Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iatroculture

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

Dicdef, neologism. Delete. Limited supporting evidence. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete used in passing in 2nd ref.; 16 ghits excluding WP; suspect WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete almost a db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Nothing new in the concept. Mattisse 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudd (Greyhawk)

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

Dungeons & Dragons game character with no out-of-game notability. Only sources are primary sources. Transwiki to the DND Wikia. Jfire (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge and Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities#Demigods. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep etc as per BOZ shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per BOZ Web Warlock (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and prune per BOZ per norm. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki and Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per Boz. Edward321 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities#Demigods. Freederick (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideal Medical Practice

Ideal Medical Practice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neologism for a theory of health care delivery mainly espoused by one author. No secondary sources supporting this particular concept. Delete, unencyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NEO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete spamtastic. JuJube (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although it reads in an unencyclopaedic way and needs inline citations, there are independent sources that attest to the concept, such as this site and a book from the JAMA. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The AMA book is not about the concept Ideal Medical Practice. It just has a chapter titled that way. The website is, well, a website... JFW | T@lk 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, Gordon Moore is the subject of a Wall Street Journal article. How nice. But it is still Gordon Moore's show. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete pure spam RogueNinja_talk 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing new in the concept, just coining new term. Triage, medical software programs, Electronic medical records etc. already exist. Mattisse 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by WP:SNOW as a racist hoax. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcoganif's disease

Sarcoganif's disease (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cannot find any references; appears to be a hoax. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete 0 information turned up for Sarcoganif's disease in relation to Sarcogenic cells, which you would think there would be, if this racist nonsense was true. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No google hits, No yahoo hits. So its not true, a hoax, and doesnt exist. Speedy delete will be better for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Likely that young "Dr. Ethan von Strasenburger" has an Asian fellow student whom he doesn't like. Symptoms include "a belief that the victim knows everything, loquaciousness, and an inability to follow instructions". If you're thinking of doing standup... don't. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - snowball close. Hoax, no supportive evidence on PubMed. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Recommend speedy as attack page. For the curious, Sarcogenic cells are Myoblasts.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as clear hoax, but I also have a question: the article says this affects Asian immigrants, but Asian immigrants to where? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ...? RedZion^X 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common (language)

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

This article appears to be an in-universe plot repetition without any referencing or notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete , more for being completely unsourced, than for anything else. It's not much of a topic, a passing reference to a plot device that allows people to travel to new worlds and instantly talk to the people there, not much different than Star Trek's "universal translator". Kind of sad, isn't it? The common languages are called "common", "common", "common", "common", "standard", "basic" and (Tolkien gave it some thought) "Westron". Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to lingua franca Will ^(talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is a nomination as "inuniverse plot repetion" for an article without one word of plot in it. It rather servesas a term for a common feature of many notable fictions. But at present it's basically a disam page, and really needs a considerable expansion. DGG (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Will; an article might be made about this but the current one isn't even close. JJL (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I know, "redirects are cheap" and all that, but the title of the article is not "Common language", but about 'Common', a name of a fictional language. It's possible that there's some link to this is in the article about, say Dungeons and Dragons, or Star Wars (I highly doubt it), but redirecting from D & D to a serious article about lingua franca would probably lead someone to create a trivia section about "linguas franca in popular culture"; and as trivia, this ain't that interesting. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect It would make this place a lot more easier.--Pookeo9 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect then, if it would make for a more easier place. Seems like the most easiest solution. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and improve (nomination withdrawn). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garrick Club

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

No notability and no sources other than the club's website.Timdlocklear (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and – again – no sources. I just don't see why this place needs a Wikipedia listing. I can tell you small-town nightclubs with more action than this place seems to have, LOL! Timdlocklear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - just cleaned up the nom for you. No comment to make on this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure what happened with that... but it is my first AfD page... I thought I followed the directions right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google Books search turns up quite a bit of information about the club's history, its artistic holdings, and its more notable members. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You're nominating The Garrick Club for deletion? I can only presume this is because of your unfamiliarity with wikipedia, given as you say it's your first nomination for AfD. The Garrick Club was founded 180 years ago and is one of the most famous private members clubs in the world, with any number of artists, writers and actors among its members over time. Did the nominator bother to do any research [1] on a topic which he clearly knows absolutely nothing about? As for famous members how about Charles Dickens, J. M. Barrie, Rossetti, Millais and Edward Elgar? It's also got a terrific art collection [2]. Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I just checked and a lot of people link there, I will give you that. The article definitely needs improvement. There is absolutely NOTHING exciting about the listing and it does not mention its notable members, history (much), or anything... again... really "notable." Perhaps someone can improve it. But, in its current form, for an American like me it just looks like some club owner created a Wiki page for SEO purposes, and it just slipped through the cracks. Timdlocklear (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As for "not researching," remember something... this is an encyclopedia. When you read the entry, you should not have to do any further research (ie – all research should end up here). Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, again, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.") Timdlocklear (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But you're not just reading it, you're nominating this article for deletion. You absolutely have to research it properly before you make that decision, read the notes on the steps you should take before nominating an article on the articles for deletion page. Nick mallory (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but I've seen articles nominated for deletion for very silly reasons that don't even come close to the reasons here. All of that being said... at least with this, we will see some improvement in the article... I've already noticed edits (thanks) to assist in explaining the place. Timdlocklear (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Super strong keep The Garrick not notable! au contraire mon ami, I'll have to pooh pooh that suggestion. But seriously The Garrick is an extremely well known club with a long illustrious history and many influential members. RMHED (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this Let's remove the AFD tag and add citation and expert tags. I understand you are all saying it is notable and so forth, but the listing does not convey that by any stretch of the imagination. Also, anyone saying how notable it is willing to edit the thing? Timdlocklear (talk)

• Comment The article asserted quite enough history and notability for you to at least do a Google search yourself, at which point a tag such as {{primary sources}} would have been appropriate. I understand you nominated in good faith, and this article is below referencing standards, but this was clearly not "some guy's nightclub". We delete articles that cannot be substantially improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how you see the article in its current form as anything close to 'notable'. The first paragraph tells of age. Unfortunately, age does not equal notability. At 130 years old, the age of the club is in fact nothing extraordinary given the history of London and other businesses therein.

The second paragraph talks of favored clientele. While it mentions "actors," there are no names mentioned. If we mentioned every third-rate film-industry-oriented club in existence, Wikipedia would be running very low on server space.

The third paragraph is an improperly-cited copy/paste of a mission statement from the club's website – the only source in the article.

The fourth paragraph talks about a sister club in New York with no real tie-in to the London branch other than the exchange of membership privileges and a female patron refusal, which apparently is by no means the most notable event surrounding the club's history.

The fifth and final paragraph speaks only of the first women allowed into a "club talk."

The article ends there.

Add all of this to the fact that the article is written in British slang, severely deficient from Wikipedia quality standards, and it is easy to look at this as a work of fancruft or an un-notable addition for ulterior motives.

I'm glad that everyone rallied to save an important article from deletion, but you have to understand that the process worked... this is a damningly deficient article that – in my opinion – needs a total rewrite if it is truly as famous as people are claiming it is.

Perhaps I jumped the gun in the AfD, but I don't think so considering it sounds as if it were written by a 12-year-old. If nothing else, maybe some of the people complaining on this page will take the initiative to improve the article.

Timdlocklear (talk)

Thank you for delineating the deficiencies in the article. These can all be fixed by editing, since the topic is notable. But even an article "written by a 12-year-old" can be about a notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. lets put the nominator out of his misery. Just stick a ref improve tag on it. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Edited) AfD Recommendation Withdrawn. However, I would encourage anyone that wants to scream and cry about how famous and popular this place is to avoid editing in sharp jabs here re: my AfD recommendation, and do everyone a giant favor by going THERE and editing in exactly why this place is so meaningful. As I said, reading the wiki page you would honestly think that it is some piddly little club whose owner got bored and decided to plug himself in Wikipedia.

Slow down mate :-) I've restored the AfD template. Please don't remove them until closing admin gives the result. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly one of the most notable clubs in in the UK. Does needs some work agreed but is a candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've done a little more work to the article. Nom has withdrawn so not much else to say really? Sting au Buzz Me... 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Yngvarr 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha inchi

::I have withdrawn. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) :Sacha inchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) NO links - require huge cleanup! This may also be non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep How can a plant not be notable? If you're going to start applying notability to plants, you might as well delete 99% of them.. and why stop there? why don't we delete small towns? small animals? obscure scientific concepts??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done some very minor work to article, set out what I hope to do in articles talk page, will have to leave for now, but this AFD is a ridiculous WP:SNOW nomination, so i can leave it for now. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Your first two reasons are not reasons for deletion. As for the third, non-notable, searching the scientific name (Plukenetia Volubilis L) appears to pull up more information than the "common" name. [3] [4]. That last ref also cites refs of itself. Yngvarr 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as a species, it meets notability. I'm not sure how to better phrase that. matt91486 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as scientifically classified species = encyclopedic. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious hoax. нмŵוτнτ 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Face Baukchoice

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

Hoax. See Google. скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete WP:CSD Criteria 1 = HOAX. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle tells me CSD 1 is not to be used for hoaxes. Que pasa? скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

HOw does 3. strike you then?? in the criteria for 1. though it does clearly state "hoaxes"? -- but so does 3. which seems to fit this article even better =) . Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1 says specifically not hoaxes, but you're right, in retrospect I should've 3'd it. скоморохъ ^ѧ 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it will be deleted in good time anyway? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. "Facebook choice", yeah, right. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable see [5]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a hoax. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball delete as hoaxalicious™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to Keep. The article needs better sourcing though, could someone kindly add them and remove my tag? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed El Esseily

Ahmed El Esseily (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completing second nomination per request left on my talk page; no !vote from me yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Journalist whos only claim to fame is that he has been on TV/radio, no sources, no refs, just a link to his personal blog. Fails notability guidelines per WP:N & WP:BIO. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete-per original nomination.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Article as is fails WP:BLP. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment. I've just dropped a couple of friendly notices to editors with an Advanced Arabic userbox who were active within the past couple of days. Not commenting on the nomination: for all I can tell this might be the Egyptian equivalent of Jon Stewart, but it might equally be a hoax or self-promotion. A name in Arabic script would at least enable a google search/translation, but without even that ... --Paularblaster (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep here's also an English profile published of him in an Egyptian newspaper under the spelling Ahmad El-Esseily: [6]. Searching in Arabic also gives a few hundred more GHits: [7]. cab (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Cab. He may not exactly be the Egyptian Jon Stewart, but he is certainly notable. — Zerida 22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep in light of the information and sources provided. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teensies

