Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the Bible and the Qur'an[edit]

I've declined a prod on this one as I think that — while it's veering dangerously towards the rocks of unreferenced original research — this contains the germ of a genuinely valid article. (Which I do not propose to write! I get quite enough flames already, thank you.) Personally, I think in its current state it probably does warrant a weak delete, but I feel it at least deserves its moment under the floodlights in case anyone has any ideas of possible expansions or potential merge targets. Or, indeed, valid keep arguments. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as it now stands, the article is unsourced original research. I doubt it's possible to write such an article without either veering into POV or in synthesis of sources. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Coren I think such an article is possible within guidelines, but I agree that as written it is an OR synthesis. As with gren, no prejudice against recreation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're different texts! With wildly different histories for the last 1500 years! And which "Bible", anyway? What's next, the difference between apples and orange? --lquilter 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an idea. You write it, I'll copyedit. I actually read an article once about the difference between apples and bananas... but it was about image recognition, so it actually made sense. (Ah, Google has it I see.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced, and see also Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an Yahel Guhan 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a powder keg waiting for spark.--Victor falk 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice towards recreation with reliable secondary sources. gren グレン 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Unlike the "similarities between the Bible and the Qu'ran" article referred to above (which merely cites those portions of both books that contain references to Jesus, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve, etc.), this one does go a dangerous route in attempting an interpretation of a passage. That gets into amateur theology. Some say that "Christianity is about forgiveness, Islam is about revenge", and you could find verses to support that proposition. On the other hand, you can find Bible verses that call for destruction of the unfaithful as well. Since very few of us have mastered even one of these books, let alone both of them, looking for differences in things taken out of context is unwise. Mandsford 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, this is very much a theologically driven article -- in fact, it is quite obviously a particular Christian view of a very few important differences. Even the very act of selecting the "differences" requires determination of what is theologically significant. A Muslim might have a very different idea of what is significant than a Christian, and I can assure you that a Jew, Hindu, and atheist would have other opinions. "Differences" is practically an infinite set; at least "similarities" seems discretely definable. ... But it's not even named accurately or an attempt at being a useful document of comparative religion, because major differences include (a) history, (b) language of origin, (c) relative authority, (d) rules about what can and can't be done with the texts, and so on, ad infinitum. I've rarely seen a topic as unfit for a wikipedia article -- differences between stargate 1 and stargate whatever canon are vastly more doable than this. --lquilter 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If such article is to be in WP (IMO not) it shouldn't be so amateurish. And per lquilter above. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is offensive to both.--Mostargue 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and quite frankly, everyone else above. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yossiea ^(talk) 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original essay. `'Míkka 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:POV, etc., as per above, but I'd wait another day to close discussion just in case a good argument comes along. Bearian 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being clearly synthesis original research. VanTucky ^Talk 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as clearly WP:OR and WP:SNOWBALL. --Strothra 15:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since it's reviewed by reliable sources like Variety magazine and NY Times, satisfies WP:N.--Alasdair 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Train[edit]

Non notable movie spinoff, barely reviewed, only notability is a derisive campy review. minimal sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom ForeverDEAD 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Derisive or not, a review is still a review. I've also found a 1,148-word article from the Toledo Blade which should count towards notability (Christopher Borrelli. "Mastering the art of the knockoff: Direct-to-video 'Snakes' project resembles wide-release feature". 17 August 2006. E14. Available at Newsbank). I'd be surprised if Fangoria or a similar magazine didn't review it at some point. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why it took this long to be put up for review if these are the reasons why, there is info on it, AND it is notable. Other than that my reasons are the reasons mentioned above by Zagalejo.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quintessential example of the mockbuster phenomenon, as cited in an article in last Sunday's edition of The New York Times Magazine. Alansohn 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team[edit]

Contested prod. It is too early to create this page. The 2007 season is still going on and the 2008 season doesn't start for almost a year now. The 2007 article wasn't created until January of this year and the same can happen for this one, it is unneeded until then. Phydend 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got a schedule. Unless that's all just made-up information, I don't see any reason to destroy all the work that went into the article only to recreate it in 90 days. Torc2 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The schedule falls squarely within WP:NOT#INFO. Until there's some useful content for this page (which I'm sure there will be when the season starts), this page is unneeded. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it might fall under WP:NOT#INFO, but realistically it's just a WP:STUB. A schedule isn't just a list of stats, and there's no question that this article will exist and will contain additional useful information in a matter of weeks. At most I'd suggest establishing a formal policy for when a page for a sports team's season can be made, although I'd suggest "when its schedule is released" is as good a time as any. For that matter, there are already a ton of future sporting events listed. Torc2 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Why delete something that's obviously going to be created sometime down the line anyways? Never a better time than the present to start collecting news and other information for the article. -- Hawk17 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article about a future season of a college sports team, in an encyclopedia? I don't see any relevance.--Michig 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD g12; no content besides copyrighted material. — madman bum and angel 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina books[edit]

The article reads like it was copied from the back of the book. It's unencyclopedic and sounds suspiciously like an advertisement. Most of the text is quotes from reviews. Fails NPOV. Nikkimaria 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; definitely advertisement, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a copyvio of the blurb. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for copyvio. The introduction appears to be taken from a brief review found on a blog, and the large excerpts from reviews go way beyond what can be justified as fair use. Thomjakobsen 02:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected to preserve article history. Listed at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. ~~In future please use the move feature for misnamed articles or request a move if there might be an issue or the move is blocked. Cut and paste moves create headaches for administrators.~~ Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On review, it's just a standard merge after all. Merges that have been completed should make the source article redirect to the target article in order to preserve edit history under the GFDL. The source article should not be deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Order of the White Eagle[edit]

The contents of this article were recently moved, by me, to the main Order of the White Eagle article and split in half making up two columns on the page. This page is, thus, just a not needed copy. Happyme22 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Order of the White Eagle. You can probably go ahead and do this yourself, I don't think there's much need to discuss it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close I've redirected it.--Victor falk 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by WP:SNOW as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Bearian 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap calls and their providers[edit]

Contested PROD: Purposing deletion per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Rjd0060 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOT#HOWTO Brianlucas 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've transwikied it to wikihow: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the biggest problem I have with this article is that I don't feel anyone would ever search for it. Doesn't present really pertinent information for an encyclopedia Carter | Talk to me 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thinly disguised spam. --Gavin Collins 07:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 07:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied, no content. —Verrai 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is afraid of can?[edit]

I'm finding nothing on this short film. The director has a minimal IMDb entry which doesn't even list his films. This seems completely non-notable but more to the point, no WP:V or reliable sources that I can find. I would have prodded it but I thought more eyes might find more than I could. Pig^man 23:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where's the article? —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A3 Uh... there isn't one. Seeing as how there is practically no content, I think this can be speedied. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SugoiCon[edit]

Non-notable anime con, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Corvus cornix 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The convention has been the subject of two different articles by Newtype USA. Both of which are listed on the article's talk page as sources to be used. --Farix (Talk) 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources,non-notable, writing style problems. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the article, particularly the existing reference section, or its talk page? Parts of the article is already sourced and the contents of the talk page demonstrates that the article can pass WP:NOTE. We don't delete articles because the are "partially sourced" or because of poor writing style. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are from a non-reliable source. Corvus cornix 01:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newtype USA is not reliable? That's ... an interesting claim. —Quasirandom 01:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's the first time I've seen AnimeCons.com declared as non-reliable source. AnimeCons.com does verify all information from the convention's website or press releases. If they can't verify it, they don't include it. While it can't confer notability because it is a directory, it does meet the qualifications of a reliable sources under WP:V. I'm also taking from your comment that you are declairing Newtype USA as unreliable as well. Can you explain how a nationally published trade magazine be unreliable? --Farix (Talk) 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where are the guidelines for notability for fan conventions? Even if there are some written for specifically science fiction convention, that would offer some guidance here. Though if there are unincorporated Newtype references, I'd think that'd suffice to establish notability. (Oy, the text reads like an ad, though.) —Quasirandom 01:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan conventions are organizations, so WP:ORG is the guideline that applies. But any subject that passes WP:NOTE would pass any of the sub-notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Farix. Article has reliable sources. Edward321 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per Farix. Suggest that y'all might want to actually put information in the article from the Newtype USA articles and cite it as such, rather than just mentioning it on the talk page. Rather unfortunate that this is the kind of article that editors put effort into translating into four languages while much more important topics remain monolingually English, Japanese, etc., but that's life, I suppose. cab 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It needs more information, and not just from the Newtype USA material. (A quick Google search pointed to a couple of newspaper articles about it.)jonathon 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, could you post those to the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I suppose none of you has SugoiCon's program books from each year for reference? They are actually the definitive source for information, and they are very citeable. Are they so invisible to you just because you can't google them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.184.255 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those would not be independant sources. Edward321 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the 2 references. Bearian 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of reliable sources.--Alasdair 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Landry[edit]

A minor youtube celebrity? I've never heard of him and some quick googling didn't turn up much of any substance. Calliopejen1 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A grand total of five Yahoo hits. Classic vanispamcruftisement. Blueboy 96 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. --Whpq 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher John Wilcox[edit]

This article appears to be a spurious biography. A google search reveals no relevant hits for this name. The Janus Capital Groups website, Wilcox's supposed current employer, contains no reference, even though Wilcox is a supposed Senior Vice President. The article claims "between completing his biochemistry education at Pepperdine and his banner years at Janus, Wilcox rose to the helm at Hearst Communications..." Rising to the helm of a corporation implies he was the chairman or CEO, a position which has actually been held by other individuals.

The article also claims Wilcox is in a band called "Wilcox and Pilon -- Attorneys at Rock." Checking the original editor's contributions, I find he created a page called Matt Pilon around the same time he created Wilcox. The "biography" of Pilon has only one claim in common with Wilcox: they both are listed as alumni of Xavier High School (Appleton, Wisconsin). Pilon also appears to be a spurious biography.

I'm not sure what other evidence is required to justify deletion. Jeff Dahl 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoaxes. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pilon[edit]

This article appears to be a spurious biography. Google search revealed no relevant hits, the supposed Ph.D. coming from the University of Massachusetts at Bostan (Hatian Studies) is bogus because the Hatian Studies program does not appear to grant degrees, let alone have an interest in the music of folk voodoo. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher John Wilcox, which the original editor created alongside this article.

Not sure how much more is needed to justify deletion. Jeff Dahl 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoaxes. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 23:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Loud[edit]

Non-notable single by deleted artist. Corvus cornix 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let it become notable before it gets added. Torc2 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS. Bearian 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Per WP:HEY -- Jreferee t/c 07:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Heitner[edit]

Non-notable blogger and website owner. Being a sports agent could be notable, if there was any evidence that they had done anything as an agent, but just being an agent, even of a top 10 bowler, doesn't make you notable. Notability is not inherited. Corvus cornix 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.152.182 (talk) — 63.147.152.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please provide some reasoning as to why you believe this should be deleted. AfD is not a vote. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

I know who this guy is, we went to the same college. He's using Wikipedia for financial gain by putting up an entry for himself so he can have people look at it. He's not a model either, he brown nosed his way into that publication since the publication itself is below mediocore to begin with. Also, his license plate number and what type of car he drives is also a testament to the fact that this person should not have an entry on Wikipedia. I am appalled by Wikipedia's lack of criteria to have an entry on here. Please delete this ridiculous article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.134 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before attacking us or the subject for our "lack of criteria", please take a look at some of our policies on subjects and situations such as this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional references can be found to back up the information. Article is at present mostly a WP:COATRACK about the blog site. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sports agent with 2 clients, blogger about sports, screams NN. No cites screams WP:BLP. Ironically, his relative Ken Heinter of Avaya is much more notable. Bearian 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a clean redirect (no deletion of history). As noted in the discussion towards the end of this page, pending expansion of the Paint article, this could be merged there. In the meantime, I've redirected the article, so that if/when the merge happens, the history is intact for GFDL purposes. Daniel 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome paint[edit]

article about a paint color that is a dicdef at best. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A3. It's little more than a definition. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IS nothing more than a definiton of one color of paint. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. It is a stub, but it can be potentially expanded into a real encyclopedia article. There can be more about chrome paint than a definition; for example, an encyclopedic article could answer questions such as how it is made, how much is produced and consumed, who invented it, what uses does it have besides graffiti, etc. --Itub 09:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, at best this should go under the other paints. Maybe I lack imagination, but I don't see much room for expansion. The making of and uses of chrome paint can be covered under paint. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, unless a complete rewrite is done. (How it is made, how it differs from other paint. The qualities it has that make it good for taggers,etc.)jonathon 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Why such a hurry? This stub is a few days old. Most articles start as stubs and are later expanded. Or are we to delete all newly-created articles that are not of featured article quality? :-) --Itub 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the size of the article, but the notability of the subject. Once again, I don't see how this subject is strong enough for its own article. There would be too much overlap with paint. That article could use some expansion. No, we don't delete non featured articles. Most articles do start as stubs, but where is the potential for expansion here? You ask a number of intriguing questions that would make the article expandable. However, how is the information not suitable for inclusion in paint? Of all the colors paint comes in, what makes chrome special enough for its own article? This is the question. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I yield. I still think an article is conceivable, albeit unlikely, but you make a good point about the overlap with paint and with all the other possible colors. If paint gets expanded to the point that it has a section on chrome paint, and that section becomes substantial, the article could be spun off. In the meantime, it's probably OK to delete or redirect. --Itub 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Begins...[edit]

non-notable album by non-notable and speedied artist. prod removed by creator. tomasz. 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say non-notable until it comes out and there's some charting of the single and album. It's a first album. Pig^man 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources, fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sims[edit]

Cannot see anything to really establish any notability, there are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability and I am unable to find any. Only real claim to notability for this 15 year old (according to the date of birth in the article) is being co-chairman of a county committee which does not seem anything like enough to justify an article Davewild 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Helping other people get elected to notable office doesn't make you notable. Article is written like a coatrack filled with peacock feathers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need- I don't see a problem with this article, the kid sounds like he may be an important figure, reguardless of any full "proof" if someone wrote an article about him, then he must be a public figure. martywhite 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

weak keep. 15 is young to be on a political committee,let alone co-chair one. I'm not sure if a minor can also be a "public figure" under US Law. If not,this article needs to be deleted.jonathon 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need some sources.jonathon 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BLP information must be verifiable. DAMurphy 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs sources for verification (I imagine there are newspaper articles) and it needs to be less of a "puff" piece, but the fact that he is politically involved at all at such a young age is in itself notable. Vgranucci 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no real notability to this kid. Also, this article is the creator's only contribution. Biruitorul 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball entrance music[edit]

Survived a prior AFD here, back when articles for deletion was considered as a vote, and most of those people in the keep side would likely be discounted today as they had unvalid argrements that doesn't meet with policy, while the delete voters had a concern with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Over a year since the AFD, none of these concerns were met, still very unsourced, and the few sources found aren't reliable or independent. Delete Jbeach56 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft if I've ever seen it Rackabello 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares about this topic? This is listcruft at its finest. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable trivia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE This is the greatest assortment of random baseball information ever! As an avid baseball fan I love information like this! KEEP IT PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.124.87 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT Jbeach56 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, no need to have this. These details, unless they really are relevant, should not be included in trivia sections on individual baseball player articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources available, only press releases & producer's website. Fails WP:MOVIE. KrakatoaKatie 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R3tual[edit]

Non-notable film with only 31 Google hits, many, many of them from PR websites. Created by User:Cinemapress, who has a conflict of interest - http://cinemapress.biz/id36.htm - and may be Leon King, himself. The same user created this article back in August and it was speedy deleted then. R3tual has no entry at ImdB, and the link to Ben Staley at imdb doesn't mention this film. Corvus cornix 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed that the August submission was blatant. However, this latest submission shows that user has been learning proper technique and style and has greater care to be informative and helpful about a new genre of film. Festival submission updates are forthcoming. SynnManagement 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not Cinempress... though I submit reviews to them as well as to a few dozen other online venues... and have been doing so since 1998. My opinions are my own and no one else's and I was gratified that they chose to use use my review of r3tual in their Wiki posting, and sorry that it was deleted... since I have seen the film several times and found it remarkable. R3tual has been submitted to several film festivals this year and will likely be on IMDB before Christmas. I do hope that Wikipedia will not choose to censor a submission sinply because it does not have massive google hits. I have found that their are thousands of delightful films being share in the underculture that will likely never have wide distribution or have their names plastered across the media. Is not having the resources for a multimedia promotional blitz a crime? I feel this article does serve the public good. IMHO. L.L.King 06:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion as to whether a film does or does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements has nothing to do with censorship, and your accusation is not appreciated. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. If you cannot provide reliable sources which discuss this film, then, no, it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, and must be deleted. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Corvus cornix 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We feel that due to the fact that any 1 Wiki editor questions informations inre our submission of the article about the film R3TUAL, and despite of the fact that 2 other persons have defended its inclusion (thank you), clarity will be best served if the article was deleted (without prejudice) until such time as we can ourselves submit additional informations to prove its existance, such as viewings at festivals or inclusion in IMDB. I do point out that the film does exist, and verifications and trailers and filmclips are available on the filmmaker's home pages and myspace pages (acceptable for IMDB) but that these links that proved its existance were themselves deleted by user "Hersfold", thus ensuring that evidences of the film's existance were no longer available.... a certain poignant Catch 22, as it were. We were not aware that Myspace was anathema to Wiki. But we do understand and accept that more informations from more sources other than the filmmaker himself on their website or Myspace or the dozen press releases will be needed to assist a future submnission of the article. What is the procedure? Shall we delete it ourselves, or shall someone else do it? Cinemapress 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article can be improved without removing it entirely? I tracked down the mementioned studios where it was seen and contacted them via email. I am told that the piece was very well received and promises to be making the circuit for years as a surreal favorite. It is understood that as an art film, it would have been rare for it to have the wide financial backing that allows mainstream blockbuster films to get press all over the world, nor would it have gotten the wide release of strongly financed films. But, from my limited research, R3tual seems well representative of "auteur" films, independent films, and experimental films of similat genre. Wiki's own definitions of art films, would seem to indicate that AS a film, R3tual is unlikely to become notable or famous, but verifications of its existance do (did) exist and should likely not have been removed. And though an IMDB profile would go far to further prove this film's existance, getting an art film listed on IMDB is likely even more difficult as geting it on Wiki. SynnManagement 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not a directory. KrakatoaKatie 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hassocks Infant School[edit]

Non-notable school for 4 to 7 year olds, prod tag removed. SolidPlaid 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, much less any evidence of it Bfigura ^(talk) 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Hassocks, No legitimate reason exists for destruction of this information, nor has any justification been offered to preclude a redirect. Alansohn 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, information is of limited value, to say the least. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly worthless. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hassocks. Seems to fit.--Victor falk 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people patiently trying to create a useful database of education within the counties of England. If you want to delete this school then there are hundreds that will require deletion. The complete database will eventually be very useful especially for people moving into an area. Please leave well alone.Paste 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those people have then missed that wikipedia is not a database. Or what next, an article for every single potential job provider in England for these people? And what about nurseries? Or are you callously indifferent to pre-school toddlers? Good grief, hundreds you say.... This could be to wikipedia what Stalin's Great Purge was to the Soviet union...--Victor falk 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This can not go on. We can not have every school on the planet. Neither let AfD be clogged by random nominations that haphazardly keep schools because enough pupils and teachers noticed the template, Amon Goeth couldn't be more arbitrary. What is the most appropriate forum on wikipedia to raise those concerns?--Victor falk 14:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The goal is not the destruction of the information, it is having elementary schools listed on the page of the town or school district they are in. There must be more than 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. Most of the pages on elementary schools consist of only its name and location. SolidPlaid 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously, the delete option is not preferred here however members of the Wikiprojects can still discussed on where it can be redirected or keep entirely although the redirect arguments appear stronger, I will let the members of Wiki Greyhawk decide where it can be redirected and info is still available for now in case some info merging is needed.--JForget 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Iuz[edit]

In universe plot summary about a fictional empire with no claim to notability. The following fictional locations from The World of Greyhawk RPG are included:

None of these articles are backed up by independent sources, context or analysis that provide evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, entirely in-universe, no outside sources demonstrating notability. A hard core of editors has been attacking the nominator for daring to nominate non-notable articles for deletion. They may make various claims, but these articles are on non-notable topics, no citations demonstrating otherwise will come to light, and these articles should be deleted. SolidPlaid 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still waiting for these "various claims" to materialize here... No? None yet?... --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I went to the trouble of typing that? To preclude such claims from being made, and thereby get these articles deleted. SolidPlaid 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-11 Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and judge for yourself. Even if Gavin has the right reasons to delete, the RPG wikiproject cannot handle all the Afd blitz. The project is already fixing their notability problem and really need a much needed respite.--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, the project is not fixing their notability problem. These articles can never achieve notability, and admitting that will allow the project to concentrate on those articles that are worth retaining. Furthermore, they can always be created anew. SolidPlaid 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it then that you removed this notability tag? [2] Or Gavin (yes, Gavin) removed this one? [3] Or this "unreferenced" tag? [4] And this prod? [5] Or that this nomination was withdrawn? [6] Adding a tag or two to an article is infinitely quicker than adding proper sources (which, admittedly, would have been better being there from the start). So the cleanup is going to take a while. Again, people aren't arguing that some good hasn't come out of recent events, but I feel the manner in which it has happened hasn't really been handled well (on both sides on the matter in some respects). I think that redirecting articles is a much better way of handling many cases (when a good target for redirection exists, as does in this case). If someone attempts to create the article in the future, they'll find that a redirect already exists, and can then figure out how to make the resulting article better (especially if some reason for the redirect is supplied in the edit summary or on the talk page when it's redirected). And I'd suggest that "never" is (almost) always a poor choice of words. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are not those articles, I guess. My goal is to comment on the articles in this AfD nomination, which are non-notable and should be deleted. I am not here to defend all of Gavin.collin's actions. SolidPlaid 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the mediation case is already closed. SolidPlaid 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, because it is not a content dispute but it shows that the RPG editors are civil enough not to go to ArbCom that quickly and gives Gavin time to consider his behaviour, time that Gavin does not give the project itself. How can they fix their notability standards if you pile Afd's on them daily?--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Pick a single article that is in this batch, and fix it up with citations demonstrating outside notability. Then point out that if you can do it for one, you could do it for all, if only you had more time. That will show that the AfD process is going too quickly, and back up your claim of needing more time. SolidPlaid 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not part of the RPG project and I do not have the expertise to help them in that matter. Besides if I do edit the articles, Gavin will point out that I'm part of the project and will put me in his "defense" as an RPG editor who is harassing him. I also noticed that you accused Gavin of deliberately tricking editors into overzealousness via Afd, something that is frowned upon by the community as gaming the system. Had these articles nominated in a different time, I'll vote for merge. But because the RPG people are already suffering under the current deadlines imposed by Gavin on his other Afd's, I believe those people needs someone to ease their burdens --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gaming participants is not the same as gaming the system. It takes two to tango. SolidPlaid 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming. However it is more often categorized as using Wikipedia to prove a point or abuse of process. Therefore gaming participants is gaming the system and two more frowned upon procedures. By the way, you still did not answer why you deliberately accused Gavin of such conduct.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, you are engaging in a strawman argument; I did not delibrately accuse G.c of "such conduct". I pointed out that he was being quite reasonable in agreeing to disagree. It was his opposition, who were desperately fighting a rear guard action to try and defend untenable positions, who played themselves. SolidPlaid 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then manipulating people to fix things for you is reasonable then? I have proven that gaming participants is gaming the system plus two more no-no's. Where is the strawman there? I looked at your defense in the RfC and found that when faced with a tough question, you don't even answer and create a whole new thread. Case and point. Last time you diverted the discussion to the Afd, this time you accuse me of strawman arguments--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Suggeston I'm leaning toward agreeing with Gavin on these nominations, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know whether these fictional places merit articles of their own or not. Maybe it would make sense to merge these into one larger article on the subject of Greyhawk itself? (I'm assuming that there is one and notability for that article has already been established, but I'm also counting on others more knowledgeable than I am in this subject to help out here.) Rray 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greyhawk (where more refs should be added too, before we get into that...) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward deleting all except Iuz, which is more notable than the others. If the appropriate project people want to do cleanup, then I'd be happy to give them some breathing room for the reasons expressed above. Thus I vote to keep without prejudice toward further deletions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why Iuz is more notable than the others? Rray 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why Iuz is more notable than the others, when it is only half finished? --Gavin Collins 07:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Being half-finished and being notable are 2 completely different things. An article's level of completion isn't an indicator one way or the other of the subject's notability. I could write a half-finished article on George W. Bush, but just because the article wasn't finished, it wouldn't make George W. Bush less notable. Rray 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to different locations Iuz is the Darth Vader of Greyhawk. I think that all articles should be redirected to Greyhawk, with the exception of Empire of Iuz, which should redirect to Iuz. Turlo Lomon 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Bissel (Greyhawk) should be deleted, and the redirect occur directly from Bissel. All material, if needed, should be merged into the appropriate articles. Turlo Lomon 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I don't understand is this could have easily been handled with a merge tag, or discussion on the talk pages. We were already discussing cleaning up this set of articles. Turlo Lomon 04:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It is this forcing people to do his bidding that caused me to go here.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Turlo Lomon. Edward321 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic Comment If Gavin took the time to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greyhawk, which all of these articles fall under, he would have seen that there were plans in place the day before he did this AfD to create the redirects that are being suggested above. Now, to stay within the boundries of Wikipedia policy, we can't do the redirects until this AfD is closed. Turlo Lomon 10:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no such thing an edit freeze during an afd. On the contrary, I think it is strongly encouraged to improve an article, at any time. Better to spend work in making the articles comply to the policies than arguing wether they do or could or not. People might like to check Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I say this not in relation to these article, but as a matter of general policy.--Victor falk 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, the project group agreed these should be redirected. However, to make a redirect work, you have to remove the AfD, which is expressly forbidden until the AfD discussion is over with. The quality of the articles is not in question. We agree with Gavin that they are not notable enough to warrent seperate articles. Turlo Lomon 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you can merge the articles if you want too, which would effectively close this AfD. I am not sure if it is standard practise, but this is what happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle HRMS. I imagine the admin would be happy as it would save him work. --Gavin Collins 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. There's a wikiproject working on this stuff. Let them do their work. Lenticel has it right: cut them some slack. AndyJones 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Turlo Lomon. Percy Snoodle 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, Remove AFD allow wikiproject Greyhawk to do their work on the timetable they believe is correct. Web Warlock 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and allow the wikiproject to work as appropriate.--Cube lurker 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. BOZ 22:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Prospect School District 57.--Alasdair 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Junior High School[edit]

