios. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Browning Kepple

Notability has not been established for these creative professionals. No evidence of sufficient third-party sources. Likely conflict of interest, see WP:COIN#James Browning Kepple. Also nominated is Kim Göransson. Ghits are 124 and 877 respectively. Contested prods. MER-C 04:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. Keb25 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete both -- a kind of walled garden of non-notability and mutual WP:COI. I traced a few Ghits and found nothing notable beyond the very small publisher. Accounting4Taste 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I would like to point out, also, this article, which was related and deleted when the prod expired, should also be added in if it comes back. --UsaSatsui 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete both - COI & NN. Everyone's a poet... Spawn Man 11:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete both - A detailed search did not reveal any sourced material that could be added to the article. The topics do not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 19:18, 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 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felinese

No reliable sources verify that this language is notable. Prod removed without significant improvement or explanation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. Keb25 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - OR neologism, completely unsourced. Meow... ;) Spawn Man 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is definitely a neologism. Icestorm815 21:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dollywood Company

Page is already at Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation and this one appreas to violate WP:Crystal for its future speculation section. Sawblade05 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge. The cleanup helps, but what's left fits well into Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation, which is where it should be merged. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation, not keep. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation. That page could use some improvement, especially an expansion of the section on The Dollywood Company... hopefully a merge will help that happen. Pinball22 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation per above. --Kudret abi^Talk 07:00, 8 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 G7 (author blanked), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choplogic Radio

Probably non notable radio show OSborn^arf 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Page was deleted - how do I retract an AfD? OSborn^arf 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been tagged for G7 (author blanked page), let it be speedied then. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, that was me- It was deleted right before I used TW to AfD it- recreating the page; so I marked it as G7. Not sure how to formally retract the AfD though. OSborn^arf 03:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let it be speedied, after which somebody will formally close this discussion. That could be done now but leaving it open means an admin is more likely to see it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable show. Keb25 04:23, 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--JForget 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey of the twentieth century

This was previously discussed at an AfD two years ago under a different title; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighty Years' War (1914-1995). Reading that debate and looking at the article as it exists now, I am certain it would be deleted under current standards. There's simply no source that documents that these concepts are more important as surveys of the period than any other, and thus it is inherently not NPOV. I anticipate some thoughts of merging, but that does not solve the POV problem. Chick Bowen 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete not encyclopedic--a list of various events. DGG (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic original research. Keb25 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge into The 20th century in review. 86.158.46.231 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research. --Folantin 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, irretrievably POV and original research. Moreschi ^Talk 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - OR, POV and even if it was sourced and not original synthesis, it relies too heavily on the European region. But seeing as it is unsourced, OR & POV, it's an obvious delete... Spawn Man 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete there is no need for a seperate page that attempts to interpret the twentieth century, especially one so covered in original research. Hut 8.5 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Wow, I had heard about the 20th Century, but I wasn't paying much attention while it was going on. Mandsford 12:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete original research and POV. Oyster guitarist 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete' - too much POV. If the article is kept, Twentieth Century needs to be capitalized in the title as it's a proper name. 23skidoo 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of minor Star Wars Sith characters

Title of this and four other articles (i.e. use of "minor") already suggests non-notability of these character; articles themselves do not make an assertion of notability. These articles are entirely plot summary; what few sources they contain are simply primary sources to which plot summaries are cited. In addition to deletion, suggest adding a link to "List of Jedi" article at Wookieepedia to Jedi article. --EEMeltonIV 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for deletion for the same reason:

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of minor Star Wars Jedi apprentices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of minor Star Wars Jedi masters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