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

No assertion of notability, and as such is just an in-universe gameplay repetition of information from the Rayman game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources to establish notability and no real-world information. Given the level of detail of the article, the subject matter doesn't require an entire article for itself anyway. Una Laguna^Talk 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No out-of-universe notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but leaning closely towards redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karasawa Genba

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

Delete article in no way asserts notability, only sourcing is a Geocities page, fails guidelines per WP:N Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment verifiable (see Japanese GBooks hits: [8]); don't know about notability yet as those are just brief mentions of a few sentences in length. There may exist better sources which are hard to find, as GBooks' Japanese coverage isn't very broad yet. Maybe redirect to Sanada clan? cab (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect would make sense IMO, but I guess we can wait for a few more comments, see what others think. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sanada clan unless reliable sources can be found. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I'm afraid I don't have access to any proper scholastic sources immediately at hand right now, but if you Google "唐沢玄蕃", you'll find that you get quite a few hits. Take your pick as to which you consider to be a notable, trustworthy source. (Or we could just redirect it to Sanada clan for now, since the content is so limited.) LordAmeth (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  There are a couple mentions in Google books, as well as on these pages: [9], [10], [11] (review of a book with info), [12], [13]. He's also a character in Nobunaga's Ambition Online [14], a game which is strongly influenced by actual history. Hopefully the books have more, and hopefully someone has the books (or access to them). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sanada clan until someone collects enough material to justify a more complete article on him; no prejudice against recreating the article then. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montezuma's Revenge (music)

Montezuma's Revenge (music) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No links going out, barely any leading in. No 3rd part sources provided to indicate notability. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (Note: I created the article) In- or outgoing links are never a reason for deletion. But more importantly: they are notable. Third party sources are missing, I'll spend some time on that. From the top of my head, they toured both the Netherlands and Germany extensively and have released albums that sold alright, both WP:MUSIC criteria. -- Pepve (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND unless independent references provided. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep IF some reliable sources regarding that tour can be produced. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I dug up some sources and added them to the article. Is it enough? -- Pepve (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any of these are reliable sources. I don't speak Dutch, so I'm not completely sure of that. But the ones in English appear to be blogs, which aren't considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, of the two English sources, the first is a copy of an article in The Herald (I couldn't find the original). The second probably equals a blog in reliability, I kept it in because the number of English sources is quite low. The German sources are newspapers, the Dutch ones also, except the last one which is a press release. -- Pepve (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep nomination withdrawn without contention by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kambrya College

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

Delete Utterly, N/N school, article doesn't assert notability in anyway, been tagged for notability since March '07, fails guidelines of WP:ORG Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn Article is now a workable stub, most people seem to be agreeable towards the sourcing, I won't let little old me get in the way. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This school is non-notable, there is no way it meets WP:N but now, once again, the school inclusionists are weighing in and soon, a nice sympathetic inclusionist editor will come along and claim that the outcome was keep because of the reasons stated below. Which are crap, this was brought to because the notability was questioned, so your arguments of "all the other high schools are notable" is inherently flawed, but I can see the way this is going, and I'm not going to add another notch to your belt. In a little while, we can restart this with a clean slate. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite the leap of bad faith anticipation of the future closing administrator. When consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of a "keep" decision, even a "deletionist" is likely to close the discussion as "keep" (this is currently looking like a snowball keep"). Most of the "keep" voters here are citing the reliable secondary sources about this school and not solely the "all high schools are notable" argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially as we see the same thing happen at least once a week. Explain to me, I can only see one non-trivial source cited here, WP:N states that multiple secondary sources must be found to establish notability, that hasn't been done. So how does it meet WP:N editors keep saying that it has, but it clearly hasn't! then there is this inherent notability bullshit, grrr. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• It clearly has met WP:N. Firstly, WP:N doesn't used the world "multiple." Even if it did, there are three sources in this article that give coverage to this school that is well beyond the scope of "passing mention". I know those weren't in the article when you first nominated it, but I would advise doing research before nominating an article for deletion. If you truly still feel it doesn't pass notability standards, just keep the nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So why does it refer to source in the plural in every instance? and No, I think if you actually read the refs you'll find only one of them is non-trivial. Moreover, the source that isn't trivial is from the education liftout from one of the cities two major local papers, they feature a new school everyweek and find something good to say about each and every one of them! The source doens't really assert the schools notability either, it just doesn't mention them in passing thats all. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I actually read all references in detail and this school is much more than a "passing mention" in all three of them. There's nothing in WP:NOTABILITY about sources "asserting notability" of a topic. (That's a strange argument I've never seen anyone use.) The writers of WP:N are working with the principal that if a secondary source is about a topic, that in itself is the sources' indication of notability. I don't know why you're still arguing this after you withdrew the nomination. Renew the nomination if you feel this doesn't meet notability standards. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, the article about the strike and teacher's retention mentions the school in a trivial or passing manner, you couldn't say the articles were about the school at all. The other article, which is about the school states that yes, this is a school, it is surrounded by private schools, blah blah blah. I guess what i'm trying to say here is that although it doesn't mention the school in a trivial manner, or passing, and the entire article is devoted to the school, that the article itself is trivial, it is little more than a profile of the school. I believe somewhere WP:N says "use your common sense" which is what should be happening here, instead of the article being kept on the premise of a few faulty sources and some perception that all high-schools are notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Three of the articles are much more than "trivial mentions" of this school. A teachers strike at Kambrya College is not about Kambrya College and only mentions it in passing? The principal of Kambrya College having to deal with budget cuts at Kambrya College is a "trivial meniont" of Kambrya College? And this last article about Kambrya College is not about Kabrya College or just mentions it in passing? You seem to have a severe missunderstanding of WP:NOTABILITY, particularly when it refers to "trivial coverage" and "passing mention" definitions .--Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, The articles about the strike and teacher retention only mention the school in a trivial manner, the remaining article is trivial in itself, try to apply common sense in your interpretation of WP:N. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Most people would think that an article about a teachers strike at Kambrya College is much than a "passing mention" of Kambrya College. Everyone here but you are using a common sense approach to WP:N --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Most reasonable people wouldn't care what they think because the same people probably think that all high schools are also inherently notable no? Why don't you try reading the article? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now you're just assuming bad faith and attacking all editors (whom even you are terming "most reasonable people") who are choosing to keep this article, which so far is everyone who voted in this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood me, please read my comments again.. Yes, i'm well aware of the sad fact, some people just don't interpret the the guidelines as literally as I do. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment two articles [15][16] from The Age, which is, admittedly, published in Melbourne, making it another case of the local metro paper covering a school in their own backyard and no one else taking any notice. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're trying to say here? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the school is in Melbourne, so the question is whether a newspaper's coverage of education in their own metro area is enough to establish notability. The Age has a circulation of about a million and the articles seem to be intellectually independent of the schools in question (unlike some cases I've seen where the "journalist" clearly had a kid going to the school he was writing about), so maybe this isn't a concern. I don't know either way. cab (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No lol, I wasn't questioning "The Age" (I did however check that they weren't advertising features, editorials or blogs) I thought you were taking a jab at me =S... but you weren't. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah gotcha, sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude like the way it came out =). Cheers, cab (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Age is a major newspaper with an international reach. The fact that it has written about a local school is irrelevant; it is a reliable source because of its editorial standards. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why something has to have international or non-local coverage to pass wikipedia policies... Ansell 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep The article is similar to many other school articles, lacking in independent references and making no attempt to assert notability (other than stating its existence). However, the sources provided by cab in this case actually make a case for notability. This is not a run-of-the mill State High School and it may be possible to write an informative, encyclopedic article on this school. Note: the fact that sources are available for this school has no bearing on the likelihood of sources being found for other schools and the the fact that this school is notable does not mean all schools are notable. All articles on schools need to be individually assessed against WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, after reading the refs, I would say that number 2 only really mentions the school in a trivial manner in relation to the larger problem of teacher retention. Source 1. goes into greater detail. Still this is probably enough to satisfy WP:ORG but I would like some more opionions. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

possibly we still need more non-trivial secondary sources, I don't think notability has been established. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep The rule is sourceable, and experience has shown that all high school articles can be sourced if they are worked on enough. In the meantime its a valid stub.DGG (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats a weak argument, this is an AFD, as in, the article has been nominated because it's not notable, and one of the reasons why it isn't notable because it is unsourced. Therefore you can't just say that all high schools are notable because theyre supposedly sourceable. This has been nom'd because it isn't sourceable, so your argument doesn't hold weight. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as notable school - two sources from Melbourne Age are both passes for WP:RS and therefore passes WP:V. I should add that The Age is lets say the Melbourne equivalent of The New York Times. The article is definitely a keeper in my opinion. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a secondary school in itself is an assertion of notability. Being "one of the largest single campus schools in Victoria" is a rather grand assertion of notability. Besides that consensus has consistently kept high/secondary schools, the sources, like that of The Age, confirm notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please show me where consensus on the notability of high schools has been established. Using this argument in AfD discussions is circular, the articles are kept because they are inherenly notable, they are inherently notable because they are kept. Schools are no different than any other organisation and need to demonstrate that they meet WP:N. Simply stating that they are a school is not an assertion of notability any more than than stating "Sam's Quality Meats is a butcher shop" is a statement of notability. Schools have no special status entitling them to a run around Wikipedia notability requirements. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Indication of high/secondary schools being kept is at WP:OUTCOMES. There is no history data regarding meat shops. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:OUTCOMES "As these are not binding policies, the fact that a precedent exists should not be interpreted as prima facie evidence that a particular topic is entitled to an article" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy and the basic editing principal of Wikipeida, has consistently kept high/secondary schools. You seem to be focusing on that point and ignoring the other arguments (is the subject of secondary sources, etc.) --Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, I have supported keeping this article (see above) because it meets WP:N. Secondly, I object to having the results of previous AfDs used as a reason to keep articles on schools. Notability needs to be established on an individual basis, not as a class. The ffact that sources can and have been found for this article says nothing about the likelihood of finding sources for all articles on all schools. As above, AfD discussions have been keeping articles on schools based on inherent notability and then using the fact that they are kept as demonstration of inherent notability. This is a circular argument and proves nothing except persistance from those editors determined to establish precedents. If you want to establish inherent notability of schools, get consensus to have WP:N modified to reflect this rather than try and impose it on the community through self made precedents. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not "self-made" consensus, but consensus based on broad Wikipedia consensus established by thousands of editors which my "self" had nothing to do with. --Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thousands? Not even big things on this place have 4-digit, some are lucky to get 3-digit and I think this would be single-digit. Orderinchaos 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thousands is an accurate estimate when it comes to the number of editors who contribute to the AfD discussions. There certainly have been hundreds (at least) of high/secondary schools nominated for AfD and at least 5 editors contribute to the discussion on most of them. Some lively discussions have over 30 editors in the discussions.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Despite its recent foundation it's even been written about in books (well, a book anyway).--Paularblaster (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - a major high school which, despite being relatively new, still has sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N easily with the "The Age" article. Assize (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with others that "The Age" article helps justify its status as notable. However, I disagree that any secondary school is inherently notable. Without "The Age" reference and possibly the strike mention, this article is otherwise lacking in notable elements - in particular, the section "Academics" is utterly non-notable and could be written with minor variations for most secondary schools in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs more context but definitely seems notable and reliable sources can be found on this topic. I also agree with Murtoa, though, that not all secondary schools are notable. Orderinchaos 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Have some queries about the particular text in the article but the subject passes all of my criteria. Ansell 05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and rename. Article has been replaced by an acceptable one by Dominus, but the title should be changed to one that is less pejorative and makes the new focus clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of mathematical blunders