Non-notable elementary school, not verifiable, no school district to redirect it to, attracting racist vandalism and prod tag removed. SolidPlaid 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Mount Prospect School District 57. No legitimate reason has been provided to refuse to consider a redirect from this article to the district article. All "racist vandalism" was removed using an apparently unfamiliar technique called "editing". Alansohn 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable, however. I left the vandalism as evidence, not because I'm unfamiliar with editing. SolidPlaid 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, we don't keep evidence of vandalism, we delete it on sight. Furthermore, Wikipedia:deletion policy is an official policy that specifies that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Removing blatant vandalism might have been a first step in a good faith effort to improve the article, an effort that is required but seems to have been ignored. Alansohn 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, still not notable, though. SolidPlaid 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NN and WP:V problems. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability whatsoever. Oppose merger, unsalvageable, you might just as write from scratch. --Victor falk 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to take a look at the article without the repeated vandalism that has been removed repeatedly since this AfD started and evaluate before insisting that the article is "unsalvageable". Alansohn 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I looked, it told us the names of some of the staff. Not notable. SolidPlaid 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Prospect School District 57. NN by itself, but the whole district would be. I already copied (merged) the content. Bearian 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - well-referenced stub. KrakatoaKatie 21:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unravel[edit]

Song was never released as a single, but apparently was used for promotional purposes by its singer. And? --zenohockey 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From WP:MUSIC: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." Since this appears to be the case, delete under CSD A7. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTiptoety 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards a keep. Has generated coverage for an award-winning video, being the favourite ever song of a notable musician, and an appearance in a book of scholarly essays describing its use of an Old Icelandic vocal technique. Most articles on singles justify their existence on less than that, which is unusual for an album track. Thomjakobsen 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I honestly did not expect there to be that much written about this song, having been jaded by unnecessary song articles before. I've grievously underestimated Björk's fans. I'd change my vote if I'd voted. --zenohockey 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's generated coverage in reliable sources and won an award, so I think that's sufficient, although it's hard to judge the significance of the award. If not kept, there is material that should be merged into Homogenic and not lost. Bondegezou 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this info can easily be included in the album's article. - eo 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD 7 and in part G11--JForget 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Souls Catholic School (South San Francisco)[edit]

Non-notable elementary school, prod tag removed. SolidPlaid 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability whatsoever (a7)--Victor falk 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Little more than a yellow book listing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BH. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN elementary school. Pig^man 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Electricity#Safety. John254 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical safety[edit]

Fails [[WP:Stating the bloody obvious]]. I mean, come on... an article about a common sense pamphlet on electrical safety? --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. I can see an article existing here, but the current context is unhelpful for anyone researching electrical safety. Violates WP:NOT#HOWTO and would violate the previously mentioned policy if indeed there was one by that name. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth gutting--Victor falk 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to Bfigura ^(talk) 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Electricity#Safety just in case people will type the term--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Lenticel said. The term is legitimate, but this article is pointless. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect per lenticel & bart133. Can I say 'speedy' too?--Victor falk 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per prior 3 editors' comments. There could be a very encyclopedic and well referenced article on electrical safety, since much has been written on the topic over the past 130 years, but this article is not the basis for such an encyclopedic article. No prejudice against a future article on the topic. Edison 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above and close per WP:SNOW. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Maybe the pamphlet that it refers to can be transwikid, if doing so is not a copyright violation. jonathon 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholocaust[edit]

article on non-notable album by previously speedied band. creator removed prod. tomasz. 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If band is not notable, then the album isn't either. Article contains little more than the track listing (aside from band members and a trivia section, neither of which belong in the article), which would normally be merged to the band's page per WP:MUSIC. Insufficent context to merit separate inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non-notable band and album Bfigura ^(talk) 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Songs or albums by deleted artists can be speedily deleted using {{db-reason}} as I've done many times before. This is no exception. Spellcast 06:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. i did not know this, but that's very useful, cheers. tomasz. 09:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, {{db-reason|Unnecessary song/album page of a deleted artist}} always works. It's just common sense. If a musician is deemed non-notable, why on Earth would their works be? Spellcast 05:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i entirely agree with yr reasoning, just didn't know we were "allowed" to do that as it were. off to have at some more albums with that line now! tomasz. 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Interactive[edit]

Delete. As per WP:Corp, NN. Endless Dan 20:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Developer behind the highly notable artificial life computer program, Creatures.-- Mik 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Company which became the Cambridge studio of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.-- Fatherivy 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Robert Stanco. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "speedied per sole contributor's request". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by pressing the "history" tab at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to spam--JForget 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KSU Jardine Apartments[edit]

Article about a non notable college residence. Rife with WP:TRIVIA and borderline promotional material that fails WP:N I was originally leaning towards speedy delete, but advertising is not blatant, so would like to garner a consensus. Rackabello 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it is very notable! Jardine Apartments was constructed sense the year of 1957. It was named after former University President William Marion Jardine. Ksuwildcats10 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.... ~~Its a blatant copyvio of [7]~~ Rackabello 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio has been removed, but still doesn't meet notability guidelines Rackabello 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete trivia, copyvio, nn, spam, coi... --Victor falk 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD G11. It's blatant advertising, the whole second half of the article is written like a brochure. Since consensus is leaning that way, I'm going to tag the page per WP:SNOW. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be edited, even if it's down to a stub, to remove the essay-ish stuff. W.marsh 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men and feminism[edit]

Essay not an article. Fails WP:NOT. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly written as an essay, and it's hard to see how it could become encyclopedic. Delete —Verrai 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:not. High risk of becoming flamebait too. --Victor falk 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. The debate over whether men can be feminists is amusing, although this isn't its intention of course. Operating 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This page scarcely reads like an essay and even if it does it needs cleanup, not deletion. Many of the views it presents are cited to reliable sources. It has all sorts of useful content, e.g. Most scholars divide male reactions to feminism into three categories: profeminist, anti-feminist, and masculinist.[1] (with a summary of each of those views). The debate over whether men can be feminists may be amusing to one reader, but it appears to be something that feminists have written and thought about, judging by the references in the section. This article is mainly the summary of a debate, attributed to reliable sources, not an essay. Calliopejen1 14:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I hear what Calliopejen1 says, and it is well sourced, but I still have reservations as to whether it is really encyclopediac. It just says "sophomore year essay" all over it to me. Would an alternative be to salvage all the supported statement relating to established feminist theory and merge it into Feminist theory? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay. If such article are to exist on WP they should be of much higher quality from the start. It is next to impossible to modify essays into proper articles and we don't need to wait few years to delete this text virtually unchanged. Pavel Vozenilek 22:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine as a stub. Bearian 22:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable neologism.--Alasdair 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webalbum[edit]

Dictionary definition that probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If not a neologism, then it should probably go to Wikitionary. Rackabello 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this line: "The first band to use this format was Misteur Valaire. Their webalbum was released on September 5th, 2007," it seems reasonable to assume that it is a neologism. The term may become notable in the future—it is at least an interesting concept—but it probably isn't notable now. Delete —Verrai 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per the above. The article is also written almost like an advert, and the only ghits I'm getting refer to images only. Even searching for "Webalbum music" only gets software that puts a image slideshow to music. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice as redundant neologism. tomasz. 10:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted - no content/A7 etc. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Album:Name TBC[edit]

rampant crystal ball use, no sources, entirely speculative, etc. tomasz. 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the article does not cite any sources (WP:OR, WP:V). The "keep" opinions do not address the relevant points of policy. Sandstein 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PassMe[edit]

Un-notable, un-sourced, hardware/software used in Nintendo DS piracy. Written like an advertisement or installation guide. Spigot Map 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article explains what PassMe does. M1N 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure..it is not only for piracy, and homebrews are an important part of gaming. articles have to start somewhere, just because the first version doesnt have 100000 words, doesnt mean that it wont be great someday.Sennen goroshi 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The device has no notability, much less enough information to warrant an article after stripping it of unverifiable/original research. Spigot Map 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no notability? a product that is sold in huge numbers all over the world is not notable? OIC. If obscure musicians and movies get a mention on wikipedia, so should this. You don't need to verify every single detail of every article - the facts are common knowledge, and unless someone disputes them, should not need to be verified.Sennen goroshi 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure/Un-notable bands get speedily deleted here. Bands need mass media coverage to be on wikipedia. Wikipedia works off verifiability, not common knowledge. Spigot Map 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are far more obscure/unverifiable articles in wikipedia than this one, instead of complaining about the article, or making veiled complaints about piracy, why don't you verify some of the article, and turn it into a great article? surely improving articles is better than removing them?Sennen goroshi 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything gets a place on Wikipedia, simple fact. And if you don't stop following me around reverting all of my edits, you will be on the Admin noticeboard. Get a life. Spigot Map 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear. I had no intention for people to get upset and emotional regarding my edits, they are edits - mere differences of opinion, nothing more. "get a life"? I don't think personal attacks are allowed in wikipedia, so I wont resort to replying with a childish insult. Following you around? well, seeing as you have been reverting an edit of mine, on an article you have never been to before, and have no connection with, it would seem that you have been following me, well feel free - have fun, I have no issues with people checking up on my edits. Please don't threaten me with the admin board, if you think I am worthy of being there, do it - otherwise there is no need to mention it. If you have any more issues regarding my edits, my wikipedia behaviour or my lack of "a life" feel free to leave your messages on my talk page, it is better to get these things out into the open, than sit there holding back. take careSennen goroshi 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in analogy to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashMe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PassMe. Sandstein 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WiFiMe[edit]

Un-notable, unsourced hardware/software for Nintendo DS piracy. Written like a forum post or installation guide. Spigot Map 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nintendo DS homebrew. Note that there are several other similar articles about other tolls that do similar things (see Nintendo DS homebrew). They are all written as manuals (how-to). --Nick Y. 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 create redirect) CitiCat^♫ 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tile mural[edit]

I prodded it with "article reads like an advertisement or how-to guide, we already have Mural, and it appears to be WP:COI - author is User:TileMural and all contributions have been to this article"; prod was removed, so I'm bringing it here Jamoche 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article's talk page and its author has already proposed a merge to tile in lieu of deletion. Since we already have an article about mural, of which this is a particular type, I concur with the author that a merge - to the mural article - would be appropriate. Computer not responding 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tile or Mural. Anti V Man 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it has been merged does not change the fact that it is basically an advertisement for tile murals (complete with an external link to a supplier). At most, "tile mural" requires a sentence or paragraph at best (are there any examples of famous tile murals to link?) Right now it reads like a product catalog. Nposs 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Mosaic, I hear tell that's what they're called. SolidPlaid 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect here, Mural#Tile_Mural. Also per Nposs, the merged form should be trimmed down to a single paragraph.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameware Development[edit]

Delete. Not notable/promo --Endless Dan 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom (NN). - Rjd0060 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Creature Labs as it contains useful information about what happened to the remnants of that company; while technically a new company, it was formed primarily from old staff and took up the old assets. However, we should be selective about what is merged - some may be more appropriate in BAMZOOKi, or left out altogether. The Gameware Development article was originally created by User:Yoyolise, who appears to be Lisa de Araujo, an employee or contractor of the company. The facts are in order but the wording may be an issue. GreenReaper 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GreenReaper. ILovePlankton 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, no citations at all even after a week on AfD. Can always be recreated later. SolidPlaid 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source material mostly press releases. If no independent reliable sources find the topic fit for their publications, Wikipedia should find the same thing. Here's some references:
- Dudley, Dominic. (January 15, 2004) Newmedia Gameware Development buys SceneMachines. Page 8.
- Screen Digest (February 2004) Business. Mergers, takeovers and investments. Issue 389; Page 39
- Televisual (February 2, 2004) CBBC adapts Fightbox concept and technology. Page 45.
- Cambridge Network (August 17, 2004) Gameware development.
- PR Newswire (March 4, 2005) CBBC Gives More Life to Successful BAMZOOKi Crossed Media TV Game Series for 2005.
- M2 Presswire (October 9, 2007) EEDA: Stephen Timms MP Announces Ten Finalists In Running The Gauntlet 2007

-- Jreferee t/c 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HollywoodChicago.com[edit]

Non-notable website that has not been deemed notable by significant coverage by any reliable source. A Google News Archive Search reflects no hits and a last-30-days search shows two passing mentions of the website. The owner of the website, Adam Fendelman, created his own article, which was deleted in snowball fashion. This website's article was created by Happynesss, identified as a sockpuppet of said website owner, an extension of his conflict of interest. A proposed deletion template added by me was removed by the same user. Due to the lack of notability by either Google search and by overwhelming AfD consensus of its site owner Adam Fendelman, his website should be deleted as well. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, non-notable website. Keb25 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, pov, unreferenced. Iamchrisryan 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, multiple failures. Deiz talk 12:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Multiple failures of notability, etc. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article aimed only to promote the author's own website. I've had previous dealings with Fendelman, where he apparently just pretended to understand Wikipedia's policies after I explained them to him, in order to get me off his back. Anyway, why wasn't this speedied as spam?--Atlan (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a plausible search term. W.marsh 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Than Fine[edit]

(contested prod) non-notable song T-rex 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be mentioned in the album at most. It's not a notable song by itself and has little potential to expand. Spellcast 06:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus of established editors is clear, this biography does not meet WP:BIO due to a lack of coverage from reliable secondary sources. — Scientizzle 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Crawford[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This person's biography doesn't meet notability guidelines. American Virgo 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person has published writings on the Internet, has worked for Apple Computers, and is developing a popular open software project and should be well known enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Anonymous users are trying to get the page deleted and some users are vandalizing the page. An anonymous user placed the deletion template on the page. Can the admins do something about the vandalism? Thanks. --Thomas Hard 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for a biography of ever single blogger on the internet. --American Virgo 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Crawford is popular, his websites get 150,000 hits a month, about as much as Maddox. Michael Crawford is popular, and thus meets the criteria for notability. He is popular for his work at Apple Computers, for his free music, and for working on open source projects for the past fifteen years (more than just Ogg Frog, he wrote some BeOS and Mac OS applications). Plus his writings are published on the Internet. Plus you are adding in personal attacks and obscenities to the article to vandalize it. Now that your vandalism is being reverted, you want the article deleted. --Thomas Hard 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody (except kuro5hin users, apparently) has ever heard of him. Having a web page, and having been a rank-and-file Apple employee in the past, does not make him notable. He is the very definition of non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.68.56 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.68.56 (talk) [reply]

His music is very popular on BitTorrent, his writings have inspired others all over the Internet, he was key to the debugging of Mac OS during a time when it was unstable, his Ogg Frog program is very popular, we is a well known Mac OS and BeOS software developer, plus he gives live concert performances with his music. He is more popular than you realize. --Thomas Hard 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Ogg Frog program is unreleased. If you believe he is "very popular" and widely known, please substantiate this with citations of reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.233 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has published music in CD format on more than one publisher and he was published on Healthyplace.com at least one of his articles he contributes to Zoolib open source programming he wrote worldservices SDK for BeOS He got an article published on Linux load generators there are more, I am researching what I can. --Thomas Hard 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That material is all self-published; being a relentless self-promoter does not make you notable. Learn about notability and reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.41 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most open source material is self published. If we apply that rule to Linus Torvalds his article would be deleted. The fact that it is noticeable is what you are ignoring here. Reliable sources are listed, and they were accepted by the publishers instead of rejected by the reliable web sites and their publishers and thus published. Please see WP:SELFPUB for more info. --Thomas Hard 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the self publication guidelines themselves. There are numerous independent articles about Linus Torvalds. There are none whatsoever about Crawford. The only place on the Internet where Crawford is known is kuro5hin and some of them think you're him. --American Virgo 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP is not even in the same state as Mr. Crawfords's IP, Wikipedia admins can verify that. You are a well known vandal and have vandalizes this article several times, along with anon IPs. If Mr. Crawford is not notable, then why is his article constantly vandalized? --Thomas Hard 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because kuro5hin is now primarily a community of trolls; your own username is Troll Hard. Constant vandalism, bickering and trolling is to be encouraged there, but it has no place on Wikipedia. The Crawford article serves no purpose except to attract this behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.187.147 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trolling in the edits I wrote. I kept it NPOV and tried my best to keep the Wikipedia rules. If someone can do a better job of the article, they are welcomed to as long as they follow Wikipedia rules. I researched links to support the article. Vandals should be blocked, why they are not blocked, I have no idea. I welcome normal Wikipedia members to look at the article and decide for themselves. Anon IPS are going wild on the article, they are the ones who are trolls. --Thomas Hard 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire article (and its accompanying kuro5hin diary, and this discussion itself) is a troll. It blatantly and uncontroversially fails the notability criterion. It seems unlikely that you (or anyone) could genuinely believe that Crawford is notable by Wikipedia standards, in which case you are either trolling or unable to interpret these simple guidelines; either situation should disqualify you from making editorial judgements or creating articles, especially about living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.52.112 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not assuming good faith. Troll Hard's diary simply states that he thinks Michael David Crawford in some way meets Wikipedia notability guidelines (by comparison to Maddox), that he is therefore writing an article about him and he would like more reference material from the man himself. What's trolling about that? Just because he has "Troll" in his username doesn't mean that the only thing he ever does is troll. 85.210.188.129 01:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed non-Troll additions to various Wikipedia articles and even have cleaned up blankings and vandalism. It is all part of my Wikipedia history. I admit I am still learning how to write Wiki articles. Never an admin around when you need one, apparently. We need someone to rule on this. --Thomas Hard 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently don't understand how Wikipedia works. It is not kuro5hin and no admin will "rule on this". Read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process to see what happens next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.51.251 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you follow it and all of the rules needed for the deletion process? Anonymous users cannot request AFDs. Read it again. You also didn't place that template in user talk pages, etc. You are the one not following the rules here. Your AFD request is pure vandalism much like the other vandals are trying to do. --Thomas Hard 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users demonstrably can request deletion, since I did. You read it again: "Anyone can make a nomination, though anonymous users can not complete the process without help from a logged-in user." (Emphasis theirs.) I made the nomination, American Virgo completed it by creating the AFD page. There's no requirement (or even suggestion) to put templates in user talk pages.

It says and I quote

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users). But I see that American Virgo just put the template on my talk page after I posted about it not being there. American Virgo is one of the users vandalizing the article, that should be noted. --19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break one[edit]

Speaking of Kuro5hin, if Rusty Foster gets an article, Michael Crawford should deserve an article as well. All Rusty did was write the Scoop CMS which is still under development, and host Kuro5hin. Outside of Kuro5hin, there is no other reference to Rusty. Outside of Kuro5hin there are many references to Michael Crawford. Michael Crawford also gets easily confused with someone with the same name as his and that has given him some notoriety as well. --Thomas Hard 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Rusty Foster is not sufficiently notable, please nominate that page for deletion; this discussion is about Michael David Crawford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.169.36 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is that if Rusty Foster is notable enough for Wikipedia and has less references than Michael Crawford, then it makes Michael Crawford notable enough for Wikipedia. I never said that Rusty Foster was not notable. If you feel so, have the deletion tag added to his article. If the community agrees that Michael Crawford is not noticeable enough, I will stand by that. But you are just an anonymous IP saying the same things over and over again, and not a credible member of Wikipedia or an admin, and your only edits seem to be the Michael Crawford article and deletion page? Why haven't you contributed to other articles if you claim to be such an expert? --Thomas Hard 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, read through WP:WAX, which discusses the comparative value of argument based on pointing out other articles that may or may not exist. Dreadstar † 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you guys need to calm down and stop arguing with other. Let the comunity deiced con-census, that's what AFD is here for. Ridernyc 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll quit. I'll let the chips fall as they may. Let the Wikipedia community decide this one, and not vandals with anonymous IPs that I am arguing with here. Just as long as someone else can revert their vandalism of the article in question. --Thomas Hard 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody semi-protect the page so we know what the hell we're reading? Torc2 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that we're seeing a protracted debate between a named user and an IP address, I think semi-protection would be a very bad idea. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm just saying, the article keeps getting vandalized by IPanon users. At least get it to a state where neutral parties like myself can read it without wondering if what's there is legitimate or vandalism. Torc2 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to say first that I'm doing my best to stay out of this debate. But I want to point out that I'm well aware I'm quite a notorious fellow on the Internet. I've written a lot of stuff that has pissed a lot of people off, and I admit that at times I've overstepped my boundaries. There are a lot of folks - particularly at Kuro5hin - who can't stand me, and are taking the opportunity to wreak their vengeance here at wikipedia. However, I want to point out that I have written quite a few articles and essays over the years. In writing them I have always worked hard to help others, whether they be about politics, software development or mental illness. MichaelCrawford 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ton of external links to prove that Mr. Crawford is notable. More will be added as they are found. I think this qualifies as more than multiple. --Thomas Hard 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Working hard to help others is laudable, writing a lot is unusual, but Wikipedia is not a roll call of the selfless and the prolific. It is a reference work for notable topics, and you obviously don't qualify. Your "notoriety" is confined to a single community site of minority interest; as Thomas Hard himself points out, even the genuinely quasi-famous founder of that site barely qualifies for a Wikipedia entry. This is no judgement of your character or worth, simply an objective analysis of your encyclopedic notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.110.220 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only thing I can find about him anywhere is his self published songs and essays. Ridernyc 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blogger from Kuro5hin who constantly vandalizes Wikipedia articles to drive traffic to his server. His Contribs page should show that he has constantly editted various articles to insert links to his own site. Not only is he non-notable but he is also a vandal who is editting Wikipedia articles for his own selfish gain. I hope an Admin will see fit to put a stop to this activity as well. --24.83.94.74 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets minimum requirements, links are citied in the external links section of the article, some to web sites that are not his, plus Rusty Foster has fewer references than Michael Crawford and they kept that page. Take into consideration that a lot of anon IPs are vandalizing the article in question, and also now voting on it and arguing over it. I suspect it is the same user hiding behind proxy servers that got vandalizations of the article reverted, so now he/she wants the article deleted. Take a good look at the article history and see such things added as Batman school of touching junk and other nonsense they keep adding to the article in order to help it get deleted faster. I could be wrong here, I admit that. But I think it meets minimum requirements. --Thomas Hard 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete He's made contributions and published his work, but the article simply doesn't have solid secondary sources. (I'd vote keep if there was any). I'd like to see this vote given a full week to see if anybody comes up with anything. Torc2 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote based on this article, which seems to satisfy the secondary source requirement. Torc2 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A single mention on linux.com does not constitute notability, and even that article appears to be a single bite in response to an otherwise failed piece of self-promotion. TomStuart 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Probably self promotion or intended for flaming/trolling. Operating 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO, no non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Google search returns few secondary independent sources. Dreadstar † 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't seem right to me that my notability should be solely determined by whether others have cited my work. Shouldn't my writing, in particular, stand on it's own merits, and be judged by having all of you read it? All but a few of my publications are freely available on the web, and were abundantly linked by Thomas Hard in his article about me. I also want to point out that it's actually the case that thousands of people have written positively about my essays - but their comments are necessarily private because they were responding to my essays on mental illness, and discussing their own, or that of their loved ones. I have also received a number of emails from mental health workers, who told me that Living with Schizoaffective Disorder helped them to understand their schizoaffective patients in a way that all their years of school and professional training was unable to. Finally, I was told that L.w.S.D. is on a reading list that the California State Department of Mental Health distributes to its employees. MichaelCrawford 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what Wiki notability is, though. Being on Wiki isn't a reflection on the quality of what you've written, the music you've composed, the work you've done, the people you've helped, or the life you've led. It's based on how all that's been absorbed and acknowledged by society and by your cultural and vocational peers. You can't work your way into Wikipedia, only other people can put you into Wikipedia. Baby Jessica has a Wikipedia article, not because she fell down a well, but because the world stopped and stared at the TV until she got out; if I fell down a well, I sure as hell wouldn't get a Wiki article just because of it. Torc2 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow editors to "judge" works. That is considered original research. Wikipedia needs attributions to independent sources to judge the quality of a work based on what secondary sources have written about it. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not able to find the California Mental Health Department's reading list online - I think it was distributed in dead-tree form; I may be able to find it by calling a mental health clinic. But I did look up links to Living with Schizoaffective Disorder at mental health websites. Here are some: schizophrenia.com mind.org.uk a schizoaffective disorder resource page Depressive Disorders Support Group successfulschizophrenia.org Schizoaffective Disorder Demystified Maija Haavisto's medical links Medicine Online PsychLinks. MichaelCrawford 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I somewhat agree with your point, I have searched outside the channels we would normally use. For example since you are programmer and you seem to be somewhat on the fringe I searched sites like digg. You would figure someone would have at least submitted one of your essays but a search of your name comes up empty. If you have as much influnce in the online world as you claim something should show up somewhere. The only things I find are things you yourself have put there. I welcome you to show me something somewhere. Ridernyc 05:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found more links, sometimes you have to search beyond the first few pages of Google. They are listed below. I hope this helps clear up some reliable sources issues for Michael. --Thomas Hard 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A booklet that references Michael's page on Schizoaffective Disorder
Michael's story is listed as a success for schizophrenia
Stumbleupon submission of Michael's healthyplace article Not Digg but close
Medicine Online list's Michael's page as experience with the disorder
Someone notice's Michael's article on schizoaffective disorder and gets informed and recommends it
Del.icio.us link to Michael's page, by someone else, 11 other user's voted it up
Linux Quality Database: One man's quest for kernel quality MC is referenced by one of his works that is cited by someone else on this Linux site
Committee on Ideological Affairs approves of one of Michael's free music links and reviews it
Contract Employees Newsletter publishes one of Michael's emails
Quayle Consulting writes an article and cites Michael as a source
One of Michael's works on Silicon Valley is cited and reviewed
College C++ material that cites Michael's notes as a reference in a PDF file
An article on music copyright that cites Michael D. Crawford
Copyright policy site lists Michael's article as a reference in notes
Free Music download site quotes Michael D. Crawford
MSN list's Michael David Crawford's album for sale and download MSN is a reliable source
A sanitarium letter review of Michael David Crawford
Last.FM Polish site lists Michael David Crawford's songs
--Thomas Hard 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook non-notable. I can't see any substantial coverage by reliable sources. One mention on linux.com (apparently as PR?) is insufficient. We can't have an article for every Linux community member. TomStuart 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break two[edit]