And, as an addendum, another problem with "minor" -- the modifier is non-npov or OR; there are no citations that differentiate or define "minor" from "major." --EEMeltonIV 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes, they're not notable enough for their own articles... which is why they are grouped together lists. Combining the Apprentice/Knight/Master pages together would create a prohibitively large article, so keeping them separate is a good idea. "Jedi characters" is more or less a disambiguation page; some of the links to it could probably be redirected elsewhere. These lists are the middle ground between having fancruft articles on Star Wars characters (a bad thing) and having absolutely nothing on them (in my opinion, a moderately bad thing as well, though not as bad as cruft). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum Please note that I'm suggesting we keep the pages themselves, not 100% of the content; I think a lot of cruft-cutting would do wonders for these articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable, awesome article for a fan encyclopedia, totally inappropriate for wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Very trivial articles. Just because they are in Star Wars, doesn't make them automatically notable for a list article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all The concept of minor characters from Star Wars doesn't have notability, so listing off all the non-notable things within the concept isn't appropriate. There aren't sources for this to talk about more than just the plot. If Wookieepedia already has a list then there's no reason to transwiki anything. Jay32183 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Summarizing Star Wars plot elements on pages devoted to the actual sources themselves is all fine and good, but this is basically just rehash of that and at a detail level that is not necessary in a general encyclopedia. Indrian 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We are a specialist encyclopedia. More than one person has told me that they have taken that to mean just things like physics and law, but they've been able to show nothing whatsoever to support that assertion. If WP is suddenly a general encyclopedia, I must ask you to initiate a wholesale destruction of our coverage of the finer points of quantum physics, the specific terminology of aerodynamics, every single one of our lists of asteroids and several thousands or tens of thousands of other things. We must also scale back our surviving articles on science, engineering or biographies to, on average, a third of their current sizes. And "necessary"? None of Wikipedia is "necessary" per se, we can quite painlessly nuke the entire thing and go read other reference works. A delete decision here will cause our coverage of a series of six films, multiple TV series, several dozen books, well over a dozen games, innumerable comics, et cetera, et cetera, spanning three decades, to plummet as every single Sith or Jedi in them, excepting only a part of the none-too-many in the films, is on these lists, and they are the central focus of the whole enchilada.. "Necessary"? Yes. Keep. --Kizor 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, because even minor Star Wars characters have a tendency to appear in multiple books, films, video games, and comics and therefore have potentially widespread notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Appearance in a notable work does not meet it/they are themselves notable. And "potentially widespread notability" -- if it's so widespread, where's the assertion of/citation for notability? --EEMeltonIV 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep all per Le Grand Roi. 96T 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki anything the Wookiees missed and Weak Delete per WP:NN and lack of WP:RS. Some care should be taken here, given the number of characters covered. MrZaius^talk 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with MrZaius, Transwiki and Delete Sherzo 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC) That said, the arguments posted in the last edit make a fair bit of sense.

Keep all. A treasure trove of information for the many people who follow this fictional universe. And is it really necessary to blare the chiding warning, on this and every other Star Wars entry, that the author of pages should make clearer the fictional nature of Star Wars? Are the readers of Wikipedia 2 years old, so that they constantly have to be reminded that something is make believe? user: D40 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — D40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The problem isn't the style of writing, it's the lack of real world information. Sources to fix the problem aren't there. Jay32183 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep! Of course! What is happening to the Wiki? This looks like alot of work went into it and one never knows when one might need to know something about a minor Star Wars character. Now I really don't follow the Star Wars movies, although I've seen them, but I feel better knowing that there is clean well organized information out there if I need it. It isn't as if the article doesn't discuss characters from probably *the* biggest movie franchise in the history of the world. Who even nominated this? I'm sure there are some vanity pages out there that deserve the attention more than this! Saudade7 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- None of that addresses any of the concerns about the article. Jay32183 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Re)Jay32183, As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedis, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here. There is no good reason to delete it aside from the fact that certain people think it is "non-notable". One person above uses the justification that because the title actually *says* these are "minor characters" that is proof that the article is non-notable. Well, you might want to review Wiki policy on just this subject : Here, let me save you the trouble of clicking on that link:
"1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be listed with short descriptions in a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."
So it seems that if you delete this article you are actually going against Wiki policy. Also, as a historian, I can tell you that no one knows what information is going to be valuable in the future or to anyone else. It is hubris to think that you have some special dispensation to determine the notability or worth of an article, the subject of which is at least firmly entrenched in one current global mythos. How's that? Did I pass this time? lame. Saudade7 10:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