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

Abandoned list which was once proposed for deletion. The two items in the list are completely insignificant from a historical perspective. The list is potentially waaaaaaaaay large and will consist of silly anecdotes with no purpose other than the humiliation of the blunder's author. Pichpich (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing is sourced, complete original research, and what is listed is not notable. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename. I think a rename would do this article good, as well. "Mathematical Fallacies", or something. We could probably lose the "List of" as it's not much of a list at this time. Just my opinion, granted. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sensible criteria for inclusion, can't see a useful article emerging. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, some misstatements, but no Gimli Glider or Mars Climate Orbiter? I think an article around that sort of blunder is possible but as to random public statements, I'm not sure how notable they ever could be. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a list with criteria this open to interpretation serves no useful purpose and many blunders will never be notable - Dumelow (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, the problem of posting an article before it has any content! If you take it down and work on it, lose the table and lose the attitude. People make mistakes. I remember TIME magazine once had an article that gave a figure for the amount of excrement deposited by dogs in New York every day; readers did the math and it worked out to each dog pooping 130 pounds worth. But that was back in December 1974, and of course, there have been no mistakes since then. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I can imagine good article with this title but this in its present for certainly isn't it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No objective inclusion criteria, current contents are not notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Assuming a little good faith in the list creator, it is non-obvious that there is "no purpose other than the humiliation of the blunder's author". While I don't think the current list has any useful or notable contents, I do think a list of notable, interesting examples could be created given some well-defined inclusion criteria. - Neparis (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have just been collecting examples of real mathematical blunders. For example (and this is one of many) Kurt Gödel claimed in 1932 to have a proof that the truth of a certain class of formulas was decidable, and this result was used by Dana Scott and others to prove other theorems, but it was shown by Goldfarb in 1984 that Gödel had been mistaken and that the class was not decidable. This is all well-documented and can be supported by multiple cites to the literature. I also have examples of blunders by Von Neumann and Cauchy. Many examples of lesser blunders are known. For example Alfred Kempe notoriously "proved" the Four-color theorem, but his proof was later shown to be erroneous. A fascinating article could be written about this subject. It is my understanding that a deleted article cannot be recreated until six months have passed. I think that would be a shame in this case. Would it help the situation for me to replace the content of this article with something more verifiable and encyclopedic along the lines I have just discussed? -- Dominus (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - why not ask the nominator on his talk page User talk:Pichpich if he would agree to withdraw the AfD nomination explaining that you can quickly replace the article with at least several of your most interesting referenced examples and bring it up to standard? - Neparis (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment well, I'm here and no, I'm not too keen on withdrawing the nomination. Not that Dominus' idea is bad. Really, it isn't. But it's not what this article set out to be. I can see an article being built around historical blunders by mathematicians: there's an interesting story to be told there (and I'll throw in another well-known one: Erdös stubborn stand on Let's Make A Deal and the Monty Hall problem). But blunders by the layman? Listen to talk radio for an afternoon and you'll get 2 or 3 of these and I really don't see how this can work out to be an article. Pichpich (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter what the article "set out to be"? Isn't the important thing here to get good articles for Wikipedia? -- Dominus (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Important comment - I have replaced the article with an entirely new article. -- Dominus (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Would you commit to expand it by adding further examples? - Neparis (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't commit to do anything. I may, however, expand it by adding further examples. At present I am researching Von Neumann's purported proof of the consistency of arithmetic, and a certain paper of Hantao Zhang which, if published in the STOC 2008 proceedings, would overturn a long-accepted result of Robert Tarjan regarding the time complexity of the union-find problem. It is likely that I would add these to this article. -- Dominus (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Very nice work. Sorry if the above seemed radical but by "what the article set out to be", I meant something more like "what the article's title suggests as development". I'd suggest keeping the article under a different name which accurately reflects its content, especially since "blunder" has a definite pejorative slant that is completely unnecessary. Any one have a good suggestion? Perhaps list of mistakes in mathematical proofs or list of mathematical arguments which were proved incorrect. Sure, that's not really the smoothest title but at least it gives a clearer sense of what the article is intended to be. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I see nothing by Zhang in the STOC accepts nor anything about union find on Zhang's home page. Anywhere else I should be looking? never mind, found it on your blog. I think the blunder is in Lemma 1: link first then find can speed up other subsequent finds. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Thanks to the good work of User:Dominus, the article now has completely different content which is a huge improvement over the article at the date of the AfD nomination. Diff [17] - Neparis (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Dominus' new version. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the new version. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There may be a need to rename the article in order to address two concerns: firstly that it is hard to provide a neutral point of view on a list of "blunders", as a point of view is already implicit from the title, and secondly that a clear criteria for inclusion should be apparent, but the two versions of the article and the suggestions in this AfD are all very different topics. I think a reasonably good title could be derived from Published false theorems. Both the terms published and false are reasonably objective when applied to mathematical theorems, so the implicit NPOV problems go away. The scope of the article is also clearly defined, and rules out "engineering blunders" which are extremely interesting and important topic covered in books like "Fatal defect". I would have a hard time calling three published false versions of the O'Nan Scott theorem a blunder, but no trouble saying they were false. I have a hard time calling Thompson's forgetting about the Tits group a blunder (even though I have seen the error replicated in 21st century articles), but there was clearly a published false theorem. The Mars Climate Orbiter problem and others should be discussed *somewhere*, but I think in a separate article. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to Keep. Please note also the WP:WAX argument in reverse (rare indeed!). If someone is more notable or accomplished than Mr. Sterckx, we should have an article on him or her perhaps as well? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roel Sterckx

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

This page was already nominated for deletion and accordingly deleted, but the original author simply came back and recreated it. The subject is a minor academic, not of encyclopaedic notabilityBaldeggboy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, full Professor at Cambridge is notable (British usage), also a Fellow and president of an international scholarly organization. Recognized scholar[18]. I'll leave it somebody else to judge his publications, this seems sufficient for me. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The position makes him presumably one of the top 3 or 4 scholars of Chinese in the UK. 3 =SOAS, 4, for whichever one I may not know about. (Professor at Cambridge=head of department, in the US. ) There's at least 2 more books . I added them, and the articles. Publications in English, French, German and Chinese. . There seem to be numerous reviews of one key book of his--I added the complete list ofthem to the web page. Author of one really impotant book, plus a good deal else. DGG (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Professorship at Cambridge does not of itself amount to notability. DGG - professor at Cambridge is not necessarily head of department; in this case Professor van de Ven is senior. Some Professorships are essentially administrative roles seen as distracting from academic work. I don't know which, if either, is nominally head of department (though as the department is the Department of East Asian Studies it may be Prof Bowring or Prof Kornicki - there are at least five professors in the department, perhaps more.) I don't know how you work out that he's one of the top 3 or 4 UK scholars, or what you mean by that (erudition? experience?) - are you just speculating? At Cambridge alone I would rank van de Ven, Yuan, Daruvala, McDermott plus a host of nominally retired but still active people like Prof McMullen higher than Sterckx in pretty much every way. Most of them don't have or need a Wikipedia page. Then you have scholars at Oxford, SOAS, Durham, Edinburgh, there may be people at Leeds and Sheffield too. And neither does writing a few books and articles of itself amount to notability. A minor academic with administrative responsibilities - there are hundreds of Cambridge professors with no Wikipedia entry.JaneGrey (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The department web site shows that there are two full time professors in the department, the other one of which is van de Ven who is Professor of Modern Chinese History rather than of Chinese. You may rank Yuan, Daruvala, and McDermott higher than Sterckx in pretty much every way, but the faculty doesn't - it hasn't given them professorships. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• CommentOkay, let's get this straight. I was responding to the comment above which suggested that a professor at Cambridge is necessarily a head of department. This is not the case. In this case, as I said, the department is the Dept of East Asian Studies. The page linked to above lists only some of the staff of this department, as you might guess from its URL. The department currently has four professors and one Prof Emeritus. As for the difference in title; professorial titles are generally not duplicated. It does not follow that if there is a Professor of Something there is also a Department of Something of which he/she is the head. My point was simply that the argument presented above that x is Professor of Chinese; therefore x is head of a supposed Department of Chinese; therefore x is the most erudite, learned scholar of Chinese is a false argument. Wikipedia is not simply a listing of people who have achieved a certain professional rank or title; entry in Wikipedia requires notability. Above, I tried to make the point that professional rank does not correlate exactly to academic distinction. Neither does it correlate to notability. It seems to me that decisions about inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on facts rather than speculation, and therefore I attempted to clarify the true position.JaneGrey (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Are you seriously suggesting that professorships at Cambridge are awarded based on administrative ability rather than academic distinction? The fact is that Sterckx has been recognised for his work by one of the world's top universities with a professorship (and this is a proper professorship, not an over-inflated title as given by American universities); the speculation is that others who have not been recognised in this way are in some way more more academically distinguished than he is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Sterckx is an interesting young academic but not yet of encyclopedic notability. There are hundreds of others in Cambridge alone of equal or greater notability; there must be tens of thousands worldwide. Twenty years from now perhaps he will merit inclusion. Note to Comment above:There are four full time Professors and one Professor Emeritus in the Department of East Asian Studies, of these Prof Sterckx is the youngest and most recently appointed. DGG above wrote "presumably one of the top 3 or 4 scholars of Chinese in the UK" - this is a misapprehension; Professorship does not necessarily imply that one is a 'top scholar' but that one is willing to take on administrative duties in return for career advancement. It's my understanding, if we have to go into the details, that when Prof McMullen reached the retirement age and had to give up the full-time professorship (end of academic year 2004-5) then-Dr van de Ven was appointed to take on his duties in the then-Chinese Department. With the amalgamation of Chinese and Japanese into one Department, the title 'Professor of Chinese' no longer carries the implication of Head of Department but may imply a certain administrative burden. I'm not up to speed on all the internal politics, nor do I know the exact arrangemnts for sharing of duties but I can assure you that the idea that Sterckx by virtue of his title alone is somehow an exceptional scholar who merits inclusion in an encyclopedia is a misapprehension. I won't attempt a ranking of scholars as I don't understand how this can be done, but I think it's fair to say that, say Joseph Needham, James Legge, Thomas Francis Wade certainly merit inclusion, Jonathan Spence, Michael Loewe and Mark Edward Lewis may merit it and in some cases have it, but to include every successful young academic is to go beyond the purpose of this encyclopedia.JulieRudiani (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There may well be hundreds of professors at Cambridge who are notable, and tens of thousands worldwide. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can have articles about them all. I also need to repeat my reply to JaneGrey: Cambridge awards professorships based on academic distinction, not admistrative ability. They have plenty of non-academic admistrators to take care of that work. A Cambridge professorship clearly satifies criterion 6 of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not at all my subject, so hard to judge his publication record, but Professor at a major UK university, elected fellow of national academic society, Secretary-General of European society, and textbook receiving widespread critical notice appears adequate to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor academic. There are dozens of more notable people without pages. This is an Encyclopedia, not an an Omnipedia. Worrying that the page was apparently already deleted once and simply reinstated by the author. Also noticeable that all the keep votes seem to come from people who admit or demonstrate that they don't really know about this subject.131.111.164.246 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an ambitious young man, willing to do what it takes to get noticed, but as was said above, this is not an omnipedia.Quelcrime (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Expresso Addict. Dsp13 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a "professor", in the UK sense of the word, in a top-rated department (RAE 5^* rating) at the top-rated UK university is strong evidence of high notability. - Neparis (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against category creation, but I won't be doing it. If a non-admin needs access to the deleted material found here, let me know! I'd be happy to provide it for creating a category for the blue links. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of bands from Las Vegas