Delete. I can see no evidence of notability here beyond being a personality known primarily on a single website. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. This is not a negative reflection on the subject as a person, or on the quality of his music or writing. It is nice that "He has devoted his life to learning new things and helping other people out." So have I and so have many other Wikipedians, and many of us have faced challenges, too, and also fail WP:BIO. Edison 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the references to MDC's writing on mental illness given above by Thomas Hard show that the minimum level of notability for a biography can be verified. Let's work these into the article itself. 85.210.188.129 01:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this article was marked for deletion before the verified references could be added to it. It was only like two hours since the article was created and the AFD was added to it. I think we need to give it some more time to find or add in reliable references. Like I said, it meets the bare minimum. Which few people here understand what that means. --Thomas Hard 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was quickly marked for deletion because it is instantly recognizable as a non-notable biography to any competent Wikipedia user. If you need to spend days digging frantically for additional references, all of which subsequently turn out to be just as trivial and unreliable as the initial ones, the topic is by definition non-notable. As WP:BIO itself says: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."; "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." It's you who is repeatedly failing to understand this policy in particular and the concept of an encyclopedia in general. You may add another hundred Google results to the page if you like, but as long as none of them are "published non-trivial works that focus upon" MDC (and you've now demonstrated very clearly that no such works exist), they have no effect upon his notability or the validity of this article. 86.0.107.108 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have to disagree, you claim that links from MSN about MDC, aka Microsoft are trivial because Microsoft is an unknown company and an unreliable source. You also claim that Linux.com is another trivial web site and that nobody has ever heard of it and thus it is an unreliable source. You also claim that well known mental heath web sites that cite and review and use MDC's works are also trivial because mental health is trivial and Wikipedia does not cover such things. If there was a link from the BBC, or Wired, I'd guess you'd also call those sites trivial as well? Which seems to be your case here. --Thomas Hard 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read and understand more carefully: it's the coverage itself that's trivial, not the sources. WP:BIO asks for "a credible independent biography", "widespread coverage over time in the media", "demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources" or "in depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record" -- in short, enough substantial coverage to make it even remotely possible that somebody might want to look the person up in an encyclopedia. Brief, one-off, unremarkable references or links from any source, however prestigious, are explicitly insufficient; this is precisely how the quality and integrity of an encyclopedia is maintained, so that it doesn't become a useless who's-who of third-rate nobodies. Obviously you'd like for this to be a matter of (your) judgement or opinion, but unfortunately (for you) it isn't. 86.0.123.90 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, none of the sources are reliable or significant (user-/community-generated content, blogs, mailing lists, link directories) and none establishes notability. Having links on web pages is nowhere near enough, especially for someone who seems to specialize in "white hat SEO". 86.0.114.139 19:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone finds reliable third-party sources. --Delirium 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, new links are reliable not trivial. I would have voted delete, but after reading the new references, I've decided to vote keep. 66.238.233.150 14:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- 66.238.233.150 (talk · contribs · block log) is an open proxy from the Tor anonymity network. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Michael Crawford is well notable in the open source music community because of his free music downloads portal page. User 86.0.123.90 is a well known hater of Michael Crawford and also a vandal of other Wikis, I think 86.0.123.90 works for the RIAA and is trying to get free music to stop. His IP is a well known RIAA source. 82.135.15.177 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable ("widespread coverage over time in the media", "wide name recognition from reliable sources", "in depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications") in the "open source music community", please demonstrate this; your opinion is not relevant so asserting it repeatedly without evidence is pointless. Jonathan Coulton is notable according to these criteria, for example, but there is nothing here to suggest that Crawford is. 88.211.98.3 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This gentleman is relatively unknown outside Kuro5hin.org. fluxrad 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. I've already had my say but people who take the piss need deleting, that's all this article is, a piss take. Operating 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements based on the Heymann standard. Bearian 23:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heymann standard doesn't seem to apply here. The editing is rudimentary at best. There is little real content on the page. Case in point, current edit has a link to some user's del.icio.us bookmarks^[1] as evidence of MC's popularity. The majority of this article is fluff. fluxrad 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so far every attempt to prove notability on this has just amde it look worse in my eyes. Really how can people claim 2 people saving a link on del.lico.us is notable. I can show you articles. JUst becaue you can find a long lists of links has nothing to do with notabilty. Anyone who has used the net can do the same.02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary section break three[edit]

Is this a vote, a debate, a discussion, or a WWE Professional Wrestling Match? At this point I am quite confused. We seem to have a lot of anon IPs, a lot of personal attacks, a lot of fallacies, and a lot of haters. While some agree that Mr. Crawford is notable, we have others claiming he is not notable. I admit I am new here, and I thought Mr. Crawford was notable. I admit I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying to learn the guidelines here. I myself had to take a break from it for family issues unrelated to the article in question. The main argument seems to be what is a reliable link, if it is or isn't trivial, and we seem to be debating over that. I respect other people's opinions that Mr. Crawford is not notable, but I happen to disagree with that opinion and so apparently do other people as well. Can't we just settle this like reasonable adults in some civilized manner? There are no need for personal attacks, fallacies, etc. Can we keep it clean now and give peace a chance? --Thomas Hard 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The main thing for you to understand, as a new Wikipedia user, is that notability has nothing (directly) to do with links. You're tying yourself in knots trying to find more and more Google results to substantiate Crawford's notability, but these only diminish his standing because every internet user in the world can potentially have hundreds of links from blogs, bookmark sites, link directories, discussion forums and review pages. As David Weinberger said: "on the Web, everyone is famous to 15 people". Consider how many people in the world are in bands, for example; all of these people release albums and regularly perform to hundreds of fans, but a vanishingly small percentage of them have risen to high enough prominence to be considered notable, even if their recordings and performances have been reviewed many times on many web sites. Wikipedia would quickly become useless if it had a page for every band, every journalist, every writer, every blogger, every programmer, no matter how good those people may be and how much their circle of friends may love them. The internet is so democratic (especially since "web 2.0" took hold) that you can't demonstrate notability by accumulating web pages that simply link to or briefly mention the subject. Becoming a positive contributor to Wiklpedia involves learning to disregard your own opinions ("but he's notable to me!") and look objectively at topics in a global context. If you can accept this fundamental editorial principle and move on, rather than continuing to battle against it and treat it as a "debate" or an "opinion", the discussion will benefit greatly. 88.211.98.3 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 13:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ sorormystica's bookmarks tagged with "schizophrenia" on del.icio.us

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allard[edit]

Put this up for speedy deletion but it got turned down. Can find no information on this artists notability. Ridernyc 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless other evidence of notability exists. I don't believe that charting in Quebec only meets WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would like to add that I cna not find any mention of this Jonathan Allard on google. Also a search for the name plus Ratounette returns 0 ghits. So as far as we can tell this is a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in Quebec you might have to search French, is there a spelling error perhaps?JJJ999 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles author has been active everyday since the nomination, if there is some mistake they could have presented something to prove notability by now.Ridernyc 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this school per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golborne High School[edit]

Speedy keep - nom withdrawn. Missed or did not see the BBC coverage. Thanks to all. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.--Victor falk 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Keep--Victor falk 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found some citations, also high schools are generally keepers. SolidPlaid 22:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? Why for?--Victor falk 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, high school is where most people start doing notable things, and since most high schools have lots of students over the years, something notable usually turns up. They're like small towns with high rates of population turnover. Any given high school has an alumni population on the order of 50,000. And that doesn't include the usual spate of newspaper articles on the school itself. SolidPlaid 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes most or almost all of them notable then. Why not say all high schools are automatically notable then?--Victor falk 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because a small, recently opened high school might not be notable. SolidPlaid 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep information added to the article using reliable and verifiable sources demonstrates notability. Alansohn 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No arguments towards passing WP:FICTION, and redundancy. CitiCat^♫ 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Stargate[edit]

Half-formed pointless page already long subsumed by an entire category of Stargate character (and race/culture, etc.) list articles. See {{StargateLists}}. Easily misleads editors into thinking that this is "the" WP article on this topic, when it is in fact not even a proper overview of the topic. And it is not even on a single topic, but mixes characters and character races/cultures as the same type of entry. Also named incorrectly (should be "List of...") The content in it should be merged as needed into the entries at the related lists of SG cultures, SG characters, etc. May also be wise to make it a redir to a disambiguation page at a more likely-to-be-sought name, probably List of Stargate characters with additional redirects to that from List of Stargate SG-1 characters, etc., so that readers looking for such lists but who have yet to run into the navbox template mentioned above can more easily find them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The article as it sits is problematic. Foremost is a misleading title, where I am presented not with characters, but with a racial overview with points to some of the characters of those races. Characters != races. This is a useful clearing house and there does not seem to be a single article which presents this information clearly. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into disambiguation page. This article duplicates information that is already better covered in Aliens in Stargate, Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1 and Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis (plus a few more), so the information should be deleted as unnecessary. The title of the article however is so wiki-mainstream that it should be kept as a dab page portal. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the current Harry Potter (disambiguation) page. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and possibly rename. This page centralizes the information disperse on other pages, making it easier to navigate and understand. Perhaps it should be renamed and reworked a bit, but NOT deleted. --Andromeda 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It does not "centralize" anything at all; it very, very poorly attempts to be a substitute for far richer articles. I agree with Sgeureka (and myself; I initially proposed this after all) that it can be replaced with a disambiguation page that directs people to the list articles that have already been developed. The entire page could easily fit in one screenful. The information at the page right now is 100% redundant with real articles on the relevant topics, and misleading to readers because it does not serve properly as a DAB page that directs them to the real articles (most readers would be lucky to notice that such articles even exist, as they have to read a small-font nav box to find them at all; converting this page to a DAB would solve that problem.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This in universe article provides no real world context, analysis, critisism or secondary sources to demonstrate notability for this character summary. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable source material independent of Stargate keeps this topic from meeting the general notability guidelines. Since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines, the article cannot comply with Wikipedia's article standards, including WP:A. -- Jreferee t/c 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, list of NN characters, from a sci fi show. People really need to start putting these massive pop culture databases on wikia. Also if we get rid of this there are a ton of other pages that should go List of Stargate lists. 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Tilde error by User:Ridernyc 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis and Alien races in the Stargate universe.--Addhoc 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. SolidPlaid 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. It's a duplication of efforts elsewhere. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asean Reinsurance[edit]

Does not satisfy notability as it stands. Wizardman 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even assert notability. Cap'n Walker 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minimal information, Is not notable per corporation notability. No sources. Mike6271 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ink and Paint Club[edit]

At 5am Disney Channel used to show old cartoons. They called this "the ink and paint club", but since nobody was watching it has not really gained any external attention. Cruftbane 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pertinent info with The Disney Channel Rackabello 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was zOMG delete!!!111 - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfbbq[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- WP:NOT OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - WP:NOT, per nom. Tiptoety 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In particular, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Reliable sources would be needed. --B. Wolterding 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it to List of Internet slang phrases#O so it hits "OMGWTFBBQ". Tarc 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article sourced only by UrbanDictionary has no hope of being kept. I wouldn't even bother redirecting it, as it's (by far) less-used than the more common version with OMG before it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Internet slang phrases Funny, we have a policy specifically for this one: WP:OMGWTFBBQ. Absolutely unencyclopedic, and both entries can be found in List of Internet slang phrases already. There's no reason to have an article with both combined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But for what it's worth, WP:OMGWTFBBQ is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. Yngvarr (t) (c) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. I was hoping the article would explain why BBQ was in here, but I guess it really is more idiotic random humor. JuJube 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef, WP:NOT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moxi whippet[edit]

Dog fails WP:N. What? This seems a case of broader interest, that's why I'm bringing it here. Yes, Wikipedia covers subjects which won notable awards. I, however, do not think that "Best of Breed award at the Westminster Kennel Club", and the like, are notable awards in this sense. They are just a bit too specialized to prove notability for an encyclopedia, and they do not imply (for all I can see) that the winner of such award receives substantial secondary coverage, outside a small circle of club members. Several in-depth articles in the mainstream press, and I'd change my opinion. One TV coverage is claimed, but whether that is enough to warrant an article about the dog remains open. (Do we want to cover any animal that appears on TV?) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and if the children ask, she's um... went to work on a farm. The article on Crufts only lists the breeds of the last ten winners, and that's the most notable dog show internationally. A brief TV appearance doesn't really count. There do seem to be articles on famous dogs: see Blondi and even Category:Famous dogs, but the key word does seem to be "famous". Thomjakobsen 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the dog had wont "Best In Show" it would be notable, but not just "Best Of Breed" as there are too many recognised breeds. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please tell me we're not going to start having articles on all prizewinning dogs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for all I care I will tell you: We're not going to start having articles on all prizewinning dogs. But my influence is limited... --B. Wolterding 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the only one for now. One too many? Thomjakobsen 20:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "James' Page" remains the only source: Yes. --B. Wolterding 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and prodded. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wicks[edit]

Seemingly autobiographical page (based on the user name), does not assert notability in field (per WP:N, seems to plug self-owned business as well. Amnewsboy 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well-traveled anchor "up and down the dial" but no apparent notability. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 11:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as passing WP:PROF. One minor typo noted. Bearian 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Mithen[edit]

No assertion of notability of subject, and article was created to create a false sense of notability in order to violate WP:POINT in order to support OR and synthesis by this article's creator in Origin of religion. MSJapan 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person is a noted archaeologist and meets all the standards of notability required for wikipedia. Muntuwandi 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do continue and explain to us how and why he is notable.PelleSmith 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not voting here because on principle I don't like the idea of judging entry contents based on the behavior of editors. However, the creation of this entry was disruptive and the existence of entries like it, when created under these circumstances will only continue to cause problems for Wikipedia. We don't want to establish a precedent for editors to create entries in order to buttress a point. Likewise, entries like this one might get the axe because of the disruptive behavior that begot them without being judged fairly by those who could actually determine the notability of the subject. I sure can't in this instance. I wonder if the proper route here is not to delete the entry but to look into the disruptive pattern of editing from whence it came.PelleSmith 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know nothing about the aforementioned edit wars, but this person doesn't seem to pass the WP:PROF test. Cap'n Walker 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't think you have read the article, he actually meets all of the requirements. Mithen Books Muntuwandi 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether the article was created to "buttress a point or not" that offers no rationale for deletion. (Buttressing substantive points is what we do, by providing sourcing and context. WP:POINT refers to disruptive activity.) The individual seems notable whether or not his positions are considered mainstream: A dialog in the New York Review of Books is a very high indicator of notability to me. Additionally there are reviews in American Scientist and Edge Magazine all on the first page of google results. There doesn't seem to be any real question of notability. Please handle your issues in the other article through standard procedures. --Dhartung | Talk 11:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has quite a number of books over many years, several of them very well-known, and copublished in the US by Harvard University Press. I added the others from WorldCat, and sorted out his other recent publications. His four best known books are each held in many hundreds of public and academic libraries. Three of his books have been translated into other languages, including Spanish, Japanese and Turkish, a further indication of notability. As Dhartung says, if an article is challenged because of lack of a notable proponent, showing its proponent is conventionally notable is a perfectly reasonable response. Indeed, nominating that author for deletion is what seems to me rather closer to POINT. DGG (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criteria G12. Sam Blacketer 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy j. goodwin[edit]

nn person (2.5k ghits) - reads like an ad with no WP:RS provided. (Contested speedy) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of this website. So tagged. --Evb-wiki 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish the notability of this book per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female Chauvinist Pigs[edit]

No assertion of importance of work, no evidence given of external references or reviews. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously notable, references now provided from two major news sources from different parts of the world, referred to as "wave-making" in one of those two references. Do some homework before nominating an article for deletion Speedy Keep —Verrai 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down, the article is now cited and it's unlikely to be deleted. What, exactly, is your problem? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - His problem is that there seems to be an influx of Wikipedia editors who refuse to do research on a particular topic, even so much as a Google search, and instead go forward to delete it.--WaltCip 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems like the kind of situation could have called for a polite suggestion rather than a brusque command, but hey... maybe civility is dead. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Problem is that its a popular book on Amazon with 88 user reviews. You should have done some basic research before nominating for Afd rather than having us do it. Operating 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of pages for the community to review: Before nominating an AfD and AfD Wikietiquette. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the book is clearly notable. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (1) Amazon.com user reviews are not a particularly good indicator of notability IMO. Completely subject to gaming and piling on. (2) A review describing something as "wave-making" is reviewer hyperbole (prospective, at that) and not evidence of actual waves made. (3) Two published reviews barely qualifies as "multiple published reviews" per WP:BK but whatever, I've seen other reviews of it so I'm sure they could be found. (4) I do not believe this work is particularly notable: It has not yet, and I would be very surprised if in the future it makes any kind of impact on the world, any social movement, any cultural practice, academic thought, or anything else. Will it become the name or face of a movement? Will it set any publishing records? Will it even be remembered 10 years from now? I doubt it. We use the objective notability indicia as proxies to get at real notability, and while this book scrapes by on the "reviews" criteria (which are evidence of notability but not notability itself), come on. This book is, when all is said and done, one instance of a set of books whose reason for being might make interesting articles if it could be sourced ("responses to feminism in modern american culture" or "books lamenting these kids today" or "books critiquing the trend du jour"). --lquilter 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and reviewed (regular press) book. JJL 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll be happy to provide the deleted article's text to anyone who asks. If I'm not here, another admin can do it. KrakatoaKatie 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Wild Westmar Show[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable internet radio show. Notability concerns have been dismissed with the addition of a single internet based report on a regional media website. I have been unable to find mentions in any significant, reliable sources, let alone coverage that indicates notability. SiobhanHansa 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, Sirhan Sirhan. It's extremely sad that some of you have nothing better to do than to judge people's reliability and notability with regards to entries in a pretend encyclopedia that is desperately trying to make itself "notable" and "reliable". This page has been up for nearly a year and I worked my butt off on it along with some help from a few others. While the show's feed is broadcast through the internet, it is internationally syndicated on AM and FM stations in both the U.S. and the U.K. It's not an "internet radio show". Just because it hasn't been mentioned in Time Magazine, doesn't mean it's not "notable". Sure, I've seen other entries of lame, made-up shows and stations. People try that kind of stuff. But you're messing around with the wrong show. Give me some credit. The page is good, and you know it. I'll see what i can do about getting the LA Times to do a story on it.

I do, however, apologize for "dismissing" the notability concerns. I was unaware that i was supposed to continue putting links on the page and wait for the "God Of Wikipedia" to dismiss it. It would be nice if, instead of trying to flex your fake muscles on a fake encyclopedia about what you deem as a fake radio show, you do a little more than just "googling" the show name to deem it "non-notable". Why don't you take a listen to the show and decide for yourself if it's "notable" or "significant"?

There are so many things I could say, but you Nancies have already made up your minds so what's the point? Herbert Arthur 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If you really want the article kept, add reliable sources that actually support the facts stated in the article. Throwing tantrums isn't going to help your case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article was created (by you) in April of this year, so it's hardly been "up for nearly a year". I'd also suggest that you peruse WP:NPA. Deor 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Listening to the show could not tell me if it were notable. It might tell me that I think it's excellent, but it doesn't tell me anything at all about its notability or significance. There are plenty of talented people and great ideas that don't get the attention some of their less good brethren do. I watched for some time as others brought up the same concerns and you dismissed them without addressing them. I hoped you would provide more, but when you did not provide anything to verify your claims, deleted the tags that would have encouraged others to work onthe issues, and I couldn't find anything myself, there weren't many other routes to go. If there is evidence to verify the show's notability - even its national syndication over the air if coverage is truly significant, then personally I'd be inclined to change my mind. -- SiobhanHansa 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, also apparently a WP:COI case (see this edit). As far as I can tell, we don't even have an article on the station this show runs on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like that would make a difference.

I have seen far sloppier and unreliable pages on wiki than this one. You guys really need to pick and choose a little bit better before going after articles for deletion. But hey, whatever. Have your fun and if the hard work on this article goes to waste and you end up causing it to get deleted, I hope it helps you sleep better at night. Herbert Arthur 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument. Please add reliable sources if they exist, and the problem will be solved. Please read and take to heart WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. bikeable (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to use that as an argument, Einstein. Seriously, "reliable sources" for a radio show? What are "reliable sources" for a radio show?? There are like 30 stations listed in the article that air the show every week. Sounds reliable to me. Like I said, you Wanna-Be's have already made up your mind...Herbert Arthur 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see: the The Howard Stern Show article has 53 references, among them the New York Times, Time Magazine, Wall Street Journal, and other national publications. A radio show needs to have reliable sources, just like any other article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, ladies...maybe you can explain to me the NEED for the sources. It seems to me you're calling me a liar with regards to this article. I worked extremely hard to keep things neutral from day one and you're still throwing it under the bus. In one breath you tell me that if I am "too close to the show" (whatever that is), I shouldn't be writing about it. In another breath you're telling me that the show isn't important enough for me to write about it unless I can show it has been mentioned in some major publication. You guys have way too many complicated guidelines here. Oh well...whatever.Herbert Arthur 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources would be most likely to be reviews or interviews with Westmar about the show printed in notable websites or magazines. Possibly a reliable, independent ratings listing or other comparison with other radio shows. what it isn't is a bunch of fans saying how good the show is. Our need for sources is in our verifiability policy which requires sources as a form of due diligence, since we are trying to be an encyclopedia, not simply a place where people write about stuff they like. -- SiobhanHansa 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not that hard to understand: I could write the most authoritative article about myself, but I am not a good source to write about myself because a) I am probably biased, and b) I have plenty of access to information that cannot be checked by anyone else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being able to double-check information is fundamental. No one is calling you a liar, but without verifiable sources the information in wikipedia is utterly useless, so yes, it is a guideline we stick close to. I am amused, incidentally, that you seem to think that "ladies" is a clever insult. bikeable (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article cites nothing to establish notability that meets the requirements of the Notability Guideline. Zero hits when I searched Google News and Google News Archive. Since Google tracks 4500 different news media sources, this show seems to be flying under the radar. If someone digs up something that fixes this, then I'm certainly willing to change my "delete". --A. B. ^(talk) 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching The Kansas City Star's archives back to 1991, I find nothing for "Wild Wild Westmar" or "Brad Westmar" -- must be pretty obscure not to make the local newspaper. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the local alternative newspaper, The Pitch, I did find a letter to the editor from Herbert plugging the show after the paper failed to include it in their article on local Internet radio. Nothing else, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During said letter to the editor, Herbert rather amusingly admits the show is "being broadcast in someone's basement". Speaking of amusement, did anyone else notice that Herbert has admitted being associated with the show here on Wikipedia but didn't see fit to mention that in his letter to the editor? Oopsies! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already discussed my affiliation with the show in another spot on wiki. I am NOT affiliated with the show in the regards that you are thinking. I made a mistake in another spot.

I find it amusing that Wiki doesn't want people AFFILIATED with a subject to write the article, but they also don't want FANS of the subject to write the article. Who else is there!? Ridiculous.....Herbert Arthur 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah blah. Which one of you put the "fan site" tag on this now? Could you please point out to me where there is any "excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." Herbert Arthur 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good to see that at least some of you guys (and girls) are doing some fair research on the subject. I will say this, when this is all over with I am going to go on a crusade to have ALL radio show pages flagged and/or deleted that don't have "notable sources" listed. I can't thank you people enough for setting me straight with regards to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Arthur (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, also if kept the article needs to be massively rewritten, right now it;s little more then a trivia list. Ridernyc 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Ridernyc...I'll begin my own crusade against other pages just like this one very soon. I modeled this article after a few others that are still up and running. But I'll put an end to that! Then I can become a part of the team! Herbert Arthur 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you flag non-notable pages in a tactful way, it would be very helpful. You can use the {{notability}} template. Just don't disrupt things to make a point; we've got a rule about that, too (WP:POINT). Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. It will be tactful and legitimate. Several sections of this article are modeled after two or three other radio show entries on Wiki, including the Show Segments part that Ridernyc is calling "Trivia". Herbert Arthur 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again would like to ask whoever flagged this place as "fan site" to explain where there is any ""excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." Herbert Arthur 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the entire show segments section is trivia, as defined by WP:Trivia. Ridernyc 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm flattered by all of the people that are so passionate about this. But I must say I didn't need a bunch of Wikipedians to tell me I am "non-notable" - I already knew it. B.Westmar 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media references aside, what exactly makes a show "notable"? You mentioned The Howard Stern Show as notable. I've listened to Howard for years and I can't say there's a single thing that stands out. Does having porn star guests regularly qualify as notable? Hours of filler fluff (granted that the show is on daily for several hours,this is to be expected, but for Howard it reaches new heights) makes it notable? Shock factor? What show doesn't try to be edgy these days? This just seems like an illogical example in every way. It's a show you listen to while you're busy with something else and you're not willing to devote your full attention. Shouldn't innovation in segments be a major criteria?