- - That section of the deletion policy quotes an old version of WP:FICT; it is out of date. Saying these things are not notable is not an opinion, Wikipedia has a working definition of notability. Notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject", see WP:N. The article also fails WP:LIST since the concept of "minor characters" does not meet the notability requirement, not are there any sources to bring the article to terms with WP:NOT#PLOT. If you had actually read the nominator's statement, you'd know that already. Jay32183 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Well Jay32183 I guess that next you can nominate for deletion the Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters page. After all what does policy matter when you have all the answers? Have fun with you little anti-Star Wars Jihad. Saudade7 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep all with objection to blanket, strong-arming nominations. Bacchiad 02:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete All Articles based games should not provide excessive descriptions about fictional characters, locations and events that are in universe, particularly if they are not supported by independent sources. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is not notable.--Gavin Collins 10:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What are you talking about Gavin? This article isn't even about a game? Did you even look at the article before chiming in here? Rray 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Response I did. Some of the material is drawn from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.--Gavin Collins 06:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Response Since only a small amount of the material is drawn from that game, your comment seemed really odd. But you and I have discussed your use of "boilerplate" comments before. This is a good example of why they're a poor way to communicate. Just because a couple of characters in a list come from a game doesn't mean the entire list should be deleted. Rray 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gavin's rationale for deletion is the lack of sources to allow it to comply with the inclusion criteria. It has nothing to do with video games compared to other forms of fictional writing. Jay32183 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from his statement and response, Gavin's rationale for deletion are the criteria for video games. You couldn't have known this, but he's recently made a number of nominations or votes that have been criticized for basically having nothing to do with the articles in question. --Kizor 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - Per nom. There is no assertion of notability nor is there any real-world connection established, which fails WP:FICT.--Bryson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki and redirect. They don't pass the notability requirements as article topics. I'm always open to recreation if sufficient real-world information can be found (which I doubt exist), so I'd go for redirect instead of straight-out delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, for the sake of the the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. A lot of pages link to these ones one through references to the characters listed, and if you now go and delete these articles, all you'll end up with is a lot of red links that people will start using either to recreate the same pages again (in which case we'll be back where we started, but with poorer-quality articles) or one new page for each character (the avoidance of which was presumably why these lists came into being in the first place). If you want to quote policy at us in saying that these articles will never be notable and must always be deleted, well, first of all if you really want to create that much work for future editors and admins then I suppose that's your lookout (I on the other hand would prefer to take whatever action lessens the amount of unnecessary work other people have to go through), but secondly it is actually rather useful for Wikipedia to contain at least some information about these characters, so that the casual reader can get the kind of background information they might want when reading the pages that link to them - you know, using Wikipedia exactly as it was intended to be used. Lordrosemount 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The drudgery of clearing out redlinks is a great task for AWB. More appropriately, though, redlinks created by characters' names can be redirected to the work in which the character most prominently or first appears, with an external link to Wookieepedia. It's a process that's worked fine with individual stubs for non-notable Star Trek series characters. As for providing a minimum amount of information: a sentence or two about lots of Jedi and Sith appearing in the Star Wars films and expanded universe would be fine for the Jedi article, with an EL to Wookieepedia's List of Jedi. --EEMeltonIV 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep all Given that Star Wars is one of the largest franchises ever and that 2 television series are coming out and will focus, according to George Lucas, on minor characters already mentioned, the possibility of these minor jedi being in the series is good. Delete this article and it's just more work to rewrite later. This information is worth preserving as the Star Wars universe is ever changing and any minor character could have a major role in either series. There are far worse articles to keep then this oneYodaminch 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Yodaminch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- "There might be characters on this list that show up in a series still in development" is not a compelling reason to retain content. --EEMeltonIV 04:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I'm no Star Wars fan, but this is a useful reference... also it's cross-linked everywhere and I figure a lot of work went into it. --Raistlin 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There are lots of useful nuggets of information that are not and should not be part of Wikipedia; being useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep or create content. And while considerate, the amount of work that went (or didn't go) into an article also isn't a compelling reason to keep (or delete) an article. --EEMeltonIV 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep per all other keep !votes. The arguments for deletion seem weak to me. Atropos 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The burden of proof to keep/create content is on the editors retaining/adding it, not on those seeking its exclusion/deletion -- i.e., can you offer a substantive reason to keep the content, rather than simply saying that the arguments to delete "seem weak" (which in and of itself is a weak -- read: non -- rebuttal of the policy-supported rationales to delete this non-notable content)? --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable for audience of fans -- which is just as legitimate as any other audience. 71.252.26.32 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If it doesn't have any significance for a general audience, and esp. since it lacks any real-world notability, it would be better off at Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep All. The facts are that it's Star Wars, it took a lot of effort to compile, and it's useful - none of which are compelling arguments to Keep. However, put it this way - In the individual works, either film, book, game, etc., would a list of minor characters be permissable? If properly referenced, I believe so. I would consider these articles as sub-articles of the various works of Star Wars fiction, consolidating numerous, disparate references to the same characters across multiple works of fiction. So long as they are properly referenced, both as individual characters and as part of their original also-properly-referenced works of fiction, the lists should remain. I also object to the blanket nomination, though I believe the same criteria apply to all of the included lists. Further, the lists do need some cleanup and cruft-trimming, particularly to pare down any unreferenced inclusions - but cleanup is not a reason to delete. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The reasoning for deletion is that they are not properly referenced and no sources exist to allow for proper referencing. If the problem isn't fixable, which it isn't, then it isn't clean up. Jay32183 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Surely they came from somewhere - if this were entirely OR, then I agree that it should be deleted. If there are references for some of the characters, however, then those references need to be added. If there isn't a reference that exists somewhere, then the character needs to go. Maybe I overestimate the number of characters who can be so referenced, but some of them have to have references somewhere. I add that, if deleted, someone else will simply come along and attempt to re-introduce the deleted information in articles for the original works, which will eventually be split into a new article, and it'll end up much like this one. A smaller, referenced article is preferable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:19, 8 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. CitiCat ^♫ 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Maw