List of bands from Las Vegas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another original research list. Full of redlinks for marginal bands. Best served by a category. Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and categorise, agree with nom that this article adds little and is better served by a category. There is already a Category:Nevada musical groups which would seem useful, though one could perhaps be added for Las Vegas specific bands - Dumelow (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Make cat per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael P 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)This List was uncategorized at the time I first viewed it; I categorized the Bands by decade and added relevant List of Bands from the 1950's: Sam Butera, etc. and the pictures as shown. I also categorized the 1960's bands. I did not edit or alphabetize the pre-existing bands formed from 2000 to the present, which should be done. Granted, there are a lot of bands in the 2000 category. Perhaps all the myspace references, etc., can be removed and those bands shown in red can be edited to show black typeface such as the 1966-1969 grouping. I believe this is a relevant historical Listing site and should continue with the suggested modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mselinsky (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep it will be deleted if created as a category. Categories don't do red links. Categories are not able to retain the few words provided in the list for most of the bands without articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

True, categories don't do redlinks. On the other hand, blue links do have the advantage of filtering out insignificant bands which is an easy 80% of the 2000-2010 decade (don't let the blue links fool you, they're mostly to irrelevant articles). In any case, the list contains a lot of bands or acts which cannot reasonably be considered as "from Vegas": Sam Butera, Ted Fio Rito, Harry James, Vido Musso, Grade 8 (band), even Mary Kaye. As is, it is clearly original research. Pichpich (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that the list needs to be cleaned up. Again, not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, lists like this are better served as categories. Funeral 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If Las Vegas' List of Bands is deleted, it follows that other cities Lists of Bands should follow, for example, LA, New York, Cleveland, Nashville, Austin, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco/Oakland, Kansas City, and so forth. This should also hold true for international cities Lists of Bands: London, Paris, Barcelona....Where do you draw the line? My feeling is it's all or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.102.45 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are interesting precedents here. For instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands from Europe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands from Limerick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of bands and musicians by letter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States musicians (2nd nomination) in which all US-state lists were deleted. I'll concede that there's an existing list for L.A. (which should also go if you ask me) but as far as I know, there is no list for Paris, London or Barcelona (or are they under a different name?), nor are there lists for New York, Cleveland or Nashville (I did not bother checking the rest). Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PHProxy

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

Notability cannot be established -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Non-notable software; merely port of something else called CGIProxy, which doesn't have an article either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N, also the creator of software abandoned its development, so I do not see how this software could assert notability on future. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability, and I can't find any good sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden

Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• DeleteThis looks like an attempt to fork the Osama bin Laden article and get some good old fashioned non-neutral jabs at him. Some of this is trivial and the rest belongs on the main article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this is not attempting fork anything. "the rest belongs on the main article" no, because the main article is long, and due to standard article size, this info cannot be merged in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep the article Osama bin Laden is at present 52 KB long. To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, i.e. around 32 KB, these huge info cannot be merged. I found no cause behind this nomination. What is the reason behind "fork", fork is not applied here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Some of this is trivial" I got confused with such statement. There is nothing "trivial" here. The article documents the ideology of a notable person. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The main article is too long. If you take a look there is an Osama bin Laden nav box at the bottom which tracks all the branches. If you find the branch to have too much POV, then edit the branch, don't delete the branch. There are multiple constraints here, one of which is article size, the other is need to retain useful content, the third is to keep content NPOV. Deleting doesn't serve any of these objectives. Only editing the POV content serves this objective. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — it is not clear to me that this is an inherently POV fork of the parent article. It seems clear that, given the wide variety of scholarship on this issue, that one could write a neutral article on this topic. Current non-neutrality, real or imagined, is a reason for clean-up, not deletion. --Haemo (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If there is any contemporary individual who deserves an entire article to his ideology it is bin Laden. Complies with WP:SS, not a fork but a breakout of a substantial subtopic. It is possitlbe that not all the article is WP:NPOV or even fully WP:V, but that is editing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of celebrity judoka

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

At the very least the title has got to change. But to a large extent, this is also original research and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous? How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list? The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete — the intersection of "celebrity" and "does Judo" seems a indiscriminate trivial matter with very little encyclopedic merit. --Haemo (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The "potentially endless" (okay, maybe "gazillion" is a finite number) argument is never very persuasive. An odd topic, maybe, but it's well-sourced, and it does provide some discriminating information. Who knew that Yeltsin and Trudeau practiced judo? I agree with nom that the title has got to change. "Celebrity Judoka" doesn't work. I understand, persons who are well known for something other than their judo skills are on the list, but Celebrity Judo sounds like a bad TV show (visions of Charles Nelson Reilly flipping Brett Somers to the mat). And I get it, you judo enthusiasts refer to each other as "judoka". The rest of us don't know what the hell you're talking about. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, never mind the gazillion argument but come on, the list currently includes Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's son... What is he? 5 years old? The problem is that the choice is to either say "let's put down every name for which we have a reference saying that person X (who has a bio on wiki) is a judoka". Theoretically, I suppose that's possible although we all know how absurdly useless (not to mention uninteresting) such a list would be. Just applying this criterion to Japanese people on wikipedia would easily put a hundred names in there (and that's a conservative estimate). The alternative is what is currently taking shape there: a haphazard list of trivia about people whose face appears periodically in tabloids. It's trivial information and should be included in the respective biographies if it has any significance. It also most definitely constitutes original research. Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevance of the five year old practising judo is is not in the child, but in that that sport was chosen by well known celebrity parents (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). It looks a little strange to have the five-year old in the entry; I originally had it under "Angela Jolie and Brad Pitt" with the explanation that it was actually their son involved but it didn't seem a proper way to form the list. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that some of the names don't belong here. I guess I go by the theory that if the topic itself isn't completely inappropriate, then the laissez-faire system of Wikipedia eventually takes care of the problems with content. Another editor would come along eventually and take out silly references to Angela and Brad's child for the same reasons. (In fact, I'll do that now, and I'll be it doesn't get placed back in the article). I don't agree that it's trivial, since there is a certain amount of self-discipline that goes with judo. Finally, this could be sourced, even if it's not sourced now. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which, I suppose, is my point: if it's not trivial, then it belongs in the person's bio. If it's trivial (e.g. Simon freakin' Le Bon) then it doesn't belong period. This is not unlike a list of famous people practising Yoga. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it's certainly not an aggregate of tabloids or human interests pieces. Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your "Simon freakin' Le Bon" job... why is that trivial? He has a fairly substantial Wikipedia entry; he and his celebrity wife both practice regularly at a very prestigious and well-regarded dojo in London (the Budokwai), and an article in the Telegraph was devoted to that fact, along with his fellow practitioners, William Hague and Kylie Minogue. Ahhhh... Kylie, I forgot to add the singing budgie to the list! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The system works! Checking the reference, I noted that it said that Kylie "has had lessons" at the Budokwai. That is why I didn't include her on the list (not a strong enough association.) Same reason I deleted Mel Gibson off the BJJ list. Even though they are both fellow Australians. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, it is in the person's bio. But it doesn't have to be in their bio to merit inclusion here because there may be to many more significant in the bio. Also, it may simply be a case of someone not getting around to including it in the main bio, where it in many cases night be included with consensus. There is a whole section on it in Putin's bio for example. As to your last comment, every bio is a human interest piece! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete This is non encyclopedia, its a list of a trivial matter. The criteria for inclusion are vague and this list is just silly as a whole RogueNinja_talk 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep

1. "At the very least the title has got to change." - what do you suggest?
2. "But to a large extent, this is also original research" - I think it's mostly referenced, so it's not OR. It's a very new page so we haven't had time to improve the article with further references yet. Lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia, and if you did not allow lists that were original in nature (what you are calling "original research here), then there would be very few lists allowed as lists are copyrighted (for example, telephone directories are copyrighted as a collection of data.) Therefore it would not be possible to obtain a list of anything from another source; unlike text, which can be sourced and rewritten, lists are copyright in themselves and therefore could not be used.
3. "and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous?" consensus will take care of that.
4. "How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list?" Again, consensus will take care of that. For example, I removed Mel Gibson's entry from List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners due to lack of experience and commitment to that sport.
5. "The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names" You could use that same argument to nominate for deletion all articles on Wikipedia - they all have the potential to grow to a gazillion words. Anyway, it won't happen. No-one has any interest in having an overly long list. As the list grows, less famous practitioners and/or those with less judo experience would be removed.
6. "and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia" Less worthy than List of Pokémon characters for example? Note that List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners is a similar list that was also nominated for deletion and the nomination failed. There are numerous other similar lists of celebrity whatevers, and other lists that you might call OR but bring together well-sourced information into a cohesive whole. Whether or not it seems worthy is very much a matter of personal taste, of more interest to those who are interested in celebrities, and those who study judo (as is the entire judo article.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion and I doubt it would survive. There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left handed people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous bearded people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic drinkers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'm not a big fan of all the Pokemon stuff on the wiki but there are a few good points for it. One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them and the list on-wiki serves as a browsing tool for Pokemon-minded people. A place where it's easy to complete your understanding of Pokemon, if you so wish. This list does not help you understand judo. It's original research because by putting a name on it, you declare this or that person to be famous or noteworthy. Even if this is done by consensus, this is still the point of view of the consensus. Similarly, you're making a judgement call on Mel Gibson's commitment to Jiu-Jitsu by removing his name from that list. The problem is that the list is impossible to maintain without making arbitrary cut-offs for how famous/experienced/talented you have to be to make the list. It's also original research because it is an original aggregation of loose information. No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone). See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. Celebrity is inherently biased. See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. Pichpich (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion" - it must have been a less formal deletion motion; the deletion motion is referred to on the talk page for that article.
2. "There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance ..."' Those lists are not comparable. The effort and dedication required to be a drinker in no way compares to that required to be a judoka (W.C. Fields may be an exception!).
3. "One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them ..." By analogy, most articles on Wikipedia do not belong there because it is not clear which cited facts belong in the article, and which don't.
4. "This list does not help you understand judo." Well, the title of the page is not "Judo", and it does help people understand something about Judo.
5. "It's original research because..." All those arguments apply to just about every sentence in every Wikipedia article, and many other lists - that; not what OR means. You have also just made an argument against consensus on Wikipedia.
6. "No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone)." If I started a page called Celebrity Immigrants to the USA, you could make an identical argument about it, but I could point to such a list here. That list is just as impossible to create as the Celebrity Judoka list, yet it nonetheless exists (outside Wikipedia, on a reputable site.) Does it help you understand immigration? And you ignored my argument that if such a list existed, we would not be able to use it in Wikipedia. Catch-22!
7. "See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. "Celebrity" is inherently biased." "Celebrity" is defined in Wikipedia and in Wiktionary. Many terms are biased and just about every definition lacks concreteness, however, we still manage to use the language. List of atheists has been peer-reviewed and given B-Class status, yet they grapple with the same "bias" issue of what "notable" means. (Also, does it help you understand atheism?)
8. "See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." How is that relevant to the Celebrity Judo article? --David Broadfoot (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My advice would be to rename this "Notable persons who practiced judo"; describe it at the beginning as a list of persons who are well-known for other achievements, but who practiced judo; try to link a source to as many of the names as possible to clear up O.R. objections.

At he risk of not practicing what I preach, I'll add that whether you're arguing for a keep or delete, it's always good practice to avoid the temptation to go long on arguments. Whether it's a point-by-point rebuttal, or a long opening statement that anticipates every possible response, it inevitably backfires. Again, I think this is a worthwhile topic, the sourcing is good so far, and each article should be judged on its merits, not on "precedents" for similar lists that were kept or deleted. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks... I can rename it to something like that. I never liked the "celebrity" word anyway (I was just trying to be consistent with what others had done), as some of the notable people on the list are not what one would normally call "celebrities". "List of notable people who have learned judo" perhaps? --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and re-title per comments. Notable subject seems well sourced, and only to include people with articles, two good ways to keep any list from getting out of hand. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. JJL (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be notable some day, but does not appear to be so now.--Kubigula (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamlike pictures

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

No significant notability asserted, nor any sources provided. Possible vanity. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, there is absolutely nothing here to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I've moved it to Dreamlike Pictures, though, in case it comes back.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A few quick Google searches made it impossible for me to find any coverage per WP:N. It may be as a result of the name, but nothing suggests more extensive searching would result in any finds. SorryGuy  Talk  21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwiki'd to wikibooks. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Fog (beverage)

London Fog (beverage) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally unsourced and probably non-notable; badly-toned. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sure about the validity of "badly-toned" as a deletion rationale, but the article is certainly unsourced and non-notable. Happy‑melon 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The information is in the main easy to verify without references. The article is, however, largely a recipe and would be better placed in Wikibooks. The beverage doesn't appear to have sufficient significance to make a clear case for an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Copy to the wikibooks cookbook. Think outside the box 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wikify to cookbooks. SkierRMH (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikify. I agree with the two above me that this article probably does not meet our notability standards but that it is an appropriate topic for wikibooks' cookbooks. SorryGuy  Talk  01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dead Walk Diaries

The Dead Walk Diaries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete non notable per WP:BK Veritas (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The author isn't especially notable, and the only review I could find [19] is not from a reliable source, so it fails WP:BK Bláthnaid 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Rather new, so not surprising that there isn't sufficient coverage yet.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fank Edward Burnham Hughes (artist)

Fank Edward Burnham Hughes (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as failed at WP:BIO and also WP:NOTE. A Google search returned absolutely nothing. Some off-line citations are mentioned in the article, but those citations are not enough to establish the fact that he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Surely it's FRANK not Fank! Whole article seems lifted from here http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VULo2D7wtX0J:www.spook-software.com/hosted/wag/cat1.doc+%22Frank+Edward+Burnham+Hughes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk, but maybe someone can find some more sources> i didnt have much luck either Vultureofbook (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article requires clean-up and a move to the correct title, not deletion. There are references embedded within ref tags that may not be immediately evident. Catchpole (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak, weak keep as there is some notability here but very few sources that I can find under any combination of his names (e.g. Frank E.B. Hughes). --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO; notability for creative professionals. It doesn't look as if his work has ever "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" nor does it appear as if he is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries". If he does meet either of those criteria, I'd gladly change to keep.BWH76 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Also exhibited 'Portrait by Lamplight' at the New English Art Club, unsure of year, but will find reference. Also illustrated published book covers. NEAC and the RA are arguably the most significant exhibition galleries in the UK.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lquilter (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep Very new article. Not much so far, and estimates of £25-50 for small oils in the auction this week are not promising! (added - but see below)Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He's in the Dictionary of Artists in Britain since 1945 and I've added material and refs from that. Certainly not a major figure, but he seems to have achieved some repute. He's not just someone's favourite uncle whom the family want to commemorate. Article moved to Frank Hughes (artist) per naming conventions. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems viable, per above. (The name change helps), - Modernist (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Johnbod, those sale estimates were smashed, most selling for around £300-£500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.233.131 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Ok - fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Tapes (Eminem)

The Lost Tapes (Eminem) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to prove that this actually exists. "Cover" in the article looks like a bad MS Paint picture. May not be a hoax, but what is there to stop someone from throwing their iTunes playlist onto the internet and call it a "mixtape"? DarkAudit (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Cover is a bad MS Paint (or similar) image. Described as "eminem the lost tapes cd cover i made myself". This is someone's homemade mixtape, certainly not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Mdsummermsw Mr Senseless (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skycell

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

• Delete unsourced article about nn local cell phone company. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete NN Mr Senseless (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Business College

Canadian Business College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a private career college that has been speedily deleted several times as spam. Although more objectively written now, still non-notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as all colleges are presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Just providing a listing that it exists is not enough to assume its notable. I could be swayed if an attempt at satisfying WP:N happens (but in this case I doubt it will happen). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as all colleges are presumed notable. This is a College with objective information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaffery123 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - accredited tertiary colleges have long been accepted as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - all colleges are notable, regardless of the quality of the article.—Noetic Sage 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: already has been speedy deleted, non-admin closure. Yngvarr 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alastair Rathie

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

Delete as fails at WP:BIO. Initially I thought to tag this article for Speedy deletion as per A7 but later I changed my mind as the author is claiming this person as one of the most well known photographers in the world, he may have some reasonings behind this claim. But, still this unreferenced article lakes extremely at WP:BIO, WP:NOTE and WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Complete rubbish, and I quote has never eaten a cherry bakewell which is evident from the popular youtube video "alastair rathie headboy" He hasn't banged Hannah yet. Def. an A7 candidate as it's obvious nonsence. Lugnuts (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (WP:SNOW applies fine in this case). --Angelo (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Thomson

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

Disputed prod, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO, no references, not a lot to go on as to why this should be in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. Absolutely nothing on google to show he has played a game. Peanut4 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete He is not named in the official squad and there is little evidence that he even exists. --neonwhite user page talk 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete He fails WP:BIO, isn't on a major team and hasn't played a game yet. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it's contradictory to say that he plays for a team yet he's never played. Contract problems mean he doesn't even have a contract to play in the future. For now, it seems as though this is an article written by the subject himself (Chrisfdwc2008 (talk · contribs)) and he's maybe in the process of negotiating with the team. Non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, and thanks to the creator for wasting everybody's time in creating it. Robotforaday (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete-per nom and per what is above.TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Lawrence Carbonization Plant

St. Lawrence Carbonization Plant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable abandoned industrial complex. Article reads like someone's personal exploration log of the complex. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense and it certainly isn't encyclopedic. No sources at all, not much context. May be copied and pasted from another source. Numerou warning tags have been ignored. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Urban explorer's guide for a non-notable place. Fails WP:V for lack of WP:RS. Also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Although I would like to see an Article on Carbonization Plant, this may not be it. My web-search cannot satisfy WP:V. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn, AfD ran its full 5-day course without any deletion vote.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EICASLAB