I'm sorry, I'm just not grasping what exactly you're asking from them other than "give me a call when you make a front page"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absintheur77 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Absintheur Superieure 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:NOTABILITY Ridernyc 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of "outside the box" thinking going on about this, Absintheur77. I can admit that I was hot-headed yesterday, which caused everyone here to fire back at me. Fair enough. But surely there's a more balanced way to look at this. I've been looking at the talk pages of other radio shows that have entries similar to ours, and they are having a civil discussion about what's "notable" or "acceptable" for the entry and what's not. The problem we have here is, these people are comparing The WWW Show to Howard Stern and automatically dismissing the show as useless and worthless to wikipedia because it hasn't had an article written about it in a major publication. Sadly, that's just the way it is around here. Black or white. Nothing in between. Herbert Arthur 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for closing admin Should this end in a deletion I suggest the content be userfied for Herbert Arthur, who has been the principal author. -- SiobhanHansa 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Notability page: "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". In other words, if it has extensive media coverage. Case in point; after reading the page it's still "give me a call when you make a front page". I can understand asking for media sources, I just don't believe it should be a concrete requirement in every case. The segments are certainly innovative and the execution combined with the show talent makes it notable in my book. A "Name That Tune" segment, for instance, may sound ordinary on paper, but given the guest host they utilize for this segment it makes it anything but.

Also, the individual that identified this as "Trivia"-based is delusional; this claim is as absurd as it is unfounded to any listener of the show.

On a side-note, The Opie and Anthony Show I see has an almost ridiculously long-winded page, essentially for being completely without moral standards. Controversy is in fact notable, I'm not arguing this point, but to host such a lowbrow entry and then deny a page for a show that is genuinely innovative such as this just doesn't seem right. Perhaps if The WWW Show follows suit and also makes jokes about brutally raping Condoleeza Rice to garner national attention they might have a page too... Absintheur Superieure 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absintheur, don't rape anyone -- just get a good solid article (not a passing mention) about WWW in the Kansas City Star and then get in touch with SiobhanHansa about resurrecting the article. As for the problems with other articles in Wikipedia -- there are a ton! Feel free to work on these others -- just make sure you don't get obnoxious to make a point. Wikipedia is not censored so that means lowbrow content gets covered -- like it or not, we even have hundreds of pages on porn stars and unusual sex acts.--A. B. ^(talk) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "I can understand asking for media sources, I just don't believe it should be a concrete requirement in every case." WP:V, which I suggest you read, is a Wikipedia core policy. Without a requirement that reliable sources be provided, anyone could add anything to the encyclopedia, true or not. Surely you see the problems that would cause. Deor 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original research. KrakatoaKatie 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German collective guilt[edit]

I have grave ~~doubts~~ fears that this article is going to remain as it is, and as such, it repeats material already present in existing articles, without substantially addressing the issue predicated by its title. So far, it does so only in what is almost a footnote. On that basis, I suspect the article is polemical rather than informative, and intended to be so, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia in its current form. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep You said "I suspect the article is polemical rather than informative, and intended to be so, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia in its current form" yet you also said "I have grave doubts that this article is going to remain as it is". That's contradicting yourself. The subject of this article is definitly notable and exists--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps I didn't make my nomination clear. I should have said "I have grave fears that this article is going to remain as it is", and accordingly have corrected the nomination. Sure, the subject exists and is notable, but is not addressed by about 90% of the article as it stands. Nor, in my opinion, is it ever likely to. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting an article on Karl Jaspers's ideas on the culpability of the German citizenry for Nazi atrocities, but this is a non-neutral essay arguing for one extreme of that debate, and does so by synthesizing descriptions of those atrocities, together with election results and unbalanced arguments on internal resistance. Although some scholarly sources are quoted (e.g. the work on the letters of soldiers), these are not works on the "collective guilt" idea and so using them to supportthe article's position is original research. As the article is virtually all presentation of historical narrative, with no basis in discussion of the theme in proper secondary sources, I can't see what would be salvageable for a proper article on the topic. In contrast, the de-wiki article on "collective guilt" discusses scholarly work on the concept more generally, with the bulk of the article relating to the Third Reich, around which most of that work centres. Thomjakobsen 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a properly written article based on secondary sources would be fine, and there's a suggestion at Guilt#Collective guilt for that section to be broken out into a standalone article. I'm not disputing the notability of the topic, just pointing out that the current article is completely unsuitable and would need rewriting from scratch, so there's little point in keeping if none of the content is usable. Thomjakobsen 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the assertion there that "Collective guilt is the controversial collectivist idea that..." (italics mine), which emphasises that this is not a universally accepted idea, making it more important that any article be based around secondary sources. Thomjakobsen 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite with more academic sources. - Darwinek 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has to be rewritten as you say rather than built upon the existing one, the existing one is not worthy to be kept. Should be deleted to make room for a new article. --Irpen 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darwinek. There seem to be at least several academic sources we could use for that ([8]). PS. de:Kollektivschuld should be translated, indeed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the article based on the sources devoted to its subject? --Irpen 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page which won't prevent someone from writing the article on topic. AfD is not about the notability of the topic but about the article we have at hand. This article's subject is War crimes of Nazi Germany. While a related subject, this is not the same issue as the German collective guilt, which should be written based on the sources that cover this topic rather than by pasting material from already existing articles under a new name. If the topic is notable but the article is bad, keeping only makes sense if the article can be repaired to reflect the title. This article cannot be repaired. It would have to be rewritten. Hence, the current fork is useless and should be deleted. --Irpen 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about war crimes, not collective guilt, the subject matter is dealt with elsewhere. Operating 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that article is about war crimes and not at all about German collective guilt. In fact, it seems to dwell on German enthusiasm for the war crimes. --Mattisse 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Are any comments really necessary? Dr. Dan 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Mattisse 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by my vote and comment! Dr. Dan 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is POV, and off topic, and written in bad faith. I had read this article on the German minority in Poland's was used as forced labor for many years, and their subsequent silence due to westerners belief in collective guilt. This led me to start contemplating starting an article on the mainly psychological topics collective guilt, responsibility and punishment. Unfortunately I once again had a run-in with the author if this "article", who preceded to tell his friend about the article I was structuring in my sandbox. Then he started editing...--Stor stark7 ^Talk 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - "German collective Guilt", come on, that bases guilt of a crime on the fact that someone is of a certain race. 25% of Americans claim German ancestry, so thus by using the term "German Collective Guilt" we are assuming 1 in every 4 American citizens are mass murderers. --Jadger 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dr. Dan. Sigh. heqs ·:. 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete off-topic, POV and no signs of improvement. M.K. 15:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thomjakobsen has explained that the article is original research in the form of synthesis. The article does not cite scholarly secondary sources which discuss "German collective guilt." Rather, it cites the evils of the Nazis and statements by German 19th century leaders which seem consonant with Nazi evils. It is inherently POV and polemic. Similar articles could be written about most countries, similar to the series "Allegations of war crimes/apartheid/racism by the U.S/Israel/etc." "Collective U.S. guilt" could cover slavery. "Collective Belgian guilt" could cover actions in the Belgian Congo. "Collective British guilt" could cover maltreatment of civilians during the Boer War. "Collective French guilt" could focus on the tactics used against the Algerians during the struggle for indep[endence in that country. "Collective Egyptian guilt" could cover the persecution of various peoples by the Pharoahs of ancient times. Like this article, each could ignore the rest of the history of the country. None of those article would likely satisfy the requirement of NPOV coverage of a topic, but historic citations could be assembled to show that people of that place did some bad things in the era of interest to the writer. Edison 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepAlso comment-the article is very young, it still needs development but already contains unique and rare data-for example polls concerning support of German population for genocide of Jews and Poles, analysis of Wehrmacht soldier's letters and reactions. Please consider that there is a lot of time to expand this article, and deleting it right now would erase much valuable information. I personally am comitted to expanding it in time--Molobo 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Ideological rant based on amateurish history approach. This kind of articles, if they are to be kept on WP, need to have much higher standard from the very beginning. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - bah, revanchism at the fullest with an sore aftertaste. how can anyone these times support concept of collective guilt, didn't you learn a thing from history?-Lokyz 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not here to support or condemn existing concepts but to document them in the best way possible (which the article doesn't). Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment*-Per suggestion I will use information from here to expand other articles.--Molobo 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, hopefully you have read some of the comments on this talk page. If this is the information you will use, "from here", to expand other articles, you'll do just fine. Dr. Dan 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "Collective guilt of the Italians" for the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Edison 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to the gas chamber Wikipedia is not the place for rants. Jtrainor 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleteAlmost hinges on POV pushing, all of it is convered elsewhere. Phgao 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane E. Burkett[edit]

Headers in ALL CAPS, appears to be notable for being gay. Sexual preferences do not constitute notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shane E. Burkett is Tennessee's first on many accounts. You may visit Google and simply type his name in and click submit for pages of information. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Mymarketpro 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)]] comment added by Mymarketpro (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to have actually accomplished anything. NawlinWiki 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fortunately, we have reached the day when just being the first gay candidate for office in a state is no longer notable. Despite several narrowly-defined "firsts", this individual is well short of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I live in Nashville. I voted in this election. I never heard of this guy. And I did a Google news search...the only hits I got were for a golfer and a (potentially this guy) groomsman at a couple of weddings. Considering how easy it is to run for Metro Council, losing a race doesn't make you notable. Also, being gay doesn't make you any more notable than being black or being tired. If you did something non-notable, then it doesn't make you notable.Smashville 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that this is fruitful information. I was just researching political "groundbreaking" people, win or lose and am including this guy in my report. I think the style needs a little work though - it sounds a little "personal bio" however, I think this one should remain on wikipedia and toned down to just simple facts(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.191.28 (talk)
- Comment. This IP's only edits have been to the article and the related AfD. Smashville 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep many firsts, but needs more verification. Bearian 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one reliable source, and it made it clear that this man is a candidate (and not even a winning candidate) for a city council. I'm not convinced that city council members are inherently notable in the way that, say, state governors are, but even if they were, this man never actually held that office, and there's a real dearth of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I'm gay, and have never held public office... am I notable? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politically and culturally significant personage. A lot more encyclopaedic than the juvenilia on tv programs and video games that seems to so fascinate so many editors here, and which fills these pages without drawing as much as a second glance from the deletion crews. Haiduc 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete First of all, it's not sexual "preference". Do you prefer one over the other but could conscientiously do both? I didn't think so. WP:NPOV. ~~Unfortunately, without any references and sources, I'll have to go weak delete on this one. Should sources and references be found and added, I'll change.~~ As was pointed out below, I don't see the notability in him. Had he been Tennessee's first openly gay elected politician or seat specific (ie: First openly gay member of TN House of Reps or TN Senate or Nashville Mayor or TN elected to US House or US Senate or VP or President), then I'd say keep but what is he really notable for? Running for office openly gay even though that hasn't been sourced yet? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Queerudite 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were the first openly gay elected politician in TN, that would be notable. But he lost. Fireplace 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business Development Outlook Magazine[edit]

First edit by account, something like an ad- probably nn: 683 ghits.

Potential SPA, possibly even COI. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non notable business magazine. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the minimal basic requirement: does not have an ISSN, and is not listed in the standard directory, Ulrich's, under any variation of the title, print or online. apparently a medium for advertisng. DGG (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers 6[edit]

Sports team fails WP:ORG; no independent sources are given. The article was listed in a mass nomination in February, and while that AfD was closed as "keep", it seems from the discussion that opinions on this particular article were different. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:Notability cOrneLlrOckEy 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails notability criteria as it did when I slapped {{prod}} on it —WAvegetarian (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY standard. Bearian 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Spence[edit]

WP:BLP. User who asserts that he is the subject has taken issue with the accuracy of this article and has requested deletion on the talk page. There are personal facts contained in the article that lack clear attribution, but I'm merely nominating it as a courtesy. Evb-wiki 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest clearing up the factual inaccuracies to get it right. 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factual statements would need to be verifiable. --Evb-wiki 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Factually accurate or not (the Talk page comment is not clear about what facts are disputed), I agree that this individual is not notable. There are a smattering of Google results indicating that he has an interesting job, but that isn't notability. No reason to keep this article given that the subject apparently objects. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - the original reasoning for keeping this article was the noteworthiness of the best-selling book on amazon.com published by Harper Collins. It was on this basis that the article is up there. If the subject did indeed object he should have raised an issue months ago when the article was first posted. -- 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As he is a new user and not a regular contributor, it is doubtful he was aware of it months ago. --Evb-wiki 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - He was aware months ago of the article because he was told about it and made no complaint at the time but only became a member to come online stating recently the facts were inaccurate and misrepresentative. Checking the history shows that he has subsequently changed some information to improve the reporting. Concerning the other entry about the subject not being noteworthy for having achieved anything notable, at the start of this article shortly after it was first posted it was asserted that the reason for the noteworthiness of the subject was the best-selling book. This was accepted. So now it appears that the main issue here is to get the facts right. (JB) -- 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that he was told about the article months ago? Anyway, he can still object to inaccuracies and request deletion if it is not fixed. And, not only do the facts have to be correct, they must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. As it stands, the article violates WP:BLP. --Evb-wiki 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - On the 4th of August he became aware of the article. This can be proven through email records. He only became a member in early October. This is TWO months later. How was the information suddenly accurate on 4th of August and then in October its not. Follows no logic at all. The book can easily be reference on http://www.amazon.com by doing a search for 'global warming' or 'chris spence'. What else do you need? (JB) Johnobrien98 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "the book"; it's about Chris Spence. Please review Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons. --Evb-wiki 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Of course that much is obvious. But the point is when this article was first listed it was determined on Wikipedia by the reviewer that the subject was indeed noteworthy because he had written a best-selling book with Harper Collins. Same reason JK Rowling is noteworthy for having written Harry Potter. This evidence can be found at http://www.amazon.com . 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs)} 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think is not factual or neutral now following the corrections by the subject. If you point out this can be improved as required. (JB) Johnobrien98 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official Wikipedia policy of WP:BLP specifically requires verifiability and prohibits original research. Since you apparently know Mr. Spence, please also see WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The information concerning Mr Spence is verifiable via amazon.com and google.com. The article should state just the facts. But not sure what is the issue now? If it is whether the subject is noteworthy then this issue was discussed and resolved in August 2007 when the conclusion was the book made the subject noteworthy. If it concerns the factual verifiability of the information it now appears Mr. Spence has edited the page to ensure that the page it is factually correct. Not sure, what you want to do? Are you requesting more information to prove that the subject is noteworthy beyond amazon.com or what do you want exactly? (JB) -- Johnobrien98 (talk · contribs · logs) 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator any factual assertion that is not attributed to a reliable source per WP:BLP. --Evb-wiki 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it will be done. The only things being left in there are the book, which can be verified on http://www.amazon.com , and the work related stuff which is verifiable on the page of New Zealand Drug Foundation and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. -- 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Everything is now factual and can be verified. The parts that the subject took exception to as not being neutral are no longer in the article. 85.142.226.26 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited or not, there isn't a sufficient assertion of notability to warrant keeping. Caknuck 15:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY. I just added information from nine different sources. I only looked for sources that address Chris Spence in the context of global warming. His global warming opinions have not been well received and likely other reliable sources will provide more biographical information on Chris Spence as part of their coverage of his opinions. Also, he is thirty seven years old and has done other things over the past seventeen years likely to have received coveage. There is enough independent reliable source material to write a verifiable article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Given the additional sources and coverage added by Jreferee. That's good enough for me. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Catto[edit]

No indication of notability. h2g2bob (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading what does appear to be factual on the article, he seems to have published enough papers and garnered enough accolades for at least a short article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whoever listed this WP Article for Deletion must think (I'm exagerating of course) that physicists on WP must be in the class of Newton or Einstein (or be a Nobel Laureate) to be qualified for an article on WP; this physicist has clearly published enough, and his discussed work is linked to sufficient WP other articles and concepts to qualify the article as notable by WP standards. --Ludvikus 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 Independently available, peer-reviewed, cited, & published articles as follows: [9]. Ludvikus 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is professors job to write articles. Other professors have hundreds of them. 13 no big deal. What is most important is how they are judged be peers. `'Míkka 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep.~~ just a bit above an "average professor", if judged from the article, but chances are growing. `'Míkka 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Changed my vote after noticing that the only claim of notability is Benjamin W. Lee Prize, which itself cannot be verified and information about it unreferenced in wikipedia and moreover controversial (who issues it). "recently he is completing a book" is only a promise I talkked above. No big deal. See him in wikipedia when he finishes the book. `'Míkka 06:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, you will be surprized how many different "Lee Prizes" and "lee Awards" exist.:-) `'Míkka 06:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The publication and citation record looks a bit light to me, and I can't dig up much else in the way of external recognition. I'm not convinced the Lee award is sufficiently important to count for much. —David Eppstein 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless stronger references come along. 13 published articles is not all that many for an academic. Have they been widely cited? Has he had any influence in the field? I am also very dubious about the veracity of the personal details in the article that are by and large completely unsourced, even to self-published biographies. I believe that User:Ludvikus is likely either the article's subject or a friend of his, and appears unable to follow Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and No Original Research when it comes to this subject. I feel he would be wise to leave editing the article to others, if it is kept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted a large amount of the unsourced biographical information, and gave a reference to his position at CUNY. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The publications listed are virtually all self-published. They have to meet minimal presentational and academic standards for the archive (maintained at Cornell University), and that's it. At least one is a very short (4 page) copy of a talk. Of the remaining 3, one is in a collection of working papers from an international workshop, one is a multi-authored 5 page letter printed in the journal Physics Letters described by the journal as "short communication", and one is in the The Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, a publication reserved for short papers (under 10 pages). It does not appear in their prestigious main journal, The Journal of the American Mathematical Society or even their Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. Citations, apart from self reference are virtually nil at both Cite Base and Google Scholar. The only book that he is listed as having 'authored' is not actually authored - he was a co-editor of a collection of conference papers (not all by him). They're a dime a dozen in academia, and often edited by graduate students. Is the conference even notable? Note that the author of Sultan Catto also created this article International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics.) In sum, this is not a particularly distinguished publishing record even by academic standards. The fact that his name appears in the Wikipedia articles of two notable physicists means nothing. The author of this article added his name as a "distinguished student" of Feza Gürsey (not referenced), as well as one of the winners of the Benjamin W. Lee Prize., which is not particularly prestigious (see here for more on the notability of the prize (or lack of it).Voceditenore 07:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. --Crusio 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete In general, I'd think CUNY probably more able to judge notability than people around here. But there do seem to be some dubious elements. He is not Professor at Rockefeller, he was Visiting Professor, not nearly as significant. His web page as well as the article shows a distinct tendency to emphasize association with the more famous, the page with his full list of publications was not working, and "completing a book on..." arouses a certain skepticism that there isn't much better to say. The notability of scientists is the notability of their work, and its not the number of papers or their place of publication that is primary, but what people think of them. (Just as it's not number of novels that makes a notable novelist, but their readership and reviews. Jane Austen's 6 is more than Barbara Cartland's 600). For the published articles, Web of Science shows 10 items, with the most referred to being cited 21, 9, and 7 times--which nobody would call significant. But sometimes nowadays some people do publish primarily in arXiv, and rely on the citations there to establish their reputation. So looking at the citations there, 13 items are listed, none have more than 8 citations, equally insignificant. Something must have impressed CUNY, but none of us here can figure out what. Delete unless someone can explain. DGG (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Ball Sport[edit]

Procedural AfD nomination: I have removed the Speedy Deletion tag from this page, because I do not believe it meets the criteria. I personally am neutral on the article, as I think it contains enough context about this game. Rjd0060 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its not a sport and it's no way notable. Operating 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that it is not a sport, it is a game. Notability is not huge, but I guess it is out there. - Rjd0060 01:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though difficult to Google effectively, the "game" doesn't seem notable outside of a few small groups of friends. The idea of lighting a tennis ball on fire and kicking it, I have a feeling, has been "invented" a number of times (likely combined with the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol).
Keep. I think you're doubting the level of interest in 'fireball' my college has a Juggling Society, who had a fireball tournament in which over 25 teams of 4 played. I mean its probably not going to appear in the Olympics any time soon, but I still think it is of note. humblefool ® 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete--JForget 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 11#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism for related vote to this list. Similarly, this list was created from a deleted category (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish Orthodox anti-Zionists and the result was Listify and then Delete.) created by a banned user known for his use of sockpuppets and for creating POV magnets for disputes (Eidah (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet of Daniel575 (talk · contribs)) openly violating WP:POVFORK. This category is only about some Haredi groups and individuals who do not "self-identify" as "Orthodox" nor do the vast majority of Orthodox and Haredi Jews agree with the positions of those extremely fanatical Haredim who are vocally "anti-Zionists" so that the "Orthodox Jewish" is totally inappropriate and redundant as well. During a recent vote Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism a number of editors suggested that that category be renamed to a more specific name. If this article cannot be renamed to List of Haredi anti-Zionists then it should be deleted so as not to benefit a Troll (Internet), see WP:TROLL IZAK 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Delete for above reasons. IZAK 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these seven blue-links aren't in an article about Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, they don't rate a separate (useless) list like this one. Mandsford 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-delete The category needs to be edited, most listed are NK, but to leave Reb Yoilish ZT"L, Rav Shternbuch SHLIT"A, and Rav Miller ZT"L. --Shuliavrumi 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, when there will be a List of Jewish Orthodox Zionists, then an Admin must undelete this.--יודל 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot understand the reason proposed for deletion of this article. The article is a list of Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists. Is anything wrong with that? What difference does it make who created the article—surely it stands or falls on its own merits? The persons listed most certainly do identify as Orthodox Jews—is this seriously in dispute? --Redaktor 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- whats so hard to understand that a list is different from an article?, an article is nothing but the subject itself, a list is more of a editing process and less about the subject like a normal issue, u have to really ask yourself is this an issue? 5 jews who have some opinion? are that important to have their own article about their opinion? i don't think so, but if Izak or any other Zionist editor will make a list of Jews who have a Zionist opinion i will recreate this list as well. because than i believe those 5 are just as important as the other Jews.--יודל 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This category implies that these people are all Orthodox and they have gone too far from what "Orthodox Judaism" defines. Haredi Anti-Zionist might be a better title, but not all Haredim are Anti-Zionist. I mean, they might not agree with Zionism but they won't ever shake hands with Ahmadinejad! But the people listed are definitely anti-Zionist and the world is aware of that. Why isn't it renamed "List of Anti-Zionist Jews"? --JewBask 12:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced original research. `'Míkka 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel 05:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rol Cortishane[edit]

Cruft about a book not released yet, most likely by its author. I'll be nominating a few other pages with it once I get the templates up. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they're also about the same book:[reply]

Keep It's a character in a incomplete series, not a incomplete book. [10] [11] [12] [13] Rocket000 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rocket000. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to an article about the series itself. None of this guy's books have their own articles yet, so having articles about parts of their contents is sort of putting the cart before the horse. And I would like to emphasize slight merge because, as it stands now, this is OR, lacking reliable third-party sources. - Che Neuvara 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the series themselves are notable, then this can be merged into an article on the series (without the excessive plot summary). If they aren't notable, then neither are the characters, so then these articles would have to be deleted. Melsaran (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Sufficient reference material for an article. Being about the same book is not a sufficient reason to delete Fleam the sword and Weren. They should have been nominated separately. Here is some for Rol Cortishane:
- Cooke, Paul. (November 6, 2004) Birmingham Post Books: Reviews: The mark of a good read. The Mark of Ran by Paul Kearney, Bantam Press. pounds 10.99. Reviewed by Paul Cooke. Section: Features; Page 53.
- The Canberra Times (June 12, 2005) Take three: Firethorn By Sarah Micklem. HarperCollins. 387pp. $29.95.
- Southland Times (July 9, 2005) Action and intrigue. Section: Features Books; Page 7.
- ThisisBradford.co.uk (January 6, 2006) Book Reviews: The Sea Beggars: The Mark of Ran -- Paul Kearney. Section: Features.
- Kallam, Clay. (February 5, 2006) Contra Costa Times Worlds beyond: Slightly sketchy "Children" builds on series. Section: Features; Page F4.
- Boisvert, Will. (December 8, 2006) Entertainment Weekly This Forsaken Earth. Section: The reviews: Books; Issue 910; Page 100.