No (assertion of) real-world notability and no information beyond simple plot summary. References provided are primary sources; no real-world information to help the subject meet WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Keb25 04:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FICTION. This is trivia about trivia. I did like the part about the parsec mistake - though that is not about the Maw. That mistake is notable since people do learn about science from popular media and people can belive parsec is a speed or light-year a time when popular cinema gets it wrong. That part should be merged somewhere - if it's not already in 10 star wars pages. Obina 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Millennium Falcon already has information on the Kessel Run. --EEMeltonIV 04:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Obina. I don't know if there is a Star Wars version of Memory Alpha, but if there is, then that's where this should go. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- It's Wookieepedia, and I imagine it already has a pretty thorough article on this subject. --EEMeltonIV —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to/Redirect to a list of Star Wars locations. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luca de Alfaro

Random Academic, not really notable. Only reason for listing is that he has written some software that may be adopted by Wikipedia. SimonLyall 01:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete (as nominator) - This guy doesn't really meet inclusion criteria. Writing some software that may be added to wikipedia doesn't qualify him. Other stuff he has done (See article) not notable beyond any other academic, net result not notable. Compare with say Andrew Tridgell - SimonLyall 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment We need to consider this completely divorced from the obvious attempt to use it as a biased and incomplete discussion of a very interesting and very controversial change in the WP software. As I understand it, not only are there no immediate plans to implement it in the English Wikipedia, but there are other ways to operate it than the ones discussed in the references provided. DGG (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep his implementation is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the rules and theory by which Wikipedia decisions about editors and, along with the "trusted" notion, his implementation of "reliability rating" will soon determine who gets to be in the newly-formalized oligarchy. His results are the product of 10 years of research and publishing in the area, with his involvement in Wikipedia being rather reent and, according to UCSD and his peers "headline-making".--Mightyms 03:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC) — Mightyms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment User:Mightyms is the creator of the article in question and the comment above is considerably more polite than the edit summary which reads "Luca de Alfaro is not some "random" faculty unless you are an unaware idiot". I realize that politeness is not a qualification for article retention, but it never hurts. Accounting4Taste 04:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment reply By "random" you clearly mean "forgetable". Let me suggest that, given the current news "headlines" (at least that is what UCSD refers to them as) indicate that he will not be forgotten anytime soon. Why are we so eager to forget about him?--Mightyms 05:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No claim of notability. Keb25 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I want to be very sure of what WP:BIO says about associate professors before I commit myself but, in the interim, I am troubled by my examination of the 13 references cited. The first three are legitimate publications and the remainder seem to be either blogs or his own university. That's in addition to the WP:COI problems inherent in what I strongly suspect is a self-written article -- university publications about the merits of their own faculty are inherently biased, I feel. I'm also troubled by the forward-looking nature of the notability asserted by the possible future implementation of the software (especially since one of the references cites problems with its implementation in the German Wikipedia) -- seems to have problems with WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. I want to research WP:BIO more thoroughly before I commit myself; that may be the deciding factor for me. I admit it is also rather bizarre to consider the potential untrustworthiness of an article about someone who has apparently created software that will allow people to test the trustworthiness of editors. Accounting4Taste 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. According to my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), the only criterion under which this individual would be notable is #5, "known for originating an important new concept". The article goes on to say that "the originator of an idea that is similar to previously existing ideas may not meet criterion 5", and the article itself states "Some find that the software that rates individual editors for reliability is "very similar" to what Sanger implemented at Citizendium.