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

This article has been speedy deleted twice on January 10 under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, as evidenced by the messages left on creating editor's talk page. The newly re-created article states in the edit summary The text has been deeply revised including article citations and references from reliable sources. The vast majority of these reliable sources in the article link to the company's website, ie the sources are self published. This article is still blatant advertising except that the creating editor took some time to make the article look a little more encyclopedic to possibly avoid a third deletion. SWik78 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, the creator of this article is Gabriella Caporaletti, the president of the company selling this product [20]. SWik78 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawal of nomination - The creating editor has made the effort to fix the issues in question (ie, the official website, external references) and has demonstrated the importance of the subject. I withdraw my nomination. SWik78 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Caporaletti (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you for your comments about the article EICASLAB. I understand your indications. Before to make new modifications, I would like to explain my point of view and I would like to ask you a further feedback that can help me to go in the right direction. I confirm you that I work at EICAS Automazione (I am the Director, not the President) and that I was the coordinator of the ACODUASIS Project, the European Project mentioned in the article from which EICASLAB was derived. The project was judged by the Commission as a "success story" and for this results the results of Projects were included in the Commission ICT website. Of course I do not have any intention to put in wikipedia an article as blatant advertising of a product. The fact is that EICASLAB is a laboratory that is used by European companies and industries (I have put references on that in the wikipedia article) and I think interesting and usefull for the scientific community to summarize in wikipedia the main information about EICASLAB. Concerning the references, it is possible to check in the article EICASLAB that the on line links at the EICASLAB web-site are mainly related to the ACODUASIS workshop: One step Further in Automatic Control Design. This workshop has been promoted by Camera Commercio of Torino, Torino Wireless, IRC Innovation Network (European Commission), APLS Innovation Relay Center, Politecnico of Torino and Unioncamere Piemonte. You can have evidence about that at Camera Commercio of Torino website workshop programme at Camera Commercio di Torino website and Torino Wireless websiteworkshop programme at Torino Wireless website, in which the workshop programme is included. Now, I thought more interesting for a reader to have available the full text of the article (which is available at EICASLAB web-site) instead that only the title available in the programme. In addition, by looking at the wikipedia article "MATLAB" (which is a product of the same type of EICASLAB), I have seen that a lot references are related to the company that sells such a product. So, I am a bit confused .... More in general, I would like to point out that all other links mentioned in the article EICASLAB are related to International Conferences and website of the European Commission. Many papers are written by university professors and industrial researchers of companies that used EICASLAB and included in the papers their own achieved results. What do you think about that? Thank you very much for your help. Gabriella

Caporaletti (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you again for your comments about the article EICASLAB. As first reaction to your suggestions, I have removed from the article the links to the official website included in the reference list section. Furthermore, I have also removed the uncorrect behaviour of the EICASLAB website that you have indicated (thank you for that!). Now you can check that if you click that link to read more about EICASLAB you are able to leave the site by clicking the BACK button [21]. Concerning the content of the article, of course I can review again it. For instance I can include in the text some indications about the mathematical methodology adopted (in any case all the indications are available in the links to scientific papers that I have included). My problem now is to understand if it makes some sense that I review the text if it is not acceptable at all the fact that I am the director of EICAS Automazione. In my first intention, please be sure that I inserted the article not just for introducing an advertising of a product: EICAS is a small company, the software EICASLAB is very specific for the automatic control design field and the fact of being or not visible in wikipedia cannot modify the chances of the company to sell it. The fact for which I introduced the article in wikipedia was because the laboratory is now used by industries and research institutes and other similar laboratories, like MATLAB, Mathematica, Scilab are mentioned in Wikipedia and people often ask why EICASLAB is not mentioned. So I just wanted to open an article on this matter, thinking that other people external to my company could co-operate to increase the quality of the text. On the contrary, if it is not acceptable that I introduce this matter in wikipedia, of course I will accept the rules. Thank you again for receiving your feedback, Best regards, Gabriella

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depression and Biofeedback

Depression and Biofeedback (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod - prod (and prod2) were removed by the entry's author without discussion or improvements to the article. This is an essay written in the first person, and is not encyclopedic. Delete. Dawn bard (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Looking at the edit pattern, I suspect a copyvio, though I couldn't prove it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - First person blog entry-type garbage. Not a notable subject for an article and nothing worth merging. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Not an encyclopedic article. --Nepenthessss (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Smells of copyvio to me as well, although I was also unable to find the source. In any case, this essay is uncyclopedic. —Travis^talk 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as above per Mdsummermsw; nothing worthy in the article even if it were well written. Mattisse 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete-unknown fringe balls, article probably designed to promote a theory, or even sell a gadget. Merkinsmum 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Userfy. The contents will shortly be available to the author on a subpage, per author's request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Entertainers (NUFC)

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

This article is largely POV and ought to be merged into the history section of Newcastle United F.C. Peanut4 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Close as invalid Afd nomination (Article creator) Stated reasons for nomination are not valid for raising an Afd under the deletion policy. No attempt has been made to highlight POV issues or opening a merge debate before rasing this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NB - it should be noted that MickMacNee is the creator of this article. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hence the (brackets) in included  :) MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there's already sufficient mention of this period in the main club article. - fchd (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, otherwise I would not have created it. As already can be seen there is a question over whether it belongs in the club article or the history article. By definition duplication exists between club and history articles, there is precedent for a degree of duplication where it provides context to the subject of the article. Please assume good faith before passing summary judgement, you could not possibly have fully reviewed both articles for 'sufficient mention' in 1 hour. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I could review both articles in an hour, I think it's you that perhaps needs to assume a little good faith. Yes, some of games in the first Keegan era were entertaining. But there is mention of this in the main Newcastle United F.C. article, to what I consider is sufficient detail in relation to other periods of the club's (or any other similar club) history. That's without even going to the sepearate History of Newcastle United article (which is horribly recentist in my opinion) where there is a couple of paragraphs relating to the period in question. If the relevant information already exists in two places, why start setting it out a third time? Sorry, but I see no need, no need at all, for a stand-alone article. So, not even a merge !vote, still a Delete, now verging to a Strong Delete. - fchd (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've never seen any mention of the term recentist in any policy. By the very nature of Wikipedia you cannot and should not impose equal weight to each period of history, determining that X number of characters per decade is 'sufficient' coverage. The only relevant test for any notion of sufficient coverage is notability and verifiability. And if you want to compare the issue of duplication against other club articles, review the list here for toher examples where club history's are covered in 3 places, for very obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Much of this article constitutes original research or point of view material about the attacking nature of the team and of certain players. The main factual thrust of what's being said can be adequately covered in History of Newcastle United F.C., with a summary of the period in Newcastle United F.C. and Kevin Keegan. Robotforaday (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The attacking nature of this collection of players is quite easily verifiable and is not original research. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - mostly a POV essay masquerading as fact, and unnecessary dupllication. A (more) neutral account of the club's history already exists and so this is totally unnecessary. A single sentence in that article can suffice for mention of "entertainment" if need be. Qwghlm (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you say the same about the Invincibles article about your own team? In the context of football it is hard not to take any view such as 'a single sentence would do' as not being POV. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terrible fussed about that article to be honest. There is a crucial difference is that being unbeaten in a season is an objective fact, while the question of entertaining is subjective. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As below, the entertainers tag applies to a specific media usage, so any subjectivity is down to their interpretation, which is perfectly fine to be reflected in WP, even if it was wrong or subjective. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - As mentioned, a History of Newcastle United F.C. article already exists. Pairadox (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge is a default keep vote MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote at all, it's a discussion. But if you insist... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Further procedural objection - Expanding, stated reasons for nomination are invalid, premature in the extreme (1 hour), ignore all established discussion avenues, and as it transpires look to have been made in bad faith as per these statements [22] and [23] by the nominator. Afd page header: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Additionaly, I do not belive Afd is a fair, usefull or even a common sense starting point for a discussion on neutrality when it concerns a topic such as football. Requests to merge are in fact default keep votes, not delete; the article subject is modeled on those listed here as definitive entities, distinct from club or history articles (even though merging is an invalid Afd topic). MickMacNee (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to let these almost slanderous comments lie without a right of reply. Whatever my feelings on Newcastle, that was never my reason for nominating it for AFD. I simply don't see how they deserve such an individual entry, but I feel they are worth mention within a combination (if not all) of Kevin Keegan, Newcastle United, and History of Newcastle United. You can look through all my combinations, and you won't find any of my edits based on anything than a neutral POV. I put my feelings aside when I'm editing. This is nothing but an afront on my character. I don't need to provide examples, but I will. As a Bradford fan, I'm not the biggest Leeds fan in the world, not at all. Yet I didn't just support the Leeds United A.F.C. seasons but actually helped get it to FL through a lot of hard work and difficult debate. My reason for nominating, whether correct or not, but that's why I brought it here, were in total good faith. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps next time you won't leave such blatant contradictory and incriminating comments in discussions about a listing you are about to make. Rest assured any offence you feel in having your own comments pointed out, from a discussion you don't even see fit to alert me to before dumping the Adf listing and sodding off, is more than made up for in bad feeling from the hassle you have caused me. If you can't see that raising an Afd 1 hour after creation of what is a decent work with references and precedents elsewhere, without first placing any of the more appropriate tags on the article or even opening the talk page, then I suggest you review the deletion policy, the header at the top of the Afd page, and the general policies behind discussion, and how your actions effect other editors in what is an effort to represent information, not a contest for how fast you can destroy articles. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You were alerted to the AFD by a bot something like 16 minutes after I nominated it, as happens anyway. And as I've pointed out my comments were absolutely nothing to do with my reason for nomination. Whether incriminating or not. Maybe I should have tagged the article rather than create the AfD. The bottom line is I still don't see how this is relevant but this debate (not my own individual feelings) will decide that. Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a word-for-word duplicate (which is what AP:AfD is referring to). As for POV issues - if an article is inherently POV in its title or outlook, making it impossible to provide a neutral point of view, then deletion discussion is a valid option. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to History of Newcastle United F.C.#The Keegan Revolution (1992 - 1997). No need for a separate article here. BLACKKITE 07:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Qwghlm. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be a notable term used in RS. There's no reason why this article shouldn't remain, as it passes our notability criteria. It can and should be linked using the {{main}} template from the club's history article/section. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is a parallel to this - the extremely notable term "The Invincibles", referring to the The 1948 Aussie cricket team. In that case, the term (if it wasn't a disambig) would redirect to the main article because there should be only one article on the subject and they exactly match, without overlap. This is, in my opinion, noticeably different, in that there is no such exact match. This article should contain information about a specific, defined period of Newcastle's history and should do so in more detail than either the main article or History of Newcastle United F.C. should do. As such, it's a totally legitimate fork, based (as I said above) on a verified sobriquet. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment ah, now then, the Invicibles were a precisely defined set of people who achieved a precisely defined set of results. The Entertainers here are a group of players (who some may say are more or less entertaining than others) who played during an undefined period (the 1990s) who some commentators, including me, found "entertaining". It's a little subjective for my liking, despite the obvious notability of the term. I believe anything useful here should be merged into the main article or a history of NUFC (should one exist)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I see your point. The article could simply take as its defined parameters the period of Keegan Mk I, but that is a little POVish, as initially they weren't particularly entertaining, any more than any other bunch of players languishing in mediocrity. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly, I specifically tried to distinguish when the notariety came about separate to Keegans return i.e. he started out with a very bad squad, with arguable Cole and Beardsley being the start of the process (but not necessarily a chronolgical start point) for the use of the term. Also, the term also covers part of the Robson era, and Keegan MkII (III?) era. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And I object to phrases such as "The notable attacking players in The Entertainers teams included..." - who says they're notable? Why? What's the objective measure of "entertainment"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Verifiability determines notability, it would be quite easy to provide articles and sources for every player mentioned being associated with the term The Entertainers teams. One objective measure of the term entertainment would also be the many citations that could be made, some I already provided in this initial draft. Dumping a whole article into Afd because you are concerned about one or two sentences is not exactly a fairly weighted response is it? This is what tagging and talk pages are for. In fact, the sentence is attacking players, not entertaining players. There are no redlinked player articles, so I think notability of players themselves is already established. The Entertainers tag comes from a media label, not my own POV of what is or was entertaining. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Response to merge. I am have a hard time visualising how this article fits neatly into a merge with the 1992-97 section of the history article for the following reasons:

• This is not an article about historical facts in the same way, it is an article describing the use and existance of a particular term, how it specifically came about, and it's usage over time. This is distinct to general historical facts such as those included in the history section. You would not preclude separate documentation of aspects such as the stadium expansion, just because the facts are mentioned in the history article.
  • But isn't this an encyclopaedia rather than an almanac? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Similarly, this article is about a notable group of players, and their achievements. Had I had the chance to see people's perceptions of it before this nomination, I could have easily reformatted it into a list of players and results, with a historical timelime or narrative as a footnote, if included at all. Specific dates are not even necessary in the sense of describing the subject, whereas the history article is a date listed narratiive.
  • Define their achievements quantitatively. They were "entertaining". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• This article contains general facts and events that are not relevant to the history of NUFC in particular, such as the details about BSkyB and success of other clubs such as blackburn, but which are relevant to the article at hand.
  • It would easily fit in a subsection of the NUFC article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• This article contains a list of players notable by their association with the article subject, howevere these players were signed at different times, therefore any grouping of this nature is confusing and counter productive if placed in a narrative timeline.
  • You chose that list. What criteria did you apply? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• The article covers sections of information in more detail than in the rest of the history article, which would mean inclusion in that article without dilution would become unbalanced and difficult to read. This however is not against any policy if it satisfies notability and verifiability on its own, as presumably the similarly supposedly duplicative articles such as the busby babes, crazy gang and the invincibles etc.
• The article actually covers 3 different periods in the club history, Keegan, Robson and Keegan again, and ignores sections of the history irrelevant to the article subject. There is no way you can keep the concept of the article by splitting it across 3 places with irrelevant info in between, such as the Doug Hall or Ruud Gullit controversies.
• On the general issue of duplication, as can already be seen there is disagreement over which article this content would actually belong in if merged, the main club article or the history article, I think that demonstrates there is not simple consensus over the general 'this does not need to exist, it belongs here', idea.
• I have serious concerns over the impartiality of anyone claiming an NPOV stance over the importance/relevance of this article, as per the original nominators bad faith, and the issue that all early participants are project football members, without sufficient distance from the subject at hand (again, this would be an NPOV issue which is not meant to be addressed in Afd as a first point of call), although the likelihood of sufficent numbers of impartial voters seeing this in the 5 day period is also a concern, to settle what is a merge debate (again not an Afd subjsect).
• Finally, I have real objection to having to discuss these points about what is a first revision of an article, it goes against all principles of article development in WP, and is why talk pages and requested move procedures exist. I accept the article may have issues and need revision, but to start that process in Afd is extremely irritating, hard to structure to gain consensus, and against all common sense. I re-iterate the original bad faith and extremely quick nomination as well, I don't think anyone would be happy at having to have this debate in Afd before they have ever discussed the article anywhere else. In my experience Afd discussion is not usually an in depth debate about content issues, and are usually summarily closed specifically ignoring content discussion, therefore it should be closed as bad faith and not listing valid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Well I tend to agree on this point, it wasn't a bad article, so the AFD was premature in my opinion. However, now we're here, there's no time limit so let's discuss it in a centralised location. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to discussions about this subject prior to the creation of the article? I don't see anything at the history or main team article nor at the project page, and I find the calls for discussion after the fact (and "concerns" about POV, and trying to get this closed on procedure) to be a bit disingenuous in that light. Pairadox (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that requires prior pre-approval of article ideas drafts before an article can be created, what there are however are definite policies on how and why you list an Afd, and how you resolve issues of content, such as POV and duplication. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, no.

One of the reasons for deletion include "content forks," which this arguably is. There's certainly enough editors here who feel that it is, hence the recommendations to merge content. Pairadox (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguably not true under the headings Related articles, Articles whose subject is a POV and Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles of things that are not Content Forks. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

After a discussion on my talk page, I am coming round to an idea on how to proceed: An admin closes this Afd with no prejudice as a redirect, and dumps the current version on my talk page. I will then stubbify the article to establish it's basic facts:

• Title
• Media coinage of term
• Basic eras (Keegan I, Robson, Keegan II)
• Players
• Notable results
• Keegan quote

and re-create it with all statements sourced. I don't know how long that could take, hence the need to close this Afd with no prejudice, and let me draft the stub in user space in my own time. Then, if anyone wishes, they can Afd the new article to achieve consensus on whether it should exist at all, In the mean time I will leave a note detailing this decision and a statement of intent not to expad until consensus is reached, and the article stays or goes. I am averse to even attempting to get the nominators permission as alluded to, given his comments about his general opinion of NUFC. Any admins willing to do this please make it known, or be bold and just do it. I make this suggestion in good faith and out of an unwillingness to debate for 5 days irrespective of the final outcome, when I should or could be contributing elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a good compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That sort of thing is usually called Userfication. Pairadox (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Aware of that, thanks, but I'm just saying it's a good compromise! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant for Mick. Pairadox (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article does get re-created further down the line, it needs a new title, as "NUFC" means nothing to a non-football fan...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support of course. I'd be even more keen on the idea if you welcomed input at your userpages from some of the skeptics. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't see why this can't be properly dealt with in the History of Newcastle United F.C. article, but it's your userspace, so feel free to work on it there if you think it's worth it. Robotforaday (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For all the reasons stated above and more - it deals with 3 different time periods, with subjects not appropriate for a history article (and the reverse), contains related wikilinks you would never find or expect to find in an NUFC history article, contains a player list that would not be appropriate for a history article, is not necessarily an article that needs a chronological format at all (which the history article rigidly is), covers a subject that has precedent with other football club articles for being split from main club and history articles, and has as a subject that is probably recognisable as notable to a whole generation of sports fans, who care not a jot about reading about jackie milburn (no offence to the man) and not read the history article. It's a no brainer to me, but then I have been forced to think about this way too much now because of this nomination, literally my original justification was obvious notability and basic precedent, so get it done and put it out there to be commented on and developed, I thought I had done a good enough job to be able to prevent an Afd tag after 1 hour straight off the bat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice and userfy, as per above suggestion and agreement of nominator [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally agree. Cos I still don't see why this article shouldn't just be in the History of Newcastle United with other mentions at Newcastle United and Kevin Keegan. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel I've given adequate explanation above as to why this deserves an article, and why it is not appropriate for the history article. All I will say then is, if you can't agree with those points, then why do you think the same can't be said for any article listed in Category:Nicknamed groups of soccer teams? I know it's a golden rule not to point to the existence of other articles in Afd, but I've always thought that was nonsense in a case like this. It is frankly not justifiably to discriminate against this article and not those, without applying a POV. Anyway, the agreement I refer to above is the agreement to userfy and delete without prejudice (i.e not dis-bar recreation, as outlined under Suggestion above). MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a great reason to nominate but the article still is poor. Agree with proposals to userfy as an option. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. <insert bad joke here about how resistance to Trekkie pages on wikipedia is, without question, futile.> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance is futile

Resistance is futile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I do not believe the content of this article to be notable. The article describes a catchphrase attributed to characters in Star Trek, a catch phrase already noted on the article on the characters themselves. The references given are simply there to create a list of quotes, with no notability noted from other sources Alastairward (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Borg article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that therefore be Assimilate? -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Clarify: merge the Borg quotes to the Borg article. That eliminates the charge of cruft for this article (though if you want to delete the Borg article, that's another question). Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Arctle clearly mentions it's use outside of and prior to it's use in the star trek universe. Therefore a merge would not be appropriate. It's common usage in the media is very easy to source [25][26][27][28][29]. Thought the article could easily be improved to include these. --neonwhite user page talk 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that a merge is not much use here, there's precious little to the article other than to state that it was used before Star Trek writers used it and has been used elsewhere. A redirect to the Borg might be more appropriate, the link for the phrase "Resistance is useless" in the article redirects to the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" article. Is there any significance to the use of this phrase in the media? Only one of the links provided actually shows the phrase being used with reference to the show's characters. Alastairward (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're missing the point, the phrase does not originate from the show, it was popularised by the show/film and has now achueved common usage unrelated to the show. --neonwhite user page talk 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just going on what was in the article when I nominated it for deletion. It was poorly referenced only included quotes from within the show. They could probably be pruned and replaced with more references from the media. If there was an article noting its use by media outside Science Fiction magazines that would be ideal Alastairward (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The quotes from the show could be selectively merged to the Borg article if you don't want it in the proposed article. Or they could simply be edited out. Deleting the whole article doesn't seem like a reasonable first line of action. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, at the very least the phrase enjoyed a brief flurry of use at the height of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (due to an analyst's quote, I guess, but some in the media made Borg comparisons or at least mentioned Star Trek). --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also, there are numerous Google Books results showing its use (and ample discussion) in contemporary writing on domains ranging from parenting to Manifest Destiny. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment - The phrase has certainly achieved real-world recognition beyond the Star Trek fanbase, and probably a lot of people who know the phrase don't know its origin. --Lquilter (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh... If only I could find a non-blog article about the Girl Scout Cookies advertisement that just showed two scouts holding up a box with the caption "Resistance is Futile"... -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep a known and notable phrase. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think we've ascertained that it's a phrase that people recognise, we're just looking for cites outside science fiction circles. Perhaps if you have some, you could add them to the actual article Alastairward (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Very culturally significant; I'm going to go about finding a few examples of where it has been used in reliable settings (for example, TIME, NYT). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would be good if we could have some cites before the end of the discussion Alastairward (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I understand the nomination, and truthfully, it is difficult to find the kind of citations that would really improve the article. What I find, and others have cited, is a huge number of headlines of articles and blogs that contain the phrase. By sheer number, I think there is some notability here, however, I have no yet seen any references that comment on the phrase and would improve the article. Still, I cannot ignore these results. Xymmax (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, would it be acceptable to use a link to a google search? I agree that it would probably be difficult to find an all encompassing link for everything Alastairward (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you mean linking to a google search inside of articles, then that would go against Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, 10: "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant, if it goes against the rules then we can do without. I'll probably change my nomination of deletion now to a weak keep. It seems like a hard phrase to prove as with other articles as popular, but the arguments seem to indicate it's reasonably well known and we've provided proof on this page at least. I take it a link is kept to this discussion on the talk page afterwards? Alastairward (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Its not sourced, mostly original research and not encyclopaedic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of mnemonics for star classification