-- Jreferee t/c 16:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Monsters[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements for inclusion of a TV series in Wikipedia Rwzehner 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Rwzehner 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) [reply]
Merge Over to Jeff Corwin. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above - Rjd0060 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not a series but a one-shot special. Does that change how it should be dealt with? (I recently helped repair this article from a hoax, but I am not at all sure about its notability) J. Spencer 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna (band)[edit]

Simple article on a band with no sources and little assertion (and no proof) of notability. Nyttend 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, and not really notable. - Rjd0060 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, has nothing on the article to show notability. Mike6271 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Party (Canadian political party)[edit]

This "political party" is not registered with Elections Canada and has never fielded a candidate. It is nothing more than a satirical website, and not a very notable one at that. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Party Party's website states at the bottom: "The Party Party is a satirical site, presenting fictional and imaginary situations and should be regarded as such". --Evb-wiki 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ground Zero | t 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Party of Canada[edit]

According to the article, this "political party" was never registered as a legal party with Elections Canada. Furthermore, it only ran one candidate, who only got 85 votes. This isn't really a political party, it's just the political views of one independent candidate. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on currently available info, just not notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- a summarized version should be incorporated into Independent candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. If there is consensus against keeping the article, I will volunteer to do this. There is some content worth keeping, even if it does not merit its own article. Ground Zero | t 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Ground Zero not notable enough for own article but agree some content should be kept in Independent candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Davewild 07:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion has run its course, I have merged the text into Independent candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. I will redirect, and close. Ground Zero | t 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Number 57‎ (CSD G7: Author requests deletion by blanking the page). Non-admin closure. shoy 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Weddings & Honeymoons[edit]

Three lines of padding to justify a piece of linkspam. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per WP:CSD#g7 (author blanked). Tagged. - Rjd0060 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vickers[edit]

Non-notable undrafted former division II player. Never played in the NFL, played on the practice squad for the Eagles (from which he was cut). Doesn't meet any WP:BIO criteria, as he has never been involved in an official professional football competition and didn't play at the highest amateur level (DI). Smashville 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cap'n Walker 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN -Rjd0060 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: --Phbasketball6 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: Didn't realize he wwas on a current NFL roster, as Horrorshowj pointed out. In that case he should be kept. Bjewiki 10:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not on the roster, he's on the practice squad. According to this, it looks like there are no plans to add him to the active roster Smashville 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's signed with the Ravens, and is one of 2 healthy TE on the team. So he may have his regular season appearance within the next few weeks. Already has a few preseason, although those don't count for us. Horrorshowj 05:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now on Ravens' roster. --Louis Alberto Guel 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No he isn't...he's on the Ravens practice squad. Smashville 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Louis meant that he's now on the Template:Baltimore_Ravens_roster Bjewiki 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being on a template doesn't make someone notable...and per the below comment, being on someone's payroll doesn't make you notable. He doesn't "play for the Ravens". He's paid by the Ravens to practice. He doesn't even meet the basic WP:BIO requirement. Smashville 03:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every player under contract with an NFL team is notable enough, in my opinion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - While the electroconvulsive therapy controversy topic may be legitimate (see Missed seizures and the bilateral-unilateral electroconvulsive therapy controversy), Electroconvulsive therapy first sentence states "Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) ... is a controversial psychiatric treatment." That supports the below position that Electroconvulsive therapy controversy is an unnecessary content fork of electroconvulsive therapy. No evidence has been presented that this article was an agreed upon spinoff from Electroconvulsive therapy or agreed upon spinoff from any other article. Rather than addresses the major aspects of the controversaries surrounding electroconvulsive therapy, consensus is that this fork improperly goes into unnecessary details. -- Jreferee t/c 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electroconvulsive therapy controversy[edit]

Reason There isn't really an entity called "the electroconvulsive therapy controversy" (although the treatment is controversial). Controversial aspects of the treatment should be covered in the main article. Staug73 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork = bad. There's not even a link back to the parent. --UsaSatsui 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Controversry does not belong in the main article, minority and majority opinion do. See Big Jim's opinion on this topic. Also see fringe opinion under NPOV. For issues such as often recited contention that ECT causes brain damage ECT controversy is the place for such material to be aired out.--scuro 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is biased and a lot of it is untrue. Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.55.213 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The first rationale is irrelevant. If we need to have an article, we have to call it something, and by convention the name is agreed on by editor consensus. If you don't like the name, start a move request and get input on a better one. The second one is subjective. The rule should never be to stuff everything into one article. The rule should be to split out subarticles where material is inappropriately overwhelming the article. In this case, electroconvulsive therapy itself looks to be somewhere good to very good in terms of referencing and coverage. This article isn't a break-out section, though, it's something of a WP:POVFORK, and needs improvement to either merge relevant material into the main article or combine it with other material to make a more neutral presentation of the sourced material that is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Although I would agree that controversial aspects should be listed on the main page of the article, there is justification because POV may play an issue. However, a separate article is not needed, as it is possible to remain neutral while explaining the controversy of the treatments. Using its talk page would be the best place to discuss this. As such, I support the nomination to delete the article and have it merged with the main one. MasterXC 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into Electroconvulsive therapy, and how much is "useful" is debatable. Although the article is sourced, and there is a disagreement over this type of treatment, the writing leaves a lot to be desired. The article opens the controversy with : "A study by Freeman and Kendell (1980) found two deaths out of 183 ECT patients at Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Scotland, in 1976. That gives a death rate of a little over one per cent." Maybe "that" does, maybe not. How did they die? Electrocution? Suicide? Did Freeman and Kendell draw a conclusion, or did the author divide 2/183. This looks like part of a college student's term paper rather than an encylcopedia article Mandsford 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging any useful content to Electroconvulsive therapy. Like Mandsford, I am wary of how much of this is unwarranted conclusions drawn from the referenced data. The main article would be the best place to develop a neutral and balanced account of the various criticisms of ECT. Espresso Addict 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+redirect any useful contents to Electroconvulsive therapy#Adverse effects, per dhartung, mandsford and the espresso addict --Victor falk 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in the rare event it contains anything useful that's not already there, merge that to the ECT article.Merkinsmum 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If this is a fork then it should be de-forked. Deletion would be POV pushing the same as if it were a deletion from the main page. - perfectblue 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undo fork The process cannot be "fork content, delete POV fork". This stuff needs to be merged back into the parent article and/or it's content discussed on that articles talk page. A mere deletion of this page won't suffice. The fork shouldn't be deleted until the content is settled on the parent article. zoney ♣ talk 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly. Just deleting is sweeping the problem under the carpet, and begging for it starting all over again in the future.--Victor falk 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentYou can put things on a controversy page that wouldn't make it on to a main page in the form seen on the controversy page. Why? Since the topic is controversy you can explore "controversial" issues in greater depth. The viewpoint on the issue may be neither minority or majority opinion. Secondly, not as many editors care as much about the controversy page so some of the stuff sticks to the page even though it probably shouldn't be there. Controversy often also has "fringe" opinions or poorly cited opinions that rarely offer good secondary sources to support these opinions. You may also see story telling....a linkage of ideas to create narrative masquerading as fact. If the article is deleted, it shouldn't be assumed that the content will stick on the main ECT page.--scuro 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it. Too much cleanup to find any merge-able content. It's not worth saving. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can stay as a Psychiatric abuse topic, in addition to article Electroconvulsive therapy which describes this as "legitimate" treatment.Biophys 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Of course ECT is controversial! This article is a POV fork. Take out the cruft and merge it into the ECT aritcle as suggested by perfectblue et al. Bearian 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Carpet Grave[edit]

Disputed prod, AFDing as a favor to another user. It's crystalballery to be sure. UsaSatsui 14:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, crystal ball, doesn't assert notability at present. --Oxymoron⁸³ 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no evidence given for claims made in this article. Highly doubt it's anything more than rumours. Zazaban 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when it's a hit. Until then, keep today's exciting "Marilyn Manson News" in the main article. Mandsford 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, there's no reason to believe it's going to be the next single whatsoever. So it shouldn't be in the main article either.. Zazaban 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no source, crystall ball. Goldenglove^{Contribs · Talk} 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cirillo[edit]

Unsourced non-notable, no real claim except a book & couple of videos Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really noteable at least the way the article is written. Its an obiturary.Peter Rehse 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable on WP standards Neozoon 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This man deserves to have his obit expanded to include better information. As part of the NYPD Stakeout squad he not only was involved in 17 gunfights, he killed several felons. He has more documented experience in gunfights than most "legendary" old west gunfighters. When I need to know about someone, I go to Wikipedia......I wanted to know how many armed robbers Cirillo killed during his time with NYPD; I bet I am not the last person to look for this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.51.180 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources such as newspaper articles for any of this? If so it would cause a rethink otherwise is unverifiable so no use--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verification of notability, fails to meet the standards of WP:N VanTucky ^Talk 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, was curious why the article was deleted. A major biography on Cirillo is in the works and should be available by the spring of 2008. Maybe it can serve as an appropriate source for a future article. User:Jsf67

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E A Southee Public School[edit]

Non notable primary school established in 1969. Fails them all; WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Twenty Years 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you forgot WP:NFO (:.. --Victor falk 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, what's WP:NFO? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"wikipedia is not a collection on indiscriminate information"--Victor falk 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cootamundra btw is a fairly small country town, so it's not even a large suburban primary school. Orderinchaos 11:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. Not sure how being a rural school makes it less notable that a school in the suburbs, however. At the primary school level, size is unlikely to be a factor in determining notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Plan[edit]

Orphaned, no cats, NN. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 13:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator. Definitely not notable. An article on car discounts for Ford employees? Come on. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — it's pretty common for a new article to have no categories and to be orphaned. These are not reasons for deletion. Perhaps after some time an orphaned article might be deleted, but really after only a week? Rich257 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with Rich, however this article doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Then again, the article hasn't been given enough time to prove that it has potential.Darkcraft 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, after a week of no improvement, no sources, no references and also being orphaned and no cats wasn't the only reason.. there's also the notability aspect. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WITH FULL FORCE Wikipedia does not bend to corporate interests. How is this more notable than other such purchasing initiatives? Ichormosquito 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I live in a GM town and have an uncle who worked in Detroit for each of the Big Three. Every manufacturer has something like this and the terms change on a regular basis as they try to clear inventory, etc. They all work pretty much the same way, though. Nothing notable here. It was notable when after 9/11 a couple of the plans were extended to the general public, purportedly on the same terms, but even that is hardly worth an article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible plan is delete non-notable info about spam, no other way to describe this article.--Victor falk 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable discount scheme for Ford workers.--Gavin Collins 07:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though relatively weakly. The existence of these programmes generally might support an article, though, and the existence of car-maker incentives are fairly widely known, but individual manufacturer's programs probably do not rate. The curent title is baldly unsatisfactory and ambiguous in English. Note also that our incentive program article is in a pitiful state, and rather spammy. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Hop[edit]

original research, neologism with about 5 relevant ghits, top of which is Wikipedia. "Grim Hop combines such elements as Rap, Hip hop, Soul Music, Jazz and R&B and sometimes Rock Music elements." what hip-hop doesn't do that? tomasz. 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. note that this has already gone once. tomasz. 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Oxymoron⁸³ 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem you went a source. I'm the source i am a professional producer from detroit my debut album and many more has used the Grim Hop genre on professional albums, posters, high lighted on show venues on the east coast as well as the south. I'm sorry you feel this is not a fact. In fact some not all is adding the Grim Hop genre to the list with other genre. Its so many genre Wikipedia have in articles just like this one. Whats the problem with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aredies (talk • contribs)

Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another non-notable musical genre that someone invented and decided it needed a Wikipedia article. --Bongwarrior 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced neologism for a style of music which, even reading the article multiple times, I can't for the life of me work out what it would sound like. That is to say, it seems to sound exactly like other hip-hop from this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Sifting through some rhetorical questions about what is notable to people who like the games, which is not relevant to our policies, the consensus was that these lists constitute a violation of the undue weight clause, present an indiscriminate collection of information, and most importantly contain no encyclopedic information that is verifiable. As the nomination said (and this was never countered) the only sources are gaming websites and the soundtracks themself. I will of course happily make the content available to anyone wishing to transwiki any info, but it's their responsibility to make sure that the GFDL is observed. Chick Bowen 01:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Need for Speed soundtracks[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Per my deletion argument for FIFA series soundtracks (I didn't realise these ones existed at the time, or I would have bundled them all together), here's why we don't need these:

Notability - the only sources these soundtracks have (not that any but Need for Speed and NBA Live cite sources anyway) are such gaming sites as ign, gamespot, teamxbox etc. who report on many such aspects of games as and when they are announced by the publisher. This does not comprise significant coverage as each game's soundtrack is not discussed in any meaningful way, just listed, somtimes along with a bit of press-release blurb.
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Each game's soundtrack has no meaningful connection to the others in its series and so listing them together serves no real purpose.
WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Notable elements of soundtracks should be written about (not listed) in each game's article.
WP:WEIGHT - the soundtracks have little to no impact on the games themselves, and their importance is being highly overstated by giving them seperate articles. Again, the most notable elements of each soundtack should be mentioned on the pages of the games in question. Considering there's the EA Trax parent article too, these individual lists are simply unnecessary detail.
Guidelines for video game articles - "[articles should not contain] an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". Simply being true and verifyable is no reason for inclusion. If necessary, these lists should be transferred to a suitable gaming wiki - they can always be linked to from the game articles.
Also per general WP:CVG concensus that video game lists have to demonstrate a very good reason for existing, and these simply don't.

So yeah, it's gamecruft isn't it. Why do Electronic Arts deserve articles on their game soundtracks? Very few (if any) other publishers have this kind of coverage on WP. Also, please note that List of Need for Speed soundtracks contains info on two compilation albums based on music from Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Of course real albums can be given their own article/s if notable enough, but I would say these should almost certainly be merged into Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Miremare 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect and transwikify per nom and FIFA precedent. No use in arguing everything twice. User:Krator (t c) 14:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom: Good points on everything. Not encyclopedic. Good job! - Rjd0060 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing else I can say that the nominator has not, but delete. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The information for the soundtracks could be added to their respective articles, and then the articles themselves deleted. Otherwise, Keep. -- Mik 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: Soundtracks that receive OST album releases are notable, and we have plenty of such articles, but lists of songs that play during a game are not. So Keep and clean up List of Need for Speed soundtracks to only include the albums and delete the other articles unless it is shown that they recieved album releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeizureDog (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly moving to gaming wiki I am moving it to the Encyclopedia Gamia under the soundtrack section of the games so don't quite delete them yet. I probably will be done on October 14 --Cs california 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have NHL series soundtracks going into the NHL series article, we already have every game of the series crammed in there. Why is that? If each game had it's own article, I'd have nothing against taking down the article and putting each individuals soundtrack with it's respective game. FogDevil 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the point is that the soundtracks aren't notable - there's no need for them to be listed in their respective articles and indeed they shouldn't be. Miremare 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are they not notable? They're notable to me and whoever else likes these games.FogDevil 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They may be notable within the context of the game itself, but not to the world in general, and this is a general encyclopedia. Unless independent notability can be proven with multiple reliable independent sources, each providing significant coverage to the subject, they are not notable as far as Wikipedia (see WP:N)is concerned. Miremare 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Bearian 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Not notable to the world in general? There's tonnes of stuff not notable to me on Wikipedia that I don't care about, I suppose they should get deleted too? And if this pointless deletion does happen, will the soundtracks go with each games own article then? FogDevil 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Psychiatric abuse[edit]

This article was deleted through its prior AfD. DRV determined that a relisting was warranted, so that the full range of sources and improvements added during the AfD could be properly evaluated. Consult the DRV for a list of these new sources. Concerns remain regarding whether the article constitutes OR/SYN or WP:COATRACK. Deletion is on the table, and creative solutions like renaming or merging are encouraged. Xoloz 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are about 3 articles such as antipsychiatry Scientology and psychiatry that all the content of this could be 'incorporated into or probably already is present in. Maybe create a redirect to antipsych.Merkinsmum 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - The collation of items under this heading implies psychiatry is inherently abusive. If we keep this we may as well have Surgical abuse and Abuse by Republicans. Are the individual episodes noteworthy? absolutely. Are there controversial ethical issues in psychiatry? You bet! A much beeter structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Casliber. I agree that an Ethical issues/controversies format would be much more likely to be acceptable. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; any information found in this article has better homes elsewhere (some good examples given above, as well as the * government abuse of psychiatry articles). The rest is either original research, or carefully cherry-picked snippets to push a point of view. For that matter; the very article title begs the question and is unsalvageable POV. — Coren ^(talk) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Move to a less-inflammatory title. I'd call it "Scientologist views concerning 'psychiatric abuse'", and incorporate that into one article. While I strongly disagree with Tom Cruise, et al., about the evils of psychiatry, I say, "Know thy enemy". I think we should be aware of this part of Scientologist propaganda. If we don't know what their argument is, how do we spot the flaws in the reasoning? One can refuse to read Mein Kampf as a matter of principle, or one can read it as a record of someone's bizarre conspiracy theory. Mandsford 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading Scientology and psychiatry (which Merkinsmum linked above) and the article on Citizens Commission on Human Rights (linked from the first), it is apparent that this is a PoV fork and has no place in Wikipedia. Delete and salt. (This represents a change from my position in the original discussion, in which I was not opposed to recreation under a different name. After further reading, I am convinced that it should not be in Wikipedia in this format. I strongly believe that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the propagation of Scientologist dogma.) Horologium t-c 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Piggybacking on ideas raised in the first AfD (by The Anome), I've proposed in article Talk that we set up a disambiguation page. As above, the DAB could be a more NPOV Ethical issues in psychiatry, or the like, with a redirect from Psychiatric abuse. Or vice versa. As you'll see from the proposal, it already lists the specific links (e.g., for professional ethics, political abuses, anti-P, CofS). If we go this route, the AfD would close with permission to redirect (or disambiguate) from the existing title. HG | Talk 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DAB is now set up as Ethical issues in psychiatry. Perhaps efforts to Rename/Move and fine tune the DAB should be discussed on its Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again under the title Psychiatric ethics or Ethics in psychiatry. To move in this direction with the present content will be too difficult. These alternate titles will provide an NPOV framework from which to begin. Marskell 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article title is too general. The result the article is a collection of unrelated subjects. The lead sentence says it all: Psychiatric abuse is a generic term for real and alleged mistreatment of people under psychiatric care by doctors, middle-medical personnel or orderlies. However, the reference to that sentence specifically refers to the USSR and says: Based on the generally accepted definition, we correctly term the utilisation of psychiatry for the punishment of political dissidents as torture.??? Is it like Child abuse? Maybe Psychiatric abuse means abuse of psychiatrists. --Mattisse 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- “Article title too general” is not a reasonable argument for deletion. Encyclopedias should have general articles. “abuse of psychiatrists” is not a logical interpretation of the title. In the end, your arguments are for a rename to a more narrowly defined subject, and for improvement to the article. These are arguments against deletion. --SmokeyJoe 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unprofessional, overbroad, vague, even self-contradictory at times. I'd suggest a redirect to medical ethics, if a redlink is deemed too tantalizing. The disambig solution proposed by HG above should be deleted as well. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep: Encyclopedic topic; should not be deleted based on justifications that amount to little more than politically correct doublespeak. Ombudsman 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Useful. By the way, which of the speedy keep criteria do you believe this discussion meets? MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of cherry-picked events that are not given just treatment by being bundled into this agenda pushing mish-mash. There may be the makings of an article somewhere in here, relating to to ethics. But this article, titled as it is, isn't it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many editors noted the original research and synthetic aspects of this article in the original AfD. I see no reason to disagree with that. The article is unsalvageable from an NPOV perspective, given that it was evidently created with the highly POV premise of exposing the supposed evils of psychiatry (as reflected in its title). Articles that are inherently POV have no place here, and they don't become "encyclopedic" merely by virtue of serving the political agenda of a particular faction. I should add that this isn't exclusively "Scientologycruft". The original author of the article is a self-declared Scientologist, so Scientology's anti-psychiatric dogma is certainly a factor. However, the anti-psychiatric movement involves more than just Scientology - it's part of a wider fringe anti-medicine movement (anti-vaccines, anti-pharma etc). Some of the !votes here clearly reflect that agenda (check out User:Ombudsman's user page and contributions, for instance). -- ChrisO 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to new title, give it a massive rewrite, then keep. Delete (see below). While this article is a POV-laden mess, I reluctantly recognise that the concept is sufficiently notable for inclusion, albeit with a considerably less inflammatory name. I suggest Psychiatry controversy, as it could then be merged with the fairly neutral and well-sourced material at Psychiatry#Controversy to create a new article, covering these allegations from the anti-psychiatry movement together with any other controversies. Essentially, this article isn't worthy of inclusion, but there probably is room for a neutral, referenced article on allegations of malpractice in psychiatry. I don't mind if this gets deleted, but I'm just trying to provide suggestions for a more constructive alternative. Terraxos 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the psychiatry controversy? What is the central concept you think could be salvaged? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the various allegations made by the anti-psychiatry movement. I don't think they're remotely justified, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them. On second thoughts though, that material is already covered at anti-psychiatry - so this article probably should be deleted after all. Terraxos 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a recommendation for Salting the earth so this POV-coatrack-tree can never grow again. Clear POV fork, Scientologycruft. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. POV fork and WP:COATRACK composed of carefully mined snippets of individually notable incidents mushed together under a hopelessly arbitrary and POV umbrella. What's wrong with the handful of POV forks we already have which are dedicated to critcizing psychiatry? Do we need another? There is a bit of novel, notable material here which could be renamed to political abuse of psychiatry or merged into psikhushka; the rest should be merged into Psychiatry#controversy, Anti-psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy, Scientology and psychiatry, or any of the other POV forks we already enjoy. MastCell ^Talk 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same reasoning as with the first AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Scientology viewpoint is only one aspect of the article. This article deserves a place on its own merit. Axl 08:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced to reliable and reputable independent sources. The article title, although accused of being POV, is itself well sourced. There is a place for this article. POV issues will be a concern, but that is an editing issue. We should not deal with controversial issues by deleting them! Other articles may contain similar material. However, of the other articles offered as examples, they are in worse shape than this one. In any case, if material here should be elsewhere, then deletion is not the answer. Material can be moved. The article can become a redirect. GFDL requires that the article history remain available. There are some peculiarly vehement calls for deletion citing arguments not usually considered arguments for deletion (some original research; material exists elsewhere). There seems to be some raw nerve here with a lot of people. Perhaps I need to encounter scientology to understand. I think these people should calm down. The subject exists and is covered by suitable sources. The article is appropriate for the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, synthesis of loosely related topics the authors feel are related. Then there is "Psychiatric abuse is defined as human rights abuses such as torture by psychiatric scholars," which calls up images of how these scholars might go about torturing their victims. There could be separate articles about Soviet use (and more recent Russian use) of mental hospitals to silence dissidents, which has little in common with overuse of electroshock or lobotomies in other countries. Edison 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ROFLed at the concept of "how these scholars might go about torturing their victims." Through interminable lectures in med school, perhaps? :-) -- ChrisO 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MastCell. Any useful information should be put into one of the articles listed at the dab page Ethical issues in psychiatry created by HG. shoy 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- HG is helpfully trying to better organize material. If all of the material in this article belongs in the collection of other articles, then this article should be redirected to the dab page Ethical issues in psychiatry. Why do you want to suppress the article’s history? --SmokeyJoe 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, SmokeyJoe. There are ways to restore both the article's content, history and talk page, for use elsewhere and GFDL aspects, even after deletion. Incidentally, like you, I suggest that the title serve as a redirect, though I believe this would be compatible with the underlying intent of most "delete" votes. HG | Talk 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that contrary to a common misperception, undeletion is only a temporary option. Deletion means deletion. --SmokeyJoe 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a collection of rag-tag, unrelated to each other in scope or temporal occurenceevents that happen to involve psychiatry. Circeus 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, still. Per Mastcell, Casliber, Circeus and ChrisO. Anything worthy of inclusion belongs in separate articles to avoid coatrack and synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of articles cannot be built as a collection of semi-random facts and links from Wikipedia. If such a synthetic text is to stay on WP it should be of very high quality from the very beginning and needs to be based on an accepted scholar resource. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm now convinced that the material worth keeping ought to be placed elsewhere, such as in similar existing articles or in new, more topical articles that have less chance to wander astray. The current article name is problematic. –Outriggr § 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. When voting for delete, it might help if folks clarify whether you would accept (or oppose) using "Psychiatric abuse" as a redirect, either directly to Scientology and psychiatry or to the new dab Ethical issues in psychiatry, which links to Scientology. The term is verifiable for CofS. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy to see it remain as a redirect. Terraxos 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge position inherently includes a redirect request. A deletion request does not. However, once the article and its history are deleted, listing it as a redirect would not violated CSD G4 - Recreation of material deleted at an XfD, so there is no reason to clarify in this AfD whether "Psychiatric abuse" is a needed redirect. Of course, if you are looking for a delete close that preserves external Wikipedia linkable access the article history while listing the article as a redirect, that's not going to happen. -- Jreferee t/c 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having an interest in medical history and also having participated in Clinical Governance and other activities in the medical and mental health field in the past, I have been naturally interested to see the concept that other people have of this subject.

Historically speaking, the Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable is of great interest and importance. It provided the fodder to start the debate on ethics. Also, the development and practice of keeping medical statistics stated in the asylums (round about 1840) long before Florence Nightingale compiled her statistic of the Crimea dead, dyeing and recovered. However 'Medical Ethics' in its modern form is only part of the picture and so, to shave bits off this subject to fit, will not do. Today, in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, discussions about 'abuse' would be framed within the terms of SUI's ( Serious Untoward Incidents ). Then get given a cause, classified as say a 'supervisory oversights' or perhaps 'lack of appropriate training' etc. See Serious Untoward Incidents for definition.

However, even this (SUI's) covers only part of the maltreatment that the mentally vulnerable can suffer. Before I make any contribution to this article however, I am happy to wait to see if someone else would add the material on the aspects I am most aware of and thus save me the trouble ( I am naturally lazy like that). I am shocked, surprised and disappointed though in some of the other comments that are being given for deletion. Not only this it appears, articles in development are now being AfD quickly after creation (even Jimmy Wales had his first attempt on Mzoli's deleted after just 21 minutes). It prevents other editors broadening the scope, so making it sound less like 'say' a coat-hanger which some have levelled at this article even before it has really got started.

The existing title is not the best I agree, it is in my view limiting the range of abuse that the mentally impaired receive else where, both in developed and developing countries. It would be better to be more inclusive and call it something like Maltreatment suffered by the mentally vulnerable. This would help open it up to nurses, solicitors, policemen and the like, who have come across many first hand experiences of abuse (of all types) and what steps need to be taken to safeguard against it.