[12]". I can't judge the quality or quantity of his publications appropriately, it not being my field, but my gut reaction is that it's somewhat scanty for an associate/postdoc. Given my reservations about WP:COI and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL noted above as comments, I suggest this should be deleted. I would be happy to revisit the notability of this subject if and when the software is implemented on any Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste 05:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to meet academic notability standards. As for the tone: "As if to demonstrate Godwin's Law in the style of Dr. Strangelove, these changes will first be implemented in the German Wikipedia." Who wrote this crap? Stop doing that, Wikipedia is not your blog/soapbox. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is your own ego, like an infant on a mother's teat, that compels you to go an latch on to a single sentence of the article and condemn it on that basis. If you were genuinely interested in collaboration, you would just mutely go and delete the awful sentence. Instead, you use it to leverage the deletion of the entire article, having contributed zero to the knowledge-gathering and encyclopedia-building effort. You just set yourself up immediately as an uncredentialed judge and jury, ever-ready to condemn rather than contribute or collaborate. The reader is not a computer and the article is not a fragile computer program made useless by a single serious error.--Mightyms 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I see no evidence of notability here, the floral prose (I see Dhartung's just commented on the most striking example) doesn't help. Pete.Hurd 05:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please assuage me, tell me we aren't going to start spelling "Wikipedia" as "Wikipedia®" throughout article space. Pete.Hurd 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to be so assuaged. There was a lively discussion about a rejected proposal in May 2006 here about doing it on the front page in just one place. Just one place. But the teen-aged minded users got all squeamish about it because they cannot face the reality about the way Mr. Wales via his Foundation directly controls (and effectively, with or without them, owns) every iota of intellectual property on this web site. You'd think we wanted to talk about precisely and in technicolor detail how their parents conceived them or something like that. Take a listen to Brad Patrick (on the updated link): he's got his head on straight and speaks honestly and uses standard legal terms rather than made-up jargon and acronyms. It really is Wikipedia®. That little symbol is beautiful to me not because of what it represents, but simply because it is the honest truth. I can assure you that it never bothers authentically mature people like Brad Patrick. Why does it bother you?--Mightyms 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. --Crusio 07:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable per wp:prof as innovating a new concept in field and applying it. article needs expansion and improvement with verifiability --Buridan 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clarly fails the stanbdard asserted at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment (Lenghthy comment implicitly advocating lowering the notability requirements for WP:PROF moved to appropriate talk page at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability (people) V Notability (pornographic actors) criteria--Mightyms 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems to have an ample array of published work. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, de Alfaro has done some amazing things and his work seems very interesting to me (as a computer scientist). However, to be included in an encyclopedia (and per our guidelines), there needs to be more. There are millions of professors that have produced interesting papers, but only a few of them pass WP:PROF. Please try not too put any extra weight on his Wikipedia papers. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, professors (not to say about associate professors) are not celebrities and their sci/techno importance is judged by peers, not by newspapers or blogs. (he may be famous from newspapers, though, because of some non-professional activities, and in this case newspapers may be considered as valid refs of notability, but this is not the case here) It is a nice thing he did for wikipedia, but his trick is even not patentable. Mukadderat 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - a google news search brings up a lot of mentions. - Peregrine Fisher 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments Thanks: the Google News search is more specific than just a raw Google search. I have added some of the non-blog news articles to Wikipedia:Press coverage#September. I want you to notice how the story dribbled out all through the month of September 2007 after first being covered on August 31 and that the Foundation provided no press release or feedback until Sept. 21 with a message of "no changes in how Wikipedia will be run have been committed to yet". I noticed that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-10-01/In the news points to an article that mentions that Sept. 21 de Alfaro's work.--Mightyms 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that Mightyms, creator of this article and a substantial contributor to this discussion, has just been blocked indefinitely due to being a sockpuppet for a blocked user. Accounting4Taste 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per WP:BLP1E. —David Eppstein 17:36, 4 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 This should only be created when more info will be available and right now should be limited to Fergie's page.--JForget 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Second Fergie Album