List of mnemonics for star classification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Ok some of them are pretty funny but the page is totally unencyclopedic and nothing is, or could possibly be, referenced. Has to be deleted. Greatestrowerever (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have to agree with GRE's nomination. This is completely non-encyclopedic, vio.'s WP:NOT and WP:V. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I am the creator of this article. The verifiability of this list does not seem to be applicable. Ask yourself: Is this a mnemonic for star classification? If so, it is! Verifiability with external sources would be more applicable for a list of French monarchs as it would not be self-evident. I did re-read the "Wikipedia is NOT" page and did not find the clause you are referring to. Does encyclopedic content mean "Does Encarta have a similar article?" If so, I would like to point to the fact that Wikipedia currently has 25 more times articles than Brittanica (the next biggest English encyclopedia). Stellar mnemonics, by the way, are taught in any introductory astronomy course, and I would have no objection to similar lists. Would you? cprompt (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I posit that you do not need to verify a mnemonic and that the content is not unencyclopedic. EvilTeaCup (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)— EvilTeaCup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete — this appears to be a completely non-notable subject, and has no sources verifying any of these terms, or asserting their notability. Contrary to the above assertion, such sources are required to prevent original research — such as my newly coined meme "Oh Bad Articles; Forget Getting Kept, Methinks Lovingly". --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but discard what is not sourceable. Some of these have a long history, others are WP:NFT. The page may have originated as a variation of this. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Old bullshitters and fucking goofball kids...Merge to mnemonics. Every good boy does fine, may I have a large container of coffee, my very elegant mother just sat upon nine... never mind, Pluto is not a planet anymore. There is probably one that was the original, and all the rest are one-upsmanship. Worth an entry in the main article, but all the variations on OBAFGKM are not worthy of an entire article. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is encyclopaedic and there are an infinite number of mnemonics for star classifications, the important factor is what is the criteria needed before they can be placed on the list, until a firm criteria is present I'm for delete. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as criteria goes, how does this sound? Mnemonics related to "current" events are removed (no more Bill and Monica), and the list is kept short, with no more than 40% of the mnemonics unsourced. cprompt (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm No that doesn't sound to good (having said that this is beginning to delve in to personal opinions). It doesn't "cut it" for me because the current events criteria only determines what doesn't belong there not what does belong there. The 40% unsourced thing helps thing along as that mean that the majority of the mnemonics is referenced but I have a strong feeling that you will end up with heaps of stupid/unnotable/etc mnemonics sourced from textbooks that authors strung up on the spot. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. While the "original" mnemonic is very notable[30] and should be mentioned in appropriate articles, most of the mnemonics on this list seem just made up. --Itub (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one source provided, and it is not in depth. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Kopta

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

May be locally notable, but not to the level that warrants an encyclopedia article. One local newspaper story and a couple of YouTube videos are insufficient evidence of notability per WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete isn't notable on a national scale, doesn't deserve an encyclpedia article. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• You know, I went looking in WP:BIO, thinking surely I have missed the area where it talks about national notability required, and lo and behold, it's not there. Instead, what's there is information about independent sources. This person has them, so therefore, meets WP:BIO. Local history is still history; we write about the history of cities, neighborhoods, streets, and so on, even if the streets have not been heard about "nationally". If I'm missing something here, please feel free to point out the appropriate policy; otherwise, this appears to be keep based on multiple independent sources that are included within the article. --Lquilter (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Multiple? Where? The admitted source for the article was a single Post-Gazette story. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. If there is a more reliable repository for these videos than YouTube, than I'll reconsider. Until then, there is a single newspaper story as the basis for this article. That does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep. If the story is lacking in sources, then there is an appropriate tag for articles that appear to be from a single source. I'm at a loss to understand why the article wasn't tagged as such. I also disagree with DarkAudit's assessment of the YouTube videos. This was one of the few times Pat was captured on video. In the case of a person who is missing and presumed dead, I think you must take that into consideration. This was a notable person that THOUSANDS of people knew about and ran into every day, and is an notable part of Pittsburgh city history. I recommend that this article not be deleted - and that the single source tag be added to the article (which is what should have been done in the first place). NickBurns (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Like I said above, if the videos had a different source than YouTube, like say one of the local TV stations or the Carnegie Library had a copy. Beyond that, it's still one story from one paper on one day that is the primary source. People go missing every day. It's a tragedy, but not encyclopedic. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment But you don't delete an entire article because it only has one source, especially when that source is a reputable, verifiable one. THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA HAS A SPECIFIC TAG TO ADD TO ARTICLES THAT SAYS, "THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM A SINGLE SOURCE". The first action that you should have taken in reference to this article is to add that tag. To jump right to deleting the article is, well, deletionist. Also, this was not just a person off the street. You appear to think that Ms. Kopta's notability is related to her disappearance. Much of the point of the article is that she was a notable figure in Pittsburgh for many years. NickBurns (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Keep This should be tagged as coming from a single source and not deleted. Whether the videos are or aren't considered a reputable source (I feel as though they are), their content does suggest that she was notable in the region, and there's nothing in Wikipedia's policies to indicate that "national notability" is a requirement; from that point on it's a matter of opinion.VertigoXpress —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • • It does require multiple sources, however. A single source like the one PG article does not meet WP:BIO. Tagged as "single source" or not, it still does not meet guidelines. An AfD will attract many more eyeballs to an article than a simple tag would. Who would even know that the article existed if it was merely tagged? If not for the random article button, I would never have found it myself. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nom withdrawn (non-admin close). —Travis^talk 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cunduacán

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

Delete. It's a small town consisting of 10 villages. Article doesn't have any indication of notability or importance. A Google search results with some maps and minor information but there is no such significance that allows this town to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. All towns are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or prehaps even Speedy Keep All towns are notable and this one has a population of over 80000.--Greatestrowerever (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
• Keep - - "It's a small town consisting of 10 villages" is actually a reason to keep the article. Towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Oakshade. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question:Do you (who went with a keep) think it should have a standalone article? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. Thanks for participating in this lively discussion. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Cunduacán has a lot more information that could be added to this article. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aks (Producer & DJ)

Aks (Producer & DJ) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not establish notability. Content looks like a self-contribution or other conflict of interest. Also, the wiki markup is very broken, though that could be fixed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I've fixed the markup, but could find no significant coverage, or other evidence of notability.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BabyDevelop

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

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Article has had less than 50 edits since creation in Oct 2006, and no discussion. Has been tagged with Template:Notability since Sep 2007. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable third party sources and I can't find any either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 dictum de omni et nullo. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (note: I also created a redirect for Dictum de nullo.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictum de omni

Dictum de omni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge with an appropriate article. An unreferenced and unconventional research/observation. It seems like an original research of the author or at least partially. Notability is questionable. So, as per WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:OR nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, tending towards keep. Plenty of reliable sources exist if you want to look for them (Google Books, Google Scholar maybe?). It doesn't look like original research to me in particular either, so I'm going to have to say that I don't understand the rationale for deletion used by Niaz. Perfectly reasonable topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• And I have done philosophy academically, so I do understand how stuff like this works. For comparison with an article I created before I became an experienced Wikipedia editor, dispositional and occurrent belief, yes it may be obscure outside that particular field but there are plenty of academic citations that could be used to make it pass WP:V and WP:N, same as this article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am really sorry if I hurt you by saying unreferenced or unverifiable content. Actually, I am not from this background and don't have enough specialist knowledge to understand them. As WP says, Wikipedia is not truth, is verifiability; as a user's point of view I have to say it doesn't verify its content. It would be really nice if you kindly add some proper citations, may be off-line, as there is no hard and fast rule that all the citations has to be on the world wide web. In addition, I think it should be written properly otherwise some other Wikipedian may tag it for AfD. And last but not the least, I am not against this article or its content. If it really deserves to be here, it will. At the end of the day we are working for the betterment of Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Since when is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not a reliable source? This isn't some web page a student slapped up. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The content for the entry Dictum de omni has been moved over to that of Dictum de omni et nullo. --Burket | Talk 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manissery

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. A small town famous for a movie shooting (unreferenced) can not deserve to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Places (at least towns) are notable irrespective of size. See WP:OUTCOMES. I understand that there may not be much to write, but we keep these articles. Xymmax (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep All towns, villages, and municipalities are notable. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and the nom should consider withdrawing this. I will assume that he was acting in good faith, but he seems to have nominated some fairly valid articles for deletion, such as Dictum de omni and Bango (cannabis).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - h i s, with due respect to your activity I have to say you are not playing with good faith. Just go and see what I wrote just few min back at the entry of your loving article. You became desperate and commenting keep wherever you are finding it suitable. Unfortunately there are some articles (nominated by me) where you can easily place a delete but you didn't. Moreover, you tried to mislead people's concentration by providing wrong information that I have nominated Bango (cannabis) for deletion which is not true. I didn't expect this behavior from the person who receive AfD Burnstar as the first Wikipedian. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise about the bango (cannabis) error.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do also apologize as I found you at one of my nominations voting for deletion which actually proved me wrong to some extent. Let's forget everything and SMILE. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the article would be better with improvements, but it meets notability as a place. matt91486 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Xymmax and Tim Q. Wells. BWH76 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as this alleged town has no entry in the 2001 Census of India, is entirely unreferenced, and is believed to constitute a hoax. John254 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Additionally, note that a search for "Manissery" with the "Population Finder" dialog on the current Census of India website likewise produces no results, which supports the contention that this supposed town does not exist. John254 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There are several references to a Manissery in Kerala on Google here, and several more if the spelling is altered to "Manisseri." I haven't listed those since I'm not absolutely certain it's the same thing. I do, however, see references to phone codes for Manissery and address listing including it. I find nothing surprising about a small town not receiving its own census listing - presumably those people were counted as a part of a larger unit. Is the census data the only reason you think it's a hoax? Xymmax (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Xymmax above, I see no reason to believe it is a hoax. And seeing as it is not a hoax, it has automatic notability. SorryGuy  Talk  21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)