I can appreciate that many of the editors who are trying to vote this off are perhaps too young and inexperienced to have either experienced at close quarters or come into contact with some of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature but to AfD this article, is not only -in my opinion- to sweep such things under the carpet, but it also smacks a little of 'denial'. I would like to suggest that it be renamed Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable and have 'Psychiatric abuse' as a 'redirect' because that is the common vernacular term. And lets not be squeamishly PC and childish about it, the phrase can be used as a subsection within the article. --Aspro 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting idea for an article, Maltreatment of the mentally vulnerable . Since you'd like to include police, nurses, etc., perhaps you can find scholarly sources that discuss this broad sweep? Meanwhile, the need for such an article would be better discussed elsewhere. The AfD focuses solely on this article under its existing title and scope. HG | Talk 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What haven't you understood? As expressed else where at the Pump. It is getting harder to add new articles because of the demand for instant perfection in all aspects. The strength ( if I can express it that way) of WP was in the past that the article benefited from the sum knowledge of many editors to develop it. How can you discus scope? It is a new article. Now with most important articles covered in WP, there seems to have arisen a 'font of proof reading clerks' that don't want to do any of the hard work themselves but would rather jump on any deviation from policy by those that see gaps in coverage and try to cover it. So why the AfD before you know what the final article will be?--Aspro 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the whole premise of the article Aspro. That is the title strongly implies that the psychiatry is inherently abusive. There are other issues too further up the list. And deleting this article is not deleting content.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before psychiatry became a subsidiary of the psychotropic drug industry, it wasn't inherently abusive; nowadays, however, it's no longer possible to say one way or the other. For additional clues to crystalize a kernel of truth on the subject within the collective conscience of the Wiki, it would be best to hash out articles on some of the more notorious examples of psychiatric abuse (e.g., Jack Gorman [14] and Zane Parzen [15]) in order to have a better chance of ascertaining the intrinsic attributes of psychiatry. Aspro has made a remarkably poignant point about the declining strength of the Wiki's five pillars, which mandate bold editorial contributions. Just because the foundation of institutional knowledge within the Wiki is woefully lacking (thanks to a hostile editing environment fostered by enforcement of double standards favoring certain groups of pov pushers) with regard to psychiatry articles and certain other controversial subjects, doesn't mean that the article needs to be preemptively aborted to appease the politically correct pov faction. If anything, deletion of the article will only further erode the credibility of the Wiki, undermine the five pillars, while ominously contributing to the Wiki's growing trail of lies of omission. Removal of the article would not only violate the spirit and intent of the Wiki's founding philosophy, it would also inhibit the potential for providing exculpatory evidence that might absolve the pharmaceutical industry of any and all responsiblity for the systematic transformation of a healing art into, apparently, an intrinsically neurotoxic snake oil cesspool. Ombudsman 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is the strongest argument I have seen for deletion of the article, although that certainly was not the intent of its writer. Its naked hostility towards psychiatry distills all of the arguments made by those urging deletion of this article as a PoV fork. There appears to be a great deal of pot/kettle here, as he has a clear agenda, while it's not clear that his opponents have the same investment in the topic. Horologium t-c 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Links are to articles about psychiatrists have sex with patients. Put that together with harvesting organs... --Mattisse 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't sufficiently clear before that this article was conceived and developed by anti-medicine activists as an overtly POV coatrack, that's certainly very clear now. I suppose Ombudsman should be thanked for being upfront about this. -- ChrisO 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not at all clear to me. Coatrack, POV fork issues are overstated. This is a real subject verified by numerous sources. Similar articles do exist, eg Anti-psychiatry, Biopsychiatry controversy, but these are not POV forks, and deletion is not the answer. Most of the arguments advocating deletion are hypersensitive responses to a difficult political/professional/historical issue. To the extent that coatrack arguments have merit, a rename should be considered. Where “information exists elsewhere” has merit, article merges should be considered. However, rename and merge ideas should be left to the editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 01:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article will not (or should not) result in the deletion of many notable topics discussed, just the allusion that psychiatry is inherently abusive. Merge is irrelevant as articles are convered elsewhere. Renaming as such doesn't work as there is no title that fits all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see in the article an “allusion that psychiatry is inherently abusive” any more than Sexual abuse alludes that sex is inherently abusive. Psychiatric abuse has been documented. Sexual abuse has been documented. Both can be written about. --SmokeyJoe 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...that's a very long bowstring you're drawing there....sexual abuse is a fairly cohesive well-defined topic - very unlike this one. 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Does psychiatric only include the acts of psychiatrists? And of what century and stage of medical science? And what is the definition of psychiatrist (it varies from country to country and is not the same in different time periods)? Are you counting abuse in so-called psychiatric institutions which may not even have psychiatrists (certainly did not in the 18th century or even in the first half of the 19th century)? Are you including general institutional staff, politically mandated behavior (we could have School teacher abuse in Nazi Germany), psychiatric malpractice (sex with clients)? etc. What is the definition of psychiatric abuse? --Mattisse 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article defines the term well enough, citing reliable and reputable secondary sources. Refining that definition (based on other sources) is a matter for editors involved. What is included should depend only what sources say. --SmokeyJoe 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) SmokeyJoe, I disagree. The article's first sentence:

Psychiatric abuse is both one of the terms that may describe specific ethical problems in psychiatry as well as a significant term in the broader Scientology criticisms and campaigns against psychiatry.

We already have those issues covered in other articles. --Mattisse 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read on to the next sentence or two. The lead makes it clear that the subject is complicated, but well sourced. There is a case for a thorough reorganisation of material here and on other problematic pages, as per HG, but the case for deletion is flawed. --SmokeyJoe 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as before, sufficient references are available to support the inclusion of this topic under this title, and the article should continue to be improved through normal editing with the full history and talk page discussions preserved. As Smokey Joe point out above, many of the deletion arguments are novel interpretations of policy, and personal POV. Dhaluza 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references support an article dealing with "abuse" in some manner, but the specific title seems unnecessarily slanted and, specifically, drawing upon the Scientology usage. E.g., most references would equally support Abuses of psychiatry or Ethical issues in psychiatry. Dhaluza, maybe you would accept an article that deals solely with the various elements of the Scientology view of what constitutes abuse? If so, then Psychiatry could deal with mainstream Ethical issues in psychiatry and this article could be limited to the Scientology usage. That's the opposite of the current content, but it's a plausible request, if that's what you want. HG | Talk 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the Scientology viewpoint is at best a minority viewpoint that should only get mentioned in some limited context. The fact that they have hijacked the term for their own purposes does not mean that we cannot cover it properly here. Special interest groups develop their own language by redefining terms--it's just something they do. Dhaluza 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhaluza and my comments in the DRV --W.marsh 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to a less inflammatory name. Voice-of-All 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. VoL†ro/\/Force 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because...? MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to remind editors that they are supposed to put forward arguments for keeping or deleting articles. AfD is not a vote; the closing admin will look at the arguments and decide on which have the most weight and compatibility with policy. If there are no arguments, there's nothing for the closing admin to consider. -- ChrisO 17:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. It seems to be one long rant on psychiatry with lots of cites and links to Scientology articles. NPOV is the basic policy of WP, according to Jimbo Wales. Bearian 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many of the delete votes seem to be focusing on OR and POV aspects, but these are not necessarily reasons to delete. We only delete articles in cases where these are irreparable, usually because of lack of RS. At bare minimum the term should be a redirect, since it is used in the title of RS works. So this would argue against delete since a merge/redirect (or disambig) would be more appropriate if the usable content really could all be merged elsewhere. Why should we delete for these reasons despite the available and incorporated sources? Dhaluza 09:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because it's an obvious WP:POVFORK, we already have multiple POV forks covering the same ground, and whatever reliable sources and encyclopedic content exists should be merged there rather than spread even thinner? I think many of the delete !votes actually make these points. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In situations like this where there is a significant amount of source material, the AfD issues include WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAPBOX, and/or WP:V (WP:V in the case where behaviour surrounding the article is so bad that it is unlikely the article will meet WP:V) -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the psychiatrist actions do not violate the laws of the local area, it is POV to include the Scientologist view that such actions still constitute abuse. If the psychiatrist actions do violate the laws of the local area, then the Scientologist view is irrelevant. The article is nothing more than a POV fork designed to elevate the Scientologist anti-psychiatry movement's views to equal to, and in some cases superior to, those of the legal definition of negligence and agreed-upon scholarly conclusions about political/human rights abuse, such as in the Soviet Union. DGG's prior AfD post was clear. This article is nothing more than a POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Comment - If one does not already exist, it would be appropriate to create an article on Scientology's viewpoint on psychiatry using reliable sources that are independent of Scientology, keeping in mind WP:SOAPBOX. If you keep from making the Scientology's viewpoint into something it is not, everyone will be Wikihappy. -- Jreferee t/c 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Scientology and Psychiatry

Scientology and psychiatry
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death
~~Space opera in Scientology scripture~~ - [not really about psychiatry, IMO -- ChrisO 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Other places to look for anti-psychiatry articles

I think the anti-psychiatry or psychiatric abuse or whatever is covered by one or more of these articles that could be upgraded appropriately if needed. Mattisse 17:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopaedic from the title onward. Midgley 19:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Nominator's rationale was inaccuracy of the article. This has been rectified by User:Dhartung. There was also unanimous consensus that article incompleteness was not grounds for deletion, so there seems little point in letting the discussion run. Thomjakobsen 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for London[edit]

Totally inaccurate article, not reflecting the fact that there have been many more ministers for london than are just shown here. It's also static and, I have reason to believe, on nobody's watchlist but mine. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's more like an argument for expansion than deletion. The post exists, the article describes its recent history, and the page already has links leading to it: Special:Whatlinkshere/Minister for London. It's a stub article created in August, so it's too early to call it "static". Thomjakobsen 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion It's factually inaccurate. It says that there have only been two post-holders, and that it's a new position. It isn't, and there haven't. It's a load of old rubbish, frankly. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can it be edited so that it is accurate? It would seem most people believe it was only created recently because of the media coverage given to the recent appointments in light of the Olympics, so an explanation would be a decent addition to the article. The topic itself is notable and the article is helpful apart from the claim that it was created in 2001, so there's no need for deletion. Thomjakobsen 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So rewrite it so that it's accurate. AfD is for articles which shouldn't have an article at all, not for notable subjects which have poor ones. If this isn't a duplicate of a better existing article it just needs to be improved, which you could have done in the time it's taken you to nominate it here.Nick mallory 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Charmed, I'm sure... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say there have been 'many more' ministers for London. Care to name some? Nick mallory 12:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, though they've been listed on the article talkpage for ages now, so you've obviously not looked into this AfD before voting. Keith Hill and Nick Raynsford have also been Ministers for London. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're aware of ways the article might be improved, but haven't taken any steps to do so, you're hardly in a position to lecture other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I was trying to make to Porcupine.Nick mallory 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as noted above, you haven't actually raised a reason for deletion, just stating that the article is factually accurate. I've tagged it with {{Disputed}}, which is the proper course of action in such a situation. AfD isn't cleanup, and deletion shouldn't be used to combat cleaning something up. Being static and your belief that it is "on nobody's watchlist but [yours]" are also not reasons to delete. I'm slightly lost - care to explain, please? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I've added the so far missing AfD tag on the article itself, but I don't see t anything to delete here, just to edit.--Tikiwont 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology - sorry, TW failed with the tag. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The AfD tag isn't a big problem but you may want to consider withdrawing this nomination. --Tikiwont 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Not to be critical, but we've spent more than a dozen edits and about 5,000 bytes here that might have been better put to work on article improvement. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly, keep this one. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten the article with one good source. As an American I'm sure there are a few inaccuracies, but WP:SOFIXIT seems to apply. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Mystache 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCDAM[edit]

"It was invented by a National University of Singapore student." Yep, indeed. A google search for the expanded acronym finds precisely nothing. MER-C 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for guys who are unsuccessful at stealing other guys' girlfriends. Also WP:NFT, WP:N, WP:V, and maybe WP:WINAD. cab 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. cab 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, patent nonsense. Keb25 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a slang term and wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Evb-wiki 13:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... ugh. Almost enough for a patent nonsense speedy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "a campaign ... to eradicate these people"...really? Cander0000 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, a7 no assertion of notability, sounds like something the teenage workers at the burger joint made up one night. NawlinWiki 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCWF[edit]

Non-notable wrestling promotion. Article is unverifiable, a search for sources turns up precisely nothing. Tagged {{notability}} since August. MER-C 11:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tagged since August, with no improvement. - Rjd0060 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ↑. --Evb-wiki 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as possible hoax. Nikki311 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, has got to be a hoax, the bluelinks don't even lead to wrestlers. Darrenhusted 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decatur, or, Round of Applause for Your Step Mother![edit]

Non-notable song. Only claim to notability is to being by a notable artist, but notability isn't inherited. Never released as a single. "References" don't attest to notability but instead try to back up the creator's interpretation of a line or two in the song. Delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I adore this album, Wikipedia is not songfacts and there is no separate notability for this song. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly delete, while resisting the urge to point out that every bloody Beatles song has its own article... But yes, Decatur, or, Round of Applause for Your Step Mother!, is not notable, being part of a great album isn't enough. MookieZ 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any mention of the song in the two references. Obviously worth a mention in the album though. Spellcast 06:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article solely consists of information already in the article on the album ("is a song on {album} by {artist}") and the author's original interpretation of a few lines on the song. As the song was never released as a single and does not seem to be particularly notable, the page can probably better be redirected to Illinois (album). Melsaran (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Lord[edit]

NN song Ridernyc 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This song brought the heavy metal band Monster Magnet mainstream success. In WP:MUSIC, it states that a song is notable if it had been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire. Therefore, I am not sure that it fails the notanility test. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per --S iva1979^{Talk to me} Doesn't fail notability. Any commercial success that has been recognized by secondary sources (e.g various music magazines, MTV.com, VH1 etc..etc..) would apply here. Besides, it's a music related stub, I'd give it more time. Wisdom89 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editor claims it was hit but I don't think it was. It hit 29 on Billboards hot rock tracks, is that enough to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the editors claim, but the billboard hot rock tracks isn't the only commercial chart out there. Wisdom89 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never wrote that it was a hit, only that it brought them mainstream success, which it did. JuJube 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was the breakthrough single for the band. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equination[edit]

Non-notable website. Alexa rank is 405744, 16 unique ghits (don't let the first page of results fool you). Vaguely asserts notability. MER-C 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Football[edit]

Written like and advert and not sure of notability. Ridernyc 09:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write the article with neutrality in mind. However, I am an employee working on the project so I'm not surprised the article came out as an advertisement. Please point out how I can improve the neutrality. Regarding notability, the site has tens of thousands of active players and a growing community. I hope this makes the article interesting to Wikipedia. Magwo 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability != popularity. Notability is established by multiple, independent, reliable sources which have significant coverage of the subject. Basically, when you have widespread press coverage that doesn't come from a press release, then you might have a claim to notability. --Darkwind (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claim of notability and no WP:RS provided. --Evb-wiki 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. No independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 16:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds fun, but the article has no secodary sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 09:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Rray 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, non-notable game. Keb25 09:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les McMahon[edit]

A non-notable Local Government administrator. The article reads a little like a vanity page. The only references provided come from organisations that the subject holds an office. Mattinbgn\^talk 09:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete otherwsie absorb some info into the artcile for the shire that he works for Satu Suro 15:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local public servant. WWGB 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubledotdash!?[edit]

Non-notable organisation. Article is unverifiable, none of the 98 ghits is reliable. MER-C 09:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not possible to find independent sources to assert notability. Carlosguitar 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speed-reading it, not verifiable. Onnaghar talk.review 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draino in pipes[edit]

Protologism 2.0. Wikipedia is not for snappy acronyms one day. 1 ghit. MER-C 09:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unsourced, and offers no hint of being a widespread or important concept. Term is too recent to have gained any form of reasonable notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's a recent neologism, delete it. To me, it has a hoax-y sound, like someone saw Ruby on Rails and tried to mimic. In any event, no refs, no external sources, delete. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sole GHIT is an Engadget post linking back to the article. Reads like a parody of ajax (programming) to me. Fails WP:V let alone anything else. --Dhartung | Talk 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like nonsense. "PHP imbedded (sic) Perl" especially doesn't make sense, since most Web designers would pick either PHP or Perl, not try to imbed (sic) one inside the other. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, and the product is actually spelled Drano. Possibility of a hoax. No Google results independent of Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingball[edit]

An unverified article on a neologism. 133 ghits. There isn't an Urban Dictionary entry for this one either. MER-C 09:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT and WP:NEO. Carlosguitar 10:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding everything else, this article at most is about basketball with more than 5 players a side because it's in a "bing" (prison) gymnasium. I'm not sure where this takes place, although it's not unlikely that, somewhere, people call the pen or the big house or doing time a "bing". Now if the prison required the playing of Bing Crosby songs during the game, that would be notable. Mandsford 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Vgranucci 01:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCC Club[edit]

This club seems to fail WP:CORP, due to lack of substantial secondary sources. The article doesn't give any, and it is in fact not really about the club: Rather it contains news coverage about a murder committed at the club. But this should be avoided per WP:NOT#NEWS. This all seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. PROD was contested without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being the location of a murder is not by itself notability. The club is mentioned in the article on Proof (rapper). --Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:COATRACK - except the first sentence of the introduction, the article is solely about what really happened at that event. --Allefant 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, esp. WP:COAT. --Evb-wiki 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old house[edit]

Found this article while sorting through the uncategorized articles. Prod was removed by creator (who only worked on this article) so I list it here now. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a band who's only supplied reference is a MySpace page. They've released one 7" single. Trying to find external refs is futile, as the search phrase is generic enough to ensure no real hits. The only valid wikilink in the article (other than the geographical ones) is a record label which will be releasing another 7" single. This might fall under WP:CSD#A7, No indication of importance/significance. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yngvarr. Non-notable band. Keb25 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music notability guidelines. ♫ Cricket02 12:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, after significant discussion and debate, but without a clear consensus, as notable, sourced, and encyclopedic. Bearian 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Russian Revolution[edit]

Delete. The mere fact that there were Chinese in the Russian Revolution is insufficient to write an article about that; neither is the juxtaposition of the two terms noteworthy, or notable in accordance with WP standards. --Ludvikus 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed AfD from here. Carlosguitar 08:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, nomination smells WP:POINT. --Irpen 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the subject is notable and interesting. There might follow Jews in Russian Revolution, Poles in Russian Revolution, Georgians in Russian revolution, etc. those articles might be very biased at first but I believe we can fix it Alex Bakharev 08:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (1): Then why not have Russians in antisemitism, Poles in antisemitism, Ukrainians in antisemitism, etc.? I don't think juxtaposing any two words and asking if it creates an interesting subject is a legitimate WP way to go. And we should not find Titles for WP - not create them ourselves. If someone wrote a scholarly study about the Chinese role in the Russian Revolution, then write about that. But does that turn it into a legitimate Title/Subject heading for a WP article? I think not.! --12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (2): How about X in Spanish Revolution and X in French Revolution (filling in the "X" in any way one finds interesting)? If one WPdian finds it interesting should we have an article on it?
- Comment (3): I inadvertently omitted Russians in Russian Revolution. Perhaps such an article might be interesting because it might show that Russians have no other nationality to blame for Bolshevism but their own Russian people. I do not believe we should break things up that way - by nationality - unless we find sources which do; and then determine whether these were Propaganda: Nazi, Communist, Capitalist, or what not. --Ludvikus 12:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, educational. I don't really see what the proposed reason for deletion is. If the subject was not notable then the content would not be sourced as it is right now. Good article. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if we don't have articles about Jews, Poles, Georgians, and Russians in the Russian Revolution? Wikipedia is not paper. The article is referenced (mostly) by multiple sources — what else do we want for notability? This isn't like a "List of Chinese songs that refer to the Russian Revolution": it's studying the rôle of a specific group of people in a specific event. Nyttend 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Original research: It's easy to reference articles. The point is an examination of such sources reveals improper original research by a WP editor, like so:

The Soviet passed a resolution expressing "firm confidence that the Soviet Government will succeed in getting peace and so in opening a wide road to the construction of a proletarian state." A note was passed up to Kamenev who, glancing at it, announced that the newly elected representative of the Chinese workmen in Moscow wished to speak. This was Chitaya Kuni, a solid little Chinaman with a big head, in black leather coat and breeches. I had often seen him before, and wondered who he was. He was received with great cordiality and made a quiet, rather shy speech in which he told them he was learning from them how to introduce socialism in China, and more compliments of the same sort. Reinstein replied, telling how at an American labour congress some years back the Americans shut the door in the face of a representative of a union of foreign workmen. "Such," he said, "was the feeling in America at the time when Gompers was supreme, but that time has passed." Still, as I listened to Reinstein, I wondered in how many other countries besides Russia, a representative of foreign labour would be thus welcomed. The reason has probably little to do with the good-heartedness of the Russians. Owing to the general unification of wages Mr. Kuni could not represent the competition of cheap labour. I talked to the Chinaman afterwards. He is president of the Chinese Soviet. He told me they had just about a thousand Chinese workmen in Moscow, and therefore had a right to representation in the government of the town. I asked about the Chinese in the Red Army, and he said there were two or three thousand, not more.

This is a primary source item that should be evaluated by a scholar or a professional historian. WP is not a place where editors are to discover that Chinese played a historical role in the Russian Revolution. Original research of this kind belongs in a peer-reviewed journal. The 1919 report of a chilren's book writer on the report of a single Soviet representative (a foreign Chinese worker) to an apparent Moscow Soviet, regarding alleged 2,000 Chinese, is not proper source material for WPdians to conclude that "large numbers" of Chinese did this ot that. --Ludvikus 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not even have an article on Chitaya Kuni! --Ludvikus 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Lud. It's magic! Keep Encylopedic topic, which could be improved. We have articles about Germans in the American Revolution (called Hessians) and about American soldiers who were deployed to the Soviet Union in the early years after World War I. I was unaware that there had been Chinese nationals participating in the Russian Revolution, but it's a valid start for an article. Mandsford 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: User:Ludvikus has a huge personal grudge against me because I am opposing his rather peculiar way of editing wikipedia, such as writing two nearly-identical articles on the same topic: Jewish Bolshevism and The Jewish Bolshevism. In his rage in Talk:Jewish Bolshevism he fails to notice that I actually support his position that the title "Jewish Bolshevism" is inappropriate for the current content of the article, and explained that the proper an neutral title would be something directly related to the history of the Jews, rather than a political slur. As an example I cited Chinese in Russian Revolution. He obviously noticed that I am the author of the article, and all hell broke loose. <Shrug>. This editor needs a real attitude adjustment. `'Míkka 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 Contrary to the claims of Ludvikus, the bulk of the article is based on the secondary source: a Finnish historical article (cited), which explained the mystery that long haunted me: how come huge numbers of Chinese happened to be in St. Petersburg at the moment of the Revolution (just look at the map: where's St.Petersburg and where's China). Donald Rayfield (quoted) is hardly a "children writer" either. The participation of Chinese is very well known in Soviet historiography. It is ssimply now I am very far away both from Russian sources and Russian keyboard, so it is very difficult for me to search Rusian google. I hope this vote will draw attention of Russian wikipedians who will expand the article. `'Míkka 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Geez, I hate to be the one to bring out the old "assume good faith" slogan, but it looks like a legitimate nomination. I've had it happen fairly often that I happen to mention an article, like "goldfish swallowing" or "Jewish American fashion designers", and someone nominates it for deletion the next day. Is it because of me? I doubt it. More likely, your cite of Chinese in Russian Revolution inspired several people, including the nominator, to click on the link and read the article. As noted above, I think it's an encyclopedic topic that fits Wikipedia's global view. Funny, both of you take an interest in the Bolshevik Revolution, and you don't get along. Mandsford 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the goldfishie, but where is the second one? `'Míkka 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "both of you take an interest, but..." Surprized? Take a look eg, into "Islamophobia" page & its talk. And there is more of such. And ours is friendly chat in comparison. `'Míkka 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arthur Ransome was more than just a childrens author, it was as a journalist that he was in Russia. KTo288 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced and just the propaganda aspect establishes notability. Edward321 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Maybe WP Russia and WP China can help fix this problem if notified. In my own judgment, the article should be kept. However, opinions from those whose histories are involved should be considered.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in WP Title/Subject Inclusion Rules. (First of all, I ask no one to take things personally - Assume Good Fait per Wiki policy). Calling someone a "Communist" has long been considered a slur, especially in the United States, beginning with the Red Scare and going throught McCarthyism. Accordingly, a {{stub}} which merely, or substantially links the Chinese with the Russian Revolution - supported by that famous propaganda Poster with Trotsky in it and emphasizing the presence of Chinese soldiers in it as well, is merely to say that Russia was not responsible for its own Communist predicament. It is a disguise for Chinese Bolshevism; just like Jewish Bolshevism; yet we do not have Russian Bolshevism, nor Ukrainian Bolshevism, nor Polish Bolshevism. And we are absolutely prohibited, at WP, from having Russian antisemitism, Ukrainian antisemitism, Polish antisemitism. It's the inconsistency to which I object. That having been said, I have no problem with a clearly supported subject, title, article on any two words for a WP article - as long as that is Notable, and not the Original Research of a Wikipedian. Merely bring two words together and writing an Article about it is easy: just put them in quotes, and Google, and voi la, you've got a Wiki article. If Chinese Bolshevism can be evidenced as either a political slur or a topic researched by some scholar, I have no problem with that. But just because a Wikipedian editor finds it interesting to associate the Chinese in Russia with Bolshevism - that's not enough; or have WP rules now completely changed regarding Notability? And here's the earliest source for justifying the article about the Chinese in the Russian Revolution - the Trotsky with Chinese Poster: "[[Image:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[White Army]] propaganda poster depicting [[Leon Trotsky]]. Notice the Chinese soldiers.]]" : Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Army propaganda poster depicting Leon Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers.