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. ~~Oddly enough, all the links go to Britney Spears websites...~~ No WP:RS to be found with any information. shoy 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Struck now-false comment shoy 02:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL and that article is horribly written (at least couple sentences that make up the article are). - Rjd0060 02:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom--"speculation about it must be well documented". It's not. --Moonriddengirl 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - With no prejudice against recreation when the artist actually releases the album.--Danaman5 02:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment except that it might be better not to call it "Untitled Second Fergie Album" :D --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. Patience is good. We can have a huge boring article about this in 6 months or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. The title says everything... Spawn Man 11:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. There are currently no reliable sources which publish information on this. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 11:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Die. Not a crystal ball and it's the English Wikipedia so use proper grammar. Also it appears to have been made by a poor editor. (No offence!) Jake the Editor Man 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is horribly written. Oyster guitarist 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 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. Anyone interested in merging the material, don't hesitate to contact my & I can userify this article. — Scientizzle 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karazhan Tower

Pure game guide material, an AFD discussion last year concluded that articles on instance dungeons in World of Warcraft were non-encyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines. Stormie 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge after drastic chopping with Instance (World of Warcraft) as per suggestion. I'm sure someone would be interested in this being posted somewhere in its entirety, just not Wikipedia, where it's WoWcruft. Accounting4Taste 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, like most WoW-related topics, this is covered better on WoWWiki, see [53]. --Stormie 08:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic, gamecruft. Keb25 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Keb25. Open to merge/redirect if desired. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge as per Accounting4Taste's suggestion. BeoHF 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An "instanced dungeon" is not going to become notable. --Gavin Collins 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to

[edit] Arrondissements of the Haute-Vienne department

The page has minimal possible content and the only content on the page has been merged into Haute-Vienne. It is unlikely any new content could be added without a lot of overlap. MinuteElectron 10:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been merged, delete. However, it's not a bad idea to do an expansion of Arrondissements of France Mandsford 12:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Haute-Vienne unless and until there is additional content to be added. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Already been Redirected which seems the most sensible option as redirects are cheap. Davewild 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a redirect is probably better. I have adjusted the redirect to the Arrondissements section of Haute-Vienne. MinuteElectron 08:49, 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 No consensus (default keep). — Scientizzle 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cortado (software)

Pitifully short. The only reason why I'm not A7ing it is because WM uses it. Will ^(talk) 12:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, shortness itself is not necessarily grounds for deletion. If WM (which I presume means WikiMedia) uses it, then it's possibly notable. Tag for expansion instead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It shalt live on if it be expanded ...eth - like I said. Jake the Editor Man 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In a Biblical mood, eh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, this is currently Wikipedia's default media player, and in addition it is likely to be externally notable. --MaTrIx 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, single-line substub which has remained so for some time. No prejudice against recreating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Will: this stub is too short to assert notability. --Gavin Collins 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

strong keep. this software is being used in wikipedia. example Buzz Aldrin. every short article should not be deleted but EXPANDED. if you start deleting articles about GPL/GNU softwares that are being used in wikiepedia, then may god help you and wikipedia.Preetikapoor0 08:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep/Expand - for the same reason as in the Mzoli's Meats controversy, ALL ARTICLES HAVE TO START OFF SOMEWHERE YOU KNOW. ViperSnake151 02:19, 5 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. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Chen Keyong

appears to be non-notable and doesnt pass WP:BIO. β^_command 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, also no references for verifiability Stifle (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article lists some gallery showings, commissions, and photos printed in books. That's not enough: I'd like to see major museum showings, public monuments, or monographs. Or at least some reliable secondary sources attesting to his notability as a photographer. There's one interview but I don't think that's enough either. —David Eppstein 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Semi(?)-pro working photographer. Johnbod 17:07, 4 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. — Scientizzle 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood On My Hands

No assertion of notability. CSD declined. PROD removed without reason. No non-trivial mentions in media; only one sentence mentions in news articles about a film festival.[54][55][56] utcursch | talk 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —utcursch | talk 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable film. Keb25 10:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Main Characters in Camp Lazlo

[edit] Czech Institute For International Meetings

[edit] Mongol conquests and Jerusalem

[edit] Mike Bauer

[edit] Penguins in popular culture

[edit] Coyotes in popular culture

[edit] Lithium Eight

[edit] VertrigoServ

[edit] Josh Martin

[edit] Camp Dora Golding

[edit] Mark Beauchamp Taylor

[edit] Pav Akhtar

[edit] St. John Bosco Interparish School

[edit] Boitumelo McCallum

[edit] Maintenence tags

[edit] Doncaster live

[edit] Harry Pykett

[edit] Stoner music

[edit] Eric and the Gazebo

[edit] Impossible Quizzes 1 and 2

[edit] Aidan McAnespie

[edit] Synthphonia Suprema

[edit] Telecommunications Complex

[edit] Jessica Major

[edit] Lodewijk van Beethoven

[edit] MeiMei

[edit] List of stuff

[edit] Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996)

[edit] MXPie

[edit] E. Upton and Sons

[edit] Owen Chaim

[edit] Manuel Of Life

[edit] Shade 45

[edit] Dermot J. O'Reilly

[edit] Tobikunashiotomono Matsubara

[edit] List of Christians

[edit] Paul Pelosi Jr.

[edit] Beazley family

[edit] Burke family - Australian politics

[edit] Chaney family

[edit] Court family

[edit] Downer family

[edit] Hawke family

[edit] Playford family

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

[edit] Criteria for Deletion

[edit] Arbitrary Break

[edit] Ronex

[edit] Terrapsychology

[edit] Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club

[edit] Marilenedecoracao

[edit] Nantwich Town F.C. 2007-08 season

[edit] Pernilla Ouis

[edit] Zedstar

[edit] Zoot Rumpus

[edit] List of television stations in North America by media market

[edit] Carl Macauley

[edit] Terran Battlecruiser

[edit] Alex Finch

[edit] Mark Shepherd (Indoor lacrosse player)

[edit] Gough Island Finch

[edit] Contributions to the War on Terrorism

[edit] Rivory

[edit] The eras history of prowrestling

[edit] Mom jeans

[edit] Omnitheism

[edit] Jimmy Rave

[edit] Charles John Spencer

[edit] FierceApple

[edit] The 3rd Birthday

[edit] Alfred de Grazia

[edit] O-Luv

[edit] Agent: Undercover

[edit] Physical access

[edit] Universe of the Metroid series

[edit] Green Cat

[edit] Christian Reformed Church of St Marys