- Polish antisemites. Why, User:Mikka, will you not allow me to start an article on that? I find a study of notable or notorious Polish antisemites much more interesting than Chinese communists in Russia. I challenge you to give me a sound, rational explanation why you will not allow me to write an article about Russian antisemites. It's OK for you to study Chinese Commies (who allegedly made the Russians suffer), right? But the victimization of Jews by non-Jews is prohibited on Wikipedia? Explain the inconsistency please. --Ludvikus 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. That proposal of mine, fello Wikipedian User:Mikka, has yesterday been deleted. But you, Mikka, are going to get to keep your article, an article which can be interpreted as blaming yet another foreign element - like the Jews - for Mother Russia's Communism which later allegedly victimized Poland as well. --Ludvikus 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trotsky Poster: This racist Poster depicts metaphorically the Russian Revolution as the product of two (2) (faceless) Russian Uniformed Sailors, five Chinamen, and led by Monstor Trotsky, also with slanted oriental eyes, all-red and dripping with blood, with a pentagram around his neck (one point less than the Jewish Star of David). This picture tells us who the real makers of the Revolution were - they were not really the (pure "White") Russian(s) - but mostly orientals - which the Jews and the Chinese are; no, no, it's not the fault of the Russians, it's the Chinese, just look at the picture which we are given. --Ludvikus 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, you figured it out correctly. This was significant part of White Russian propaganda at these times: Blame on Jews, Letts, Chinese. `'Míkka 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but the text is too poor to cover such a topic. It is collection of few low quality factoids without providing wider context. Such synthetic articles need to be created complete, not to be built by people adding this or that. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-interesting topic. Articles on other nationalities fate in Russian Civil War would be interesting too, for instance about early massacres of Poles by Russian Bolsheviks due to their perceived religiousness and stron national identity, or Latvians who formed Latvian Riflemen units and who fought for Bolsheviks and against their nation.--Molobo 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If this group really is the "Chinese volunteers" as mentioned in the Russian Civil War, should the article be changed? So far 1 group are singled out to be some kind of supporter of the cause. May I just ask how many of the thousands of "workers" are really bodyguards? My concern is that there are thousands of slave laborers, but only a few are part of a mercenary group. And the whole group is being categorized into 1 group to create the illusion that they are bigger. Benjwong 04:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. The flow of the article is incoherent, smacks of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There may be an encyclopedic topic here but this article isn't cutting the mustard. --Richard 07:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intriguing topic, article should be allowed to develop. Re... "is merely to say that Russia was not responsible for its own Communist predicament. It is a disguise for Chinese Bolshevism", it in no way dilutes "Russian" responsibility (that being a most amorphous phrase). I don't see any "disguise" here. Agree with Molobo. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very intriguing topic, and one with which I am mostly unfamiliar. Article needs cleanup, more references, and expansion, but no justification is given for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable historical topic. Certainly, the article (even the title, which is ungrammatical) could use some improvement, but the basic idea, already supported by some reliable references, is sound. Biruitorul 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —Carlosguitar 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Carlosguitar 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References (3): What disturbs me is my belief that the References are not carefully scrutenized. For example, Ref. #3 is a very long list of Poster descriptions - but there is no way of knowing exactly what item on that long list is pertinent to our Article; it appears as if the WP editor merely directs us to the Propaganga text-copy which makes reference to Chinese - that's a very strange way of establishing that (the) Chinese played a notable role in the Russian Revolution. I ask for editors please look at each reference and determine if it really supports the article. --Ludvikus 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference (2): This reference relies on this Original Research involving a primary source for a scholar to evaluate:

    "I talked to the Chinaman afterwards. He is president of the Chinese Soviet.
    He told me they had just about a thousand Chinese workmen in Moscow,
    and therefore had a right to representation in the government of the town.
    I asked about the Chinese in the Red Army, and he said there were two or three thousand, not more.".

The problem is that the article is such a hodge-podge of Original Research by a single Wikipedian editor - and no-one is bothering to look very carefully on the list of refereces. A careful examination of same will show that there is no basis for the article at this stage whatsoever. --Ludvikus 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must be careful here because it's well known that the Whites were desperately trying to show that it was not Russians, but outside agitators, Jews, Chinese, etc., who caused the Revolution. Even if that were true, it's not for a WP editor to do original research to prove that. --Ludvikus 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other deleters. Ostap 04:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Encyclopedic and valuable for our readers. To delete because an editor would prefer this aspect of history remain unexamined would leave an unacceptable lacuna. Badagnani 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did some checking of my own. While this topic can be considered encyclopedic, I disagree with the content due to the timing. What makes the Chinese participation in the red army near impossible is the pre-cursor Li-Lobanov treaty. Under the rule Chinese were not allowed to interfere with russian troop movements, let alone join the red army. The timing doesn't fit as China was hammered by the unequal treaties up until the start of the Russian revolution. At this stage, China always had the short end of the stick. The book "Russia in 1919" about Chitaya Kuni is questionable. My best guess is still Chinese laborers marketed for the wrong cause. Benjwong 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Colleague, your are confusing the discussed topic with the political issue of China as country. `'Míkka 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please show me where I am confused. The more I read up on it, the more this appear as propaganda disguised into an article. Benjwong 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is notable and nomination smells WP:POINT. Also per Alex. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that multiple editors active in the portrayal of the Soviet legacy who can be found to disagree in the extreme all agree on "keep" in this case (a quick check finds Irpen, Piotrus, Grafikm_fr, and myself all in the affirmative). Based on that sort of unanimity of involved editors, I motion that we are done here. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good try. This article will very possibly get kept due to "no consensus" unless the closing admin chooses to give more weight to the delete arguments than the keep arguments. However, your "unanimity of involved editors" argument holds little water. --Richard 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame and editor for trying. :-) Though quite seriously I would have thought the Earth would stop rotating and we'd all fall off if I ever found myself agreeing with Grafikm_fr on anything. So definitely some water, I think. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Finding myself in agreement with Grafikm_fr, Alex Bakharev, Irpen, and having Molobo agree with all three, as well as you and Piotrus: 60 Minutes material, for sure. Biruitorul 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL who concocted these horrible Cinophobic Antisemitic Bolshevist lies from primary sources of KGB propaganda. `'Míkka 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CTA Goodman Elementary[edit]

Notability not established. — DIEGO ^talk 07:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? with a few fixings, it could easily be cleaned up for Wikipedia standards! Michael Houang 07:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assertion of notability: "local news station FOX 10 interviewed the school's P.E. teacher and the principal as well as some of the 6th "gators", a tribute to the school's mascot." Some may say I'm harsh, but I have my reservations as to wether this might completely fulfill wikipedia's requirements for notability--Victor falk 08:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. --RaiderAspect 09:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N Cap'n Walker 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chandler Unified School District per the WP:REDIRECT guidelines which have been cited ad infinitum, no need to carry over the trivial factoids. RFerreira 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good for a redirection. 130.13.101.148 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Roskill Grammar School[edit]

Notability not established. not NPOV. Written like an advertisement — DIEGO ^talk 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 07:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school, references already provided, more can be found on searches [16], neutrality and language can be fixed. Recurring dreams 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recurring dreams. Very clearly a notable school. I agree it needs a rewrite.-gadfium 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources: 1) school's own site 2) dead link 3) NZ herald article does not mention any specifics about MRGS, only interviews its headmaster about NCEA's report cards. Google (as in the google news above) shows nothing but 85 hits of trivial wp#nfo about it[17]. Claim to notability is winning awards in 1997 and 2002 from Goodman Fielder "...a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of bread, small goods, dairy products, margarine, oil, dressings and various food ingredients." For the record I have reservations about the prestigiousness of this award [18]--Victor falk 08:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you might as well nominate most school articles out there for deletion, since so far none of the ones that I've looked at (in no particular order, just clicked semi-randomly from Category:Schools_in_Auckland) seem to have established notability, or has more than a few external sources other than the school website. For the Google counts, have you considered other variations of the name, like Mt Roskill Grammar or Mount Roskill Grammar (sans the school)? Both of which returns more than 5k hits. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to see those other schools go up for AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good article which passes WP:N as a notable secondary school with multiple notable alumni, notable awards, and a notably interesting student roster. RFerreira 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:N. Award winning school, several notable alumni, and 70 nationalities amongst the pupils (in itself notable). I would add that the following part of the nomination "not NPOV. Written like an advertisement" is wholly irrelevant. We tag and cleanup not delete for those problems. TerriersFan 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now cleaned up. TerriersFan 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly unnotable. Every time I take the Circle Line, there are seventy nationalities in the car with me. Eusebeus 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - indeed, and the Circle Line is perfectly notable, also. TerriersFan 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Multiple awards, several notable alumni, and numerous reliable and verifiable sources. One would seem hard-pressed to find a better example of an article for a school that satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Consensus and precedent are clear that this and other such schools are notable, which will not deter the obstinate deniers of this fact. Alansohn 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reasonable encyclopedic article, I do not see how deletion is needed. Academics, alumni, and awards are all reasonably well sourced from multiple sources to pass WP:N. Article also has some good potential for further improvement. Camaron1 | Chris 10:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on where, if anywhere, to create a redirect to. W.marsh 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winnesota[edit]

When the Minnesota Vikings are on a winning streak, some sports writers refer to the state Minnesota as Winnesota. This editorial mentions "Winnesota", but that does not make Winnesota an actual geographic region. The Winnesota article is nothing more than a hopeful attempt to use Wikipedia to get others to believe that this is a valid term. There is an insufficient amount of reliable source material to support an attributable article on Winnesota. The article should be deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never heard this term for the Wisconsin part of the MSP metro before; usually that area is either referred to as either "Western Wisconsin", "the eastern counties", or just the county names by the local media. A Google search pops up 166 unique hits, including a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel blog piece by a recently transplanted newbie to the state who refs this article. Others are plain lazy mispellings/OCR document reading errors of Minnesota, or fictional governments. Nate 09:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kitty Rhoades, the originator (and nearly sole user) of the term. I've created an article and merged an appropriate mention. --Dhartung | Talk 11:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proper place to cover the two Wisconsin counties' proximity to and interrelationship with Minnesota would be in St. Croix County, Wisconsin and Pierce County, Wisconsin, or maybe in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. (And it's been a long time since the Vikings been on a winning streak. Have they even scored any offensive touchdowns this year yet? Never mind, I'm digressing.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Onnaghar talk.review 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Minnesota as a plausible misinterpretation of the spelling of Minnesota by foreigners. 132.205.44.5 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentomon Natural Line[edit]

This page is basically a copy of the Tentomon page. The changed evolutions are those of the authors original research who has been asked repeatedly to provide a source for these evolutions.
I am also nominating for the same reason:

I would also like to nominate the category Digimon Natural Lines, but I don't know how.

Trainra 06:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I'm sure there is a wiki for them somewhere. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, forks of other articles. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Category:Digimon Natural Lines could probably just be speedied, either as housekeeping, or waiting 4 days after it's empty, to make things simple. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullerton Presbyterian Church

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Disorders Association[edit]

Delete this stub which reads like a phone listing/advertisement. Notability is in no way indicated. Doczilla 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wpnot. --Victor falk 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT Onnaghar talk.review 16:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National charity established in 1989 from two older charities. Although the turnover is relatively small (around 0.8 million pounds in last financial year), the charity runs conferences and awards, as well as a website which claims 3.3 million hits just in March 2007. The charity also claims to have been covered significantly in national press and television eg Tonight programme, BBC Politics Show, Hello! magazine etc (see annual review 2006-7 pdf, linked: [19]), although an independent source would obviously be useful. Assuming confirmation of this coverage can be found (I will try to look some out), it would seem to meet WP:ORG for a charitable organisation, which states "[Non-commercial] Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." Espresso Addict 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources from a very quick Google search (some are short mentions, but the bulk & breadth seems adequate): UK charity awards 2007 runner up: [20]; national television/radio: Channel 4 news [21], BBC Radio Women's Hour [22], Friction.TV [23]; national newspapers: Independent [24][25], Daily Mail [26][27], Telegraph [28] & 5 more hits, Guardian [29], Times [30], New Statesman [31], UK government sites showing lobbying role etc [32], [33], [34], MP on the relaunch [35], local newspaper story mentioning support by Kate Winslet & Kiera Knightley: [36] etc etc. Espresso Addict 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Good work espresso addict. Keep on. But the article really looks bad, and first looks last. I shouldn't have missed the "member of NHS Direct Online" link the first time I looked at the page. Maybe I neep a cup myself to keep my eyes open.--Victor falk 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory the Great Primary School[edit]

Non-notable Catholic primary school. Has done nothing spectacular. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP & WP:ORG. Twenty Years 04:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 04:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no assertion of notability--Victor falk 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lots of other Primary School articles exist. Should AfD be the appropriate response? Onnaghar talk.review 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless a speedy deletion is appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all primary schools are NN, but most of the are. Twenty Years 08:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In those few cases the AfD will properly fail, I'm sure. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a mention in the article on Doncaster, Victoria but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass notability standards. • Lawrence Cohen 06:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont Road Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. Given the lack of an agreement at WP:SCH, it fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Twenty Years 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and no assertion of notability--Victor falk 10:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a mention in the article on West Killara, New South Wales but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass notability standards. • Lawrence Cohen 06:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose vanders[edit]

The article is weak (non-existent almost) but there does seem to be some buzz about her. She's only 17 years old so there's no long career to follow. Of course it mainly seems to be a myspace phenomenon so I doubt there is a large amount of WP:RS and WP:V material but it didn't seem right to A7 her without allowing more people to check out her credentials. Pig^man 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - It's not real buzz, it's only phony internet buzz. This article does not assert notability, there are no reliable sources, and attempting to search for reliable sources results in YouTube, MySpace, blogs, and lyrics sites. --Bongwarrior 04:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. --Oxymoron⁸³ 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice assuming sources aren't found. The article is new and very short, so it should be easy to (re)create should any sources (or indeed external links) come to light. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sheffield Steel. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note, the link back to this AfD is broken. Bearian 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment I fixed the link. Thanks for the tip. Pig^man 01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre[edit]

This is a local establishment of dubious notability. Conflict of interest seems likely to me, and the page has been marked as unreferenced since May 2007. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable spam. (What's "notable" spam? I'd love to see an article that's spam but gets kept per wp:n)--Victor falk 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per spam. Onnaghar talk.review 16:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the text is a very close plagiarism of the organization's home page, with words changed here and there. I removed most of the content as a potential copyvio and spam, and for what it's worth, what's left is no longer spammy. It looks to be a real business incubator, which means it's notable if it has a pulse. If any of the people or companies it incubated left and became notable on their own due to their help, that would be strong evidence of notability because it was a major contributor to something notable. But I don't see many sources per google and I'm not about to add an assertion of notability without a source. Perhaps someone could look a little harder or try searching under alternate versions of the name. Wikidemo 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fablehaven Characters[edit]

The main article already has a detailed list of characters, is still short enough to hold it, and there was no discussion on its talk page about splitting it. Indiscriminate directory list. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep it because these articles will be more organized and we can read ir easier. I am editing this page an I will have it done tomarrow, now I'm to tired Jibajabba 20:44 10/10/07

Delete. No independent sources, no assertion of notability outside the realm of fiction. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep It could work out later, but needs work now. Consider getting rid of the list at the top of the page....—Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION, no claim of any real-world impact, no sources, seems like Original research Secret 01:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Jreferee t/c 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Parthasarathy Rajagopal Chari[edit]

Unreadable promotional piece, essentially unreferenced, by a user with no other contributions. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-sense, hoax?, coi, fails bio. --Victor falk 10:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE *** FIX AND KEEP

This article was obviously written by a "fan" of Parthasarathy Rajagopala Chari who put this in as a "PROMOTION" of the system called Sahaj Marg which allegedly (by the Family of the Founder), Chari took over with "forged letter of Succession". I am now showing the Court Cases. Another editor added something about the cases now in Supreme Court of India, cases which are still pending. This now needs an "independent" arbitration mechanism to show the current information and remove the promo and "biased" statements.

This article should then be "Locked" until the case is resolve in court about who is the PRESIDENT OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA MISSION and is this person, Chari as well as being the Master of the SAHAJ MARG LINEAGE through Lalaji and Babuji? etc....

To simply delete is not courageous, innovative or "encyclopedic" and does not promote WIKIpedia as it admits that it simply does not cover articles on "pending" material, which means any current controversial Material. There is already a group who's goal is to "eliminate" controversial material around INDIA called the India Project. I am sure there are other "cabals" at work on and inside WIKI (religions, nationalists). They should also be "DEALT WITH".

Some "at arm's length" Admin should get involved and SHOW THE VALUE OF WIKIPEDIA. Someone who is not a DELETE-er and "GIVE-UP-ski". Show how WIKI is a more than a "HOAX" platform, at the mercy of "delete" artists.

4d-don--don 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's keep the excess verbiage to a minimum: how is this character notable, how do we know it, and how could anyone tell, given the atrocious quality of the prose? Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs a rewrite, but might be OK afterwards. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE page can be fixed. It has just been started.--Loorena 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Loorena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And anyway, we've had the page for two and a half months. Why exactly should we be keeping it? Biruitorul 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY KEEP ANY ARTICLE? Because we beleive in the encyclopedic value of WIKI and its ability to present a "dynamic" but accurate source of INFORMATION on a topic, event or person, even a "CONTROVERSIAL" one such as one with allegations of "TAKE-OVER" of a small Meditation group by another group such as the SRCM. The family of the Founder is presently in court trying to get their SRCM back from the alleged "usurpers". WIll WIKI be only for "non-controversial" topics? I just recently (odd spelling of the name) found this article and will not leave it promote one side or the other of the topic but will try and make it a "balanced" temporary article even though one FACTION (SRCM Chennai) does not want the "information" to get out...The other three recent (of many) schisms in this group want the information to "GET OUT" and not remain hidden. They also support the "do not delete" but have given up on WIKI to be fair and not simply "DELETE" at the whim of some cabal and some "biased" admins (meditators or disciples of other MASTERS or members of the INDIA PROJECT)

I will not edit this article until the "delete" listing is removed as it is a waste of TIME!!

Don--don 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems premised on the notion that all court cases deserve encyclopedia articles. They don't, and no evidence has been shown that this one does, or that it's relevant to anyone outside the parties themselves and their narrow circle. Biruitorul 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The correct spelling seems to be Parthasarathy Rajagopalachari, but most of the search results are blogs and trivial mentions. utcursch | talk 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every "EXPOSE" of a controversial topic that "includes" court cases with properly referenced information (such as a court of law), according to WIKI, does not deserve a "delete" because there is a court case pending...the original article(by a disciple of the GURU) should be "referenced" to Chari's autobiography if it is kept at all...The book is published by SRCM Publishing. This is not a "narrow" circle. Nationalists in many countries are reading about this "invasion" of Indian Gurus (75,000 of them) and their religions, searching for "cash-rich" markets in the WEST...Is it WIKI to chose what is "important" to the global READERS by a few admins? If that article can be made to adhere to the WIKI criteria, the article should stay...NO CENSURESHIP by a few deleting Fanatics. I agree on the spelling "oddity". Don--don 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, do cut down the verbiage: pending court cases are not inherently notable, and that's that. Of course, I can't even tell what this one is really about, given the sub-literate English it's written in. Biruitorul 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as violating every rule of WP:BLP. Bearian 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pls delete the article as it violates WP:BLP. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree that the article has WP:BLP violations severe enough to warrant deletion. No objection to the recreation of a properly sourced, neutral article that avoids such problems. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notable, but needs cleaning up per WP:BLP. Bearian 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Leber[edit]

Unreferenced promotional piece. The creator, who has no other contributions, makes very inflated claims on the subject's behalf. If he is notable, which he may be, an entirely new article on him is needed. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep google finds some potential stuff about him. Mentioned in several film books [37]--Victor falk 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up significantly. Looks notable enough for an article. K. Lásztocska 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It does look notable enough. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smith Bros. aka the BEATSMITHz[edit]

A pretty unreadable profile of a music-producer pair. Unreferenced, and its creator (called, unsurprisingly, Smithfamilia, has no other contributions. These two may be notable, but if they are, I suggest restarting from scratch, and with a different title. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Rewrite It really sounds like a fan page, and I was never fond of somewhat cluttered bio sections titled "BIO". —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice against recreation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Po-ko Luk[edit]

This article is unreferenced, its creator has no other contributions, and it deals with a secondary school teacher who seems totally irrelevant outside a rather small circle. Moreover, outrageous and unsustainable claims are made on his behalf. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This Mr. Po-ko Luk is most likely a very intelligent and interesting person, but...not every interesting and even mildly famous person deserves their own encyclopedia entry (otherwise I would have already written about most of my friends.) K. Lásztocska 03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF; 3 non-wiki English Ghits [38][39] 23 non-duplicate Chinese GHits [40], of which the only WP:RS are not about him but a meatpacking company boss by the same name in Wuxi. cab 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cab, is it me or his contributions look a little odd--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity bio. Keb25 09:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Non-notable bio. Onnaghar talk.review 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to think that "endocentric" and "centrifugal" are opposite in physics, when they are not; which makes me suspect more than just notability concerns. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Students playing around in class one day. DGG (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JJL 03:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demander[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Repeatedly deleted band article. The current revision (barely) makes claims of notability, but doesn't reach WP:BAND and has no sources to support the claims. Google reveals nothing beyond myspace, blogs and press releases. — Coren ^(talk) 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. WP:BAND --NMChico24 03:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I know, this band satisfies two criteria for notability. First, it has been featured in a feature and notable "Band of the Year" contest on Spin Magazine's website and mentioned recently on the website for MTV - both sources independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Second, the group will be touring both nationally and internationally. The national tour is being supported by and reported in NME Magazine and is with two notable bands. NME's website allows for easy verification of this tour information. And, although it is not included in the criteria, the group has worked with many notable musicians and its members have played in well-documented groups such as World/Inferno Friendship Society and Anti-Social Music. Bookbookbook 04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from deleting other people's comments --NMChico24 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have declined the speedy deletion. It does, in fact, assert notability through an international tour. I have no opinion as to whether this article should survive AfD, but it does not, in my opinion, qualify for speedy deletion. - Philippe | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They should have a damn page. Great band. Period. On the verge as we speak (type)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.181.34 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — 208.253.181.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In fact, that they are "on the verge" is exactly why the article shouldn't exist yet. Once they get there, someone will write one. — Coren ^(talk) 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment demander should have a wiki page because they are linked to on many other pages and when i click on their name and try to read more about them no page exists. i was happy to see this up. the most recent demander link i saw was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NME_Tours please keep the demander page up. thanks!Sfarim 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)— Sfarim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - problem shared by many "up & coming bands" - not notable YET. When they fall into the WP:BAND criteria, fine. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should document, not predict, notable subjects. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see my original comment. This group fulfills two of the criteria for notability. Considering this is a discussion, those facts (not opinions) should determine their inclusion on Wikipedia. Additionally, they are linked from other notable Wikipedia pages. This is not predictive but rather a present documentation of a group that has already toured nationally and continue to do so increasingly with other notable groups. News sources independent of the group verify their notability in articles and notices. Bookbookbook 21:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's three other notable Wikipedia pages, excluding user pages and administrative pages: Links. And one of those is hardly flattering. This does not make them notable. And I note that your edit comment to the creation of this page (which is your first Wikipedia edit) is "This article describes the relevance of musical group Demander in regards to national/international touring, musical collaborations and media recognition", but you don't mention any international touring. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My following comment referred to huge blocks of text which have now been deleted. See Sfarimcomment below --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already! If this makes them notable, put it into the article. This forum is not for stuff like this. I found it unreadable on the basis of its layout alone. Please read WP:BAND and get a clue why this band is not yet notable in encyclopedic terms. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will append some information to the article that I think helps this case. Not only do the members of this band have shared a musical history that is notable (and includes international touring), but the group has been mentioned in many independent media sources and have toured nationally and continue to do so with notable bands. If the wiki admins see fit to include this group in the encyclopedia it would be for many demonstrable reasons. Apologies if I provided too much information in this forum and thanks so much for your time. Sfarim 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge or keep as a standalone article is unclear. W.marsh 19:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BackupBluRay[edit]

Should technically be merged with BackupHDDVD, but seeing as how there's almost nothing in BackupBluRay, you might as well delete it outright. Noclip 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we get an expert's opinion? Bearian 19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would ere on the side of keep for this one. In all probabilities there will be a law suit of something about this software. But an expert in the field needs to have a crack at rewriting it. Fosnez 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This piece of software created quite a bit of publicity in the media at the time and is therefor notable. A merge with BackupHDDVD wouldn't be the best solution, as they may be from the same developer and have similar names and function in similar ways, but effectively they are different pieces of software. It would be like merging tea and coffee... The only possible merge I could think of is merging all related article into the Muslix64 article. Poeloq 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If BackupBluray was expanded, much of the content would be identical to the BackupHDDVD article. In fact, I could copy most of the BackupHDDVD article, replace "HD-DVD" with "Blu-ray" and use that as the BackupBluray article. To avoid such duplication, I think the articles should be merged. However, I think the merged article should be called BackupHDDVD/BackupBluray, to stress that we're talking about two different programs. — Ksero 10:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per G7, G11 and G12. But|seriously|folks 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Jarvis[edit]

Unsalvagable conflict of interest, written originally in the first person, and still overly promotional. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible conflict of interest, ad like, would need massive cleanup to be viable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyvio from [41], only change is changing it from first person to third person (see [42], author also removed speedy [43]) Kesac 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Kesac. Article creator has been attempting to blank the article, so perhaps speedy as db:author? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XBlast[edit]

Contested PROD. My PROD rationale was: "Video game fails WP:CORP. No independent sources cited, none added since January." Contested with comment: "removed prod as the reason given talks about organizations, not computer games." Note that WP:CORP also covers products and services. Anyway, due to lack of secondary sources with in-depth coverage, it fails WP:N. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Yeah, it's got resources. Thing is, it needs some ghits to prove verifiablilty. I'll Google it and see what I can get~~. Passed the ghits test. Still fails WP:CORP though.--Gp75motorsports 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this discussion is now closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asks for a relisting to generate a more thorough discussion. --B. Wolterding 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every piece of software under X11 is notable, and this is not such a software package. Need a notability demonstration to change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also failed to find independent sources to assert notability. Carlosguitar 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was reply hazy, try again. Please re-list seperately where it may be appropriate to do so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrossRoads Middle School[edit]

WP:OUTCOMES says that while high schools are kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deleted a few blue ribbon winners, as those seem to be notable. But the others (including CrossRoads m.s.) don't assert notability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL-per WP:OUTCOMES only high schools are kept TonyBallioni 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all Except for Nursery Rd and Dutch Fork. Those two seem to have won some semi-notable award from the Dept of Educ, which may make them notable (although I'm not familiar enough with the blue ribbon award to know if it's rare enough that winning it confers some notability). If it isn't that important, then delete all. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All Above and beyond the nominator's failure to review and improve the articles in clear violation of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy is the lumping together of articles for which many make clear and unmistakable claims of notability as they existed at the time this laundry list AfD was created. In the few minutes since I saw the AfD, several of the articles have had multiple reliable and verifiable sources added to provide the clearest possible demonstration of satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. WP:OUTCOMES does NOT say that all elementary and middle school articles are deleted, and the use of this policy to justify deletion, without describing any violation of Wikipedia policy by these articles, is problematic in and of itself. Alansohn 05:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So after reading Blue_Ribbon_Schools_Program, it seems 4% of the schools in the country wins the award. I personally don't think that establishes notability, but I imagine that's a personal opinion. (And unless I missed something, that's the only claim these schools have to notability). However, I do want to second Alansohn's remarks about WP:OUTCOMES being used as a reason to delete. It's fine to use OUTCOMES when trying to decide whether to AfD something (so long as it isn't the sole/primary reason for nomination), but it is not a good reason to delete. Instead, we should cite the underlying reason(s) why this class of articles (and this article in specific) should be deleted. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. To be frank, I've never read or heard of WP:OUTCOMES until today, but lumping together a number of Blue Ribbon recipients with other schools is no way to achieve a consensus. Worse case scenario, they should be merged to their parent school district or locality! Silensor 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and reference better WP:OUTCOMES isn't close to consensus, each article must be on its own merits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain to me what exactly is encyclopedic about listing every school in the country? It just seems like wikipedia is not the place for some of this info. Even if the schools have won awards is that a reason to have them here. Not arguing with anyone just honestly asking. I'm kind of caught between the opinion that we include way to many things in wikipedia or that we should just list everything. I mean if we are going to get rid of bands and artist because they are unsigned local acts with no major national press coverage, why should every school be listed? Ridernyc 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all- ruling schools of this size automatically notable. Period.JJJ999 08:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and relist What OUTCOMES says is that we usually delete such articles, unless they have individual merit. so lets consider the individual merit. OUTCOMES is in any event just a summary of what usually happens here, and I note that it has almost always been considered that Blue Ribbon schools are sufficiently distinctive for their quality to be considered important. I personally have my doubts, but checking back it shows the consensus has been that this is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DGG. Speedy keep and relist individually. shoy 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that. Should we close this one and reopen them individually, or should we just put a relist template, rm and list the elementary schools individually? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with speedy keep and relist individually. -- Roleplayer 16:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist individually--Victor falk 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you nominate these together? A note to the nom—never do mass noms. Mass noms sink almost instantly; people almost always refuse to discuss more than one at a time. I, however, am not one of those people. Delete them all because I see none as notable. i ^said 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I is valliant--Victor falk 23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? i ^said 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all except Nursery Rd/Dutch Fork, on which I am neutral (lack of information). The remaining schools don't even claim notability and should be deleted. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Long[edit]

This is a memorial to a high school player who passed away, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rob 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Sethacus 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pig^man 03:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a memorial. JJL 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate, but not notable right now for an article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pity he died, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Hut 8.5 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad but true. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after references were provided. (non-admin) SheffieldSteel 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson County Apple Festival[edit]

~~Article about a local festival with little apparent assertion of notability and no sources to verify it or to prove its notability. Nyttend 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep For disclosure, I am the creator of the article. I am in no way connected to the festival other than having attended as a child. This is a 64 year old festival that is even mentioned on Britannica.com's Ohio Culture page [44]. I have added some links for notability. I believe this article was too quickly nominated for deletion when it could have been recommended for "needing improvement" and including the request for references. Alancookie 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator, I'm thankful to see references provided and proving that this is a notable festival; administrator please accept my withdrawal of the nomination. Nyttend 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. -- Jreferee t/c 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heat and affinity[edit]

Much like Human chemistry, recently deleted via AfD. The article is a collection of original research and speculation and a barely veiled promotion for the author's book. The references either do not support the article, or are simply unrelated. — Coren ^(talk) 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also suffering from the same flaws and by the same author:

— Coren ^(talk) 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Particularly WP:OR. Pig^man 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "human chemistry" was. Original research and self-promotion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As much as I argued for deleting Human chemistry, I think that the case here is different. Interpersonal chemistry looks like it may be a legitimate topic deserving of an article, so whatever flaws the article has can be fixed through editing. Regarding Heat and affinity, I'm not so sure about the topic, but the article has a lot of useful content that could be merged into relevant articles about the history of chemistry. I suggest discussing these two articles separately, because they are too unrelated to bunch up in the same AfD. --Itub 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I agree the subjects are different, but the flaws are the same, IMO, which is why I've joined them. — Coren ^(talk) 12:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, they're meandering original-research essays which link together divers sources to advance an argument that none of them make. <eleland/talkedits> 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Interpersonal chemistry. Obvious original research of the most blatant kind. Note that WP:OR also means "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". -- Ekjon Lok 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heat and affinity -- original research. -- Ekjon Lok 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Could be useful to some, but others...not so much. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Interpersonal Chemistry is an excellent article on a notable subject. It has little to do with the Heat and affinity article which seems quite a separate matter. Conflating the two articles in order to delete the better of them in a peremptory way seems an abuse of this process. Colonel Warden 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe some centralised analysis of these articles and others clearly created by the same person is now needed. I now support the imposition of an indefinite ban. I do not say it lightly. --TreeKittens 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that posting that you want him banned every time you post at a related AfD is going to work, and is off-topic. I suggest you look at WP:DR (probably at WP:RFC) for more appropriate channels if that's what you want. --Itub 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I didn't know the correct forum even though the issue of a ban had been raised by other users. "Every time you post" is an exaggeration - I have posted it once at my AfD, and once here. Nowhere else. I am somewhat dismayed that few seem interested in helping me despite the exhaustive efforts I have put in to reading this braille and interpreting it for far more experienced and educated editors. I will not comment again. Apologies --TreeKittens 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the exaggeration, I think I was thinking of Kww, who posted several times along the same lines. --Itub 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) TreeKittens 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irredeemable OR. Cool Hand Luke 05:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy delete as WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of deleted article.-- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Third nomination. Previous incarnations have been devoid of information, and this one isn't much better. It's got an IMDB page, but I can't see anything on it. I also can't find any news sources which source the claim that the movie was "recently announced and set for release" - all I can see on a Google News search is a couple of week-old rumors that Vin Diesel might be playing in it, and a month-old rumor regarding its director. Neither of these rise to the level of reliable sources, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as a director, major cast list, and release date can be supplied by reliable sources independent of the film's makers and stars. -- saberwyn 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE again. Was deleted twice before? Isn't this speediable as a repost? Will tag as such. If I'm missing something, let me know. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: because its been deleted before, and it's non-notible.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 as a recreation of previously deleted article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per multiple deletions and a sack full of small glassy spheres. ThuranX 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Speedy Delete is probably the correct policy based option. But it does look like it's going to happen based on semi-reliable sources. Are we better off keeping a stub or doing AFD #4, #5, #6, & #7 until we finally end up with a keep article.--Cube lurker 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any sources that stem from something more substantial than rumors? If so, I'd be glad to withdraw the nomination. But no matter how widespread a rumor is (with rare exceptions), that still doesn't add up to a reliable source. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This has been delete multiple times. IF such a movie gets officially announced, then it can be allowed to be recreated. TJ Spyke 06:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be hesitant to salt the article, as it'd make it more difficult to create an article if/when the movie is actually announced. Salting should generally be reserved for articles which should never be created at all. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Very little is known about the plot"...insert your own joke here, but there still aren't any reliable sources to prove this movie is going to be in existence. Smashville 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, premature It's just way too early for this article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No need to have an article (right now) that: 1. Says "Very little is known about the plot" and 2. Is about a film being set for release in 2009. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Boyle (director)[edit]

He is a non-notable filmmaker. Making one or two or even 10 films doesn't inherently make you worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As far as I can tell the filmmaker has never even won a festival award. Anybody who's gone to film school will end up making films, but they aren't wikipedia worthy just because they've made films. It's nice that people liked his movie and that he got two 'interviews', but LA Splash and digitaljournalonline.com are not well known industry mags. Maybe some day David will be famous but he's not right now. Worldfamousdirector 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing showing subject meets WP:BIO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Just not notable at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a significant role in a notable film (WP:BIO). --Alksub 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Abs. --Alksub 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, since the author had blanked the page. Non-admin closure. Thomjakobsen 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Parker[edit]

Try as I might, I find nothing suggesting notability or verifiability.02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Judging from his edit history, I'd guess her younger brother is a wrestling fan who was giggling uncontrollably at around 4PM local time last Saturday. Thomjakobsen 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bahaha! "Ring names"?--Sethacus 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is most likely a hoax. Contents are demonstrably false (this person was not in Attack of the Clones) or unsourced (the "Amazing Adventures of Katy" appears to be made up). The scenario suggested by Thomjakobsen seems pretty likely to me. Euryalus 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Till[edit]

Don't think he meets WP:BIO. Don't think he had a starring role. Some Internet sources say he played Johnny Cash as a child. Others say he played the older brother killed in the saw accident. Though there is a goodly number of Google hits, I did not see any that support notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass notability. FTR, Jack Cash was Johnny's brother.--Sethacus 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't satisfy WP:BIO per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxeptomaniac (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with some momentum toward keep. Cool Hand Luke 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perry[edit]

Non-notable and definately WP:COI. Original author was User:Marvin Perry and that was his only contribution. Article was PRODed but the tag was removed.Peter Rehse 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems non-notable. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Non-notable person. And you are right, there could be some COI problems here. I added a note to the user's talk page. - Rjd0060 00:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In lieu of some new additions to the article, I believe that it now asserts its notability. - Rjd0060 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PRODer. No independent sources to verify biographical information, and I am currently unconvinced that any of the awards he won are significant. Most search results are related to an author of Western Civ textbooks with the same name. The website of the gym he works for makes some claims of notability but I was unable to verify any of this. shoeofdeath 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless verifiable sources attesting to notability are found. Google News Archive yielded-- "Marvin Perry" +karate - did not match any documents. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ([reply]
CommentAppears to have won US championship from USKBA "WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2001" Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Original add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.93.238 (talk • contribs) )[reply]
Change to keep per US San Da/San Shou legend Marvin Perry, US Kick boxing Association website. I suspect the anon will continue adding sources here, too. PLEASE, add the sources to the article, and leave a comment here when you're done.03:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
Comment[IKF Kickboxing http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/sanshou01.htm "who won the amatuers a record 5 times and then turned pro"] "PROTECTING "TRUE" SAN SHOU!" (fixed link added by anon asserting subject's notability) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (Original add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.93.238 (talk • contribs) )[reply]
~~Week~~ Keep needs more sourcing but has some and large org title holders deserve a stub. Sourced titles = notable per WP:BIO --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The presence of titles, especially amateur ones, don't seem to me to be the main reason to keep the article. Instead, we need to find a way to resolve Nate1481's argument vs's Shoeofdeath's. If the USKBA is a large and legitimate organization, then it seems like the awards he won are significant and the article should be a keep. But if the title and/or organization is one of many, such that everyone and their mother could have a list of winning titles, it's of no real value to us. So first off: if the USKBA is large and legitimate, why is its article only a few sentences? —Mrand ^T-C 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is now the crux of the matter. Of course, article size does not necessarily relate to the notability/importance/legitamcay of the subject (USKBA). I've sourced the uncited championships. Whether he meets WP:BIO or not is something yet to be determined. The lack of main stream news reports does not help. Google web hits are awash with directory links back to the subject's homepage. The difficulty of searching archives of the sanctioning bodies, not just USKBA, make matters more difficult. Did all I could-- now it's up to consensus. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Mrand is absolutely correct. I have no doubt that the subject did in fact win all the titles listed, but doubts remain as to whether or not these are in any way important. I certainly don't have any expertise in this area, but it still looks to me as though they are really quite minor. The fact that this is the only article that links to the USKBA page makes me very skeptical as to the importance of that body. Someone with a better knowledge of martial arts related topics might be able to confirm whether or not there is notability here. shoeofdeath 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Web search results (not WP:RS) say there are 3 major organizations in the U.S. (USKBA, IKF, ISKA). Perry has won awards in two of them and ISKA has an undated 15th in class worldwide ranking for him.[45] The Art of War is a major event in China. His win there still needs to be verified. • Gene93k 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shawn Lieu[46] was the promoter of The Art Of War USA event, he may have some info to confirm Perry's title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.93.238 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Personally contacting people, though, does not satisfy WP:V. What we need is published information from sources not connected with the subject. Thanks again for ferreting out as much as we have. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen kick boxing competitions on TV. Are there more well known sanctioning bodies in the sport? What are they? One would expect ESPN to have taken some note of a champion in kick boxing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment USKBA, IKF, and ISKA are the main sanctioning bodies in America for Kickboxing some events are televised and some are not.
Deleteper nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His kickboxing titles make him notable. All but one are verified and I have no reason to doubt the remaining one. COI/NPOV issues are being dealt with. • Gene93k 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentas the creator of the Battle of Brooklyn, a USKBA sanctioned event that has showcased San Da among several other Martial Arts since April 2005, I am very familiar with Marvin and his contribution to Martial Arts and have had the pleasure of working with him as well. anyone familiar with full contact Chinese Martial Arts competition knows what a huge part he has played. anyone who is involved with Martial Arts competition in the NorthEast US knows how huge the USKBA is and how well-respected their titles are. IMO, this debate is ridiculous. there are plenty of people who SHOULD be deleted from Wikipedia. but definitely not this guy. Marvin Perry, is huge among his peers. Mark Negron

- Traditional martial arts are NOT mainstream, the world championship in China, which attracts 87 nations and is now IOC (international OLYMPIC committee) gets no mention in "main stream" press. Yet Marvin Perry is one of the GIANTS in the worlds of kickboxing, San Shou, San Da, and Kung Fu fighting. Holds USKBA title (www.USKBA.com), was FIVE TIME NATIONAL SAN SHOU CHAMPION (www.usawkf.org), holds IKF title (www.ikfkickboxing.com) and was named "fighter of the year" by www.kingofsanda.net To delete this seems ridiculous, perhaps started by someone with an axe to grind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.113.160 (talk • contribs)

Please skip the personal attacks, I miss your point when the article was nominated ir was unsourced, now it has several & I doubt the nominator would have considered it in it's current state. P.S. the whole TMA not mainstream thing doesn't make sense --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me once again re-state a basic point, martial arts events do not get mainstream news coverage no matter how big and legititmate it is. The biggest San Shou event in the world is the world championships that China sponsors, it is attended by 87 member nations and currently the organizing body (the IWUF) and the sport of San Shou are International Olympic Committee recognized. IE it is a totally legit event. Yet you will find no "main stream" citation. You MIGHT find a single sentence reference to it in a "martial arts magazine". That doesn't make it any less true or important. Marvin Perry is perhaps the #1 San Shou fighter in the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.113.160 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure by what standards someone is "notable" on here but in the community in the United States Marvin Perry is considered pound-for-pound the best San Da fighter ever produced. If he wasn't in a totally different weight class from Cung Le, the US would have seen the war to end all wars. I've promoted San Da in this country since 1994 and I've had the pleasure of promoting several of Marvin's fights in both San Da and Muay Thai. Not only does he have all the legit titles in his weight class, and sorry if you aren't part of the community but the IKF and USKBA are 2 of the three bodies here and so they are VERY REAL TITLES. Marvin being a citizen of Trinidad is the only reason he never competed in the San Da World Cup, but he was 5 time amateur national champion, holds 3 professional titles and the respect of the entire community

David A Ross (info@nysanda.com) - Promoter, "New York Showdown", USKBA official, President of King of San Da USA HATE TO STATE THE OBVIOUS - BUT THIS IS MY SIGNATURE!

Thanks Dave. If we could see that on a web page from one of the sanctioning bodies or even a newsletter, it would help a lot. WP:V describes verifiable sources. The problem has been trying to pry the info out of the archives. Most of us are not well versed on kick boxing, so it deepens the hole. The subject feels notable to me. Me feelings don't really enter into it though. Hope that helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can completely accept that if you aren't in the San Da or kickboxing world, you might wonder about this. I can also appreciate that the web sites are often not the best maintained. However, this is the current state of martial arts. Aside from the very large UFC event, martial arts simply are not going to play on ESPN or get a story in the New York Times. But I'd say that if that's the standard, you'd have to delete pretty much ALL your martial arts entries. Most of what the Chinese martial arts (aka Kung Fu) community embraces is totally unreliable by academic standards. So I understand your problem, but I'd also suggest that if you apply this standard, in fairness it should be applied to ALL entries...
EDIT: Here is a story FROM THE WEB PAGE OF THE USKBA, about Marvin winning his Muay Thai title, it is at http://www.uskba.com/01_09.htm...
HERE I AM SIGNING THIS! THIS IS DAVID ROSS

Weak keep. Outside the San Da / Muay Thai / kick boxing circles, the organizations and their title holders are pretty obscure - but these aren't the only obscure topics in Wikipedia, by far. We have a rich history of well documented articles on obscure topics, and I believe that is one of the things that makes Wikipedia the great resource it is (I can't count the number of times I've searched for something and been pleasantly surprised to find an article on Wikipedia about it). Looking over various Wikipedia policies, there is almost nothing said about obscure topics - so that means we have to fall back on WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Within the kick boxing circles, it looks like Marvin is notable, although the lack of truly independent third-party sources make that difficult to document. I believe that the promoters and awarding organizations are primary sources, not independent secondary sources. In short, we really need something like a newspaper/magazine write-up about Marvin to make this article complete, but I believe that it squeaks by verifiability and notability as it is currently.—Mrand ^T-C 14:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source such as the IOC website for a medallist is fine, the question should be is the title notable enough (as an Olympic title would be). agree on the Notability =/= fame bit. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on signing Here at Wikipedia, we sign our posts with 4 tildes-- ~~~~. This may have little or no bearing on our "real world" identities. For someone who is editing without a user id, it leaves an IP. It is something not obvious to new editors. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that these articles were never published online they were scanned from the actual magazine and placed on the kickboxing gym's web server

QIGONG WUSHU KUNG FU Magazine March 1999

Magazine Cover http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/cover.jpg

USAWKF San Shou Article page 51 http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/p51.jpg

Kung Fu QIGONG Magazine Nov/Dec 2001 Magazine Cover http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/cover.jpg

IKF Born 2 Fight Event Results page 89 http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/p89.jpeg

Delete As an autobiography which fails to provide adequate verification of notability with strong, independent sourcing. A few titles and features in a local kickboxing publication do not assert firm notability in anything but a trivial way. References to questionable sources lacking strong fact-checking and editorial review do not fulfill the need for reliable sourcing. VanTucky ^Talk 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems you aren't aware that the magazines those scans are from are distributed INTERNATIONALLY. They are NOT "local kickboxing publication". I'd also like you to cite something that indicates that are "lacking strong fact-checking and editorial review". I'm sure that the editors (Gene Ching and Dave Cater) would strongly argue otherwise! Finally, you're attempting to dismiss someone who holds 2/3 of the important distinctions in the sport as someone who holds "a few titles"? When a pro boxer holds only the IBF and WBC belt but not the WBA belt, is he a local fighter who is not notable? 12.75.135.37 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, not aware of sources' "poor reputation for fact checking." If anything, these should be the experts in the field. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources to verify the notability of the website. PeaceNT 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GirlsandGuns.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Pure spammy advertising (probably a speedy, but I'll put in here in case there is an erudite contribution to feminist firearm culture that I am unaware of). --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AD. I probably wouldn't have speedied it either. - Rjd0060 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (I too agree. I wouldn't have speedied it.) —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sadly, I have seen this get much media attention. JJL 03:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Could you provide links so we can all decide for ourselves? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete You guys are nicer than me. This are no real assertions of notability, also probably speedyable as apam.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very cute, but not cute enough for an article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete.I am the original author of this page. Someone went in and deleted relevant information that informed readers about the relevance of this web-site and its sister web-site RioHeroes.com, which made the entries appear as spam. The original information was informative and no different from the wiki entries about Bodog.net, UFC, and other similar web-based Internet entertainment websites. I am not affliated in any way with the company that produces both web-sites. I am asking you to allow me to fix the entries and leave them on wiki.-- --falvaz75 14:53, 11 October 2007
- Comment Ive restored the information that was removed, so people can judge it for themselves. I've also removed the {{hangon}} tag which applies only to Speedy deletion. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedied. No notability, no independent sources to prove that it has any notability. Falvaz, I went back to look at the version you created, and the links to CBS News and the Miami Herald were to articles about the cock fighting site, not the girlsandguns site, so it's no wonder they were removed. You still haven't provided any reliable sources for this site. Corvus cornix 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 08:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Hannah[edit]

Faile WP:BIO non-notable.... not sure what. Businessman? Almost certain vanity page / WP:OR / WP:COI. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a pain to read too.
- Weak Keep I didn't catch that vandalism. It is much neater, but it's much smaller. If someone works on it, I would be more than happy to see it kept. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check the edit history, it was vandalized and not caught [47]. I've restored the version prior to vandalism, but someone still needs to check this. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks legit and satisfies WP:BIO. I've added a few references. Clarityfiend 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all. W.marsh 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone character articles from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia[edit]

They're characters of a minor TV show with no sources at all, I doubt they are notable enough for articles themselves. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Could also recreate each article with the names only (leaving out "(It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia character)" and redirect to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. But delete these anyways. - Rjd0060 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There are short character descriptions in the main article for the show, so I'd not worry about having separate articles unless there is a ton more to tell about them. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the first two to the article on the show as plausible search terms. All five are main characters (and therefore search terms), but I find it unlikely that people looking form information on the characters are going to know to add the disambiguation tag (the bit in the parentheses). -- saberwyn 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete all, as per Kornfan71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeloq (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the main article per saberwyn. No merge necessary, as the main article also sufficiently summarizes these characters. Redirects can serve as search terms and on dab pages.– sgeureka ^t•c 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Per above comment by Squeureka. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Carter | Talk to me 04:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all the main article currently covers the characters.-- danntm ^T _C 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George H. Philip[edit]

Non-notable teacher. Fails WP:BIO by any conceivable definition. Possible vanity page / WP:COI / WP:OR violation.

Delete. This doesn't seem on the face of it like the individual could ever meet WP:BIO and zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia confirmed it. Strangely enough, there's a US warship with that name. Accounting4Taste 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Accounting4Taste. If there was an article for every teacher on the face of the planet...whoa. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Not sure whether to speedy. The article looks like a 95% copy of its source.--Sethacus 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I don't see any assertion of notability. Nyttend 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - doesn't assert the significance of the subject. Tagged as such. Ale_Jrb ^talk 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, utterly non-notable, unencyclopedic bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowball or speedy G1, take your pick. Daniel 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abgithetzqwrashamenkegadikeshbamratztaghaqamamamnayaglepzeqsheqiayeth[edit]

0 non-wiki ghits, no real assertion of notability in article, no sources offered to show notability. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for obvious reasons. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jet. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I don't think there needs to be a deletion justification argument for this one! Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want for "notability"? the word is listed in Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia, but that's not on the web anywhere...Przxqgl 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above: If you provided some sort of ref in the article, that might have helped. Are there any other refs available? If the word only exists in the encyclopedia you mention, then it still might not be considered notable. As for me, the phrase that bothers me is "I have had the presumtion to Anglicise" (sic), which implies original research. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable unsourced arcane kabalistic esoteric nonsense--Victor falk 01:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's also listed without the Anglisization, in 777, by Aleister Crowley, but that's not on the web either...Przxqgl 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Plainly non-notable, unsourced, and (In my opinion) ridicules material. --Mark (Mschel) 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so an article about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Larson" target="_blank">Bob Larson</a> isn't ridiculous, but an article about a detail of cabalist ritual is... just so i'm clear on this.Przxqgl 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm sure there are plenty of words invented by Crowely notabilty is not inherited. Ridernyc 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited notability and usefulness. Although this isn't a valid argument here, I'm imagining a clever git moving the page by changing one letter in it. Tell the truth, I'm also having a bit of trouble conceptualizing someone typing the word into a search engine. Again, not a valid strike against it, just my thought. Pig^man 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to speedy on nonsense, but it is not patently so. No use outside of cabalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should have been speedied as nonsense. Miranda 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to aaklsbklasdjhrewhrewviorewnbkjbvuiotygfdbvclrhs. What?! There's no article on that? Okay, then delete as nonsense. Clarityfiend 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one source for what presents as a theological phenomenon? fry it. ThuranX 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damaine Radcliff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete prev by AfD. Article recreated. Claim to notability hasn't improved since last deleted and lacks references. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Horrorshowj 00:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Horrorshowj. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD#A7 "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) wrong thread--Victor falk 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed, not the most notable actor in the world, but he has made two major movies -- billed third in one of them at IMDB that was distributed by Touchstone, so this is not direct-to-video -- and appeared in episodes of two well-known network television programmes. For the movies, one required him to play basketball and one to dance, so this man is not a one-trick pony; I regard the films AND the television as evidence of notability in more than one medium, which tipped the balance for me. I did a little searching and found one reference that I'm going to add; yes, there are not huge amounts of references available, and I do understand why this got nominated for deletion. Accounting4Taste 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning (as Ispy1981) in the first nomination.--Sethacus 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He is interviewed at the premier of "Step Up" and the video of that is on about.com so I believe he was actually in the movie which was in theaters. But that's about it excpet for his imdb entry. He doesn't appear in the press photos and despite the fact that his name is listed THIRD on iMdB and that fact was used as a reason by Charlene to keep the entry previously, he is NOT listed on the poster for the film at all, while four other actors names are listed. Also his name does not appear at ALL at the end of the trailer which is available here while other actors names do appear. And the bio listed by Ispy1981 on "episodeworld.com" is just copied right from imdb which is unreliable. All that information tells me that he did not have a significant role in this movie and does not meet WP:BIO and is self promoting by writing his own bio, giving himself third billing and creating and re-creating a wikipedia entry to legitimize himself. Since I have not seen the movie I add 'weak' to my delete suggestion, but I don't see evidence that he meets WP:BIO. Worldfamousdirector 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your points and respect them. However, 1) He didn't give himself 3rd billing in Step Up. IMDb lists him in 3rd billing, and he didn't create the film listing 2) The IMDb bio could've been a copy of the link I provided in the first Afd. 3) The article, at this stage, was written by an editor with, AFAIK, no ties to Radcliff, so vanity could be ruled out. 4) He also had a minor but pivotal role in Glory Road. The reviews I've seen speak about his character and list him (Radcliff) by name.--Sethacus 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE:3rd billing. IMDB listing order can be set by any anonymous users just like other info on there. While I don't think that Damaine submitted the original listing on imdb, neither of us know who set that order. The Internet Archive shows that for a year the original cast listing was in alphabetical order and did not have Damaine listed third. It's also clear that the official poster and trailer didn't list him at all. Whether or not he is the third most important character is debatable I guess, but the poster and trailer imply that he was not. Worldfamousdirector 08:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: No notable roles. --SeizureDog 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete arguments based on non-notability not convincing. Sports prizes, notable alumni and a couple of good references do make the school notable. PeaceNT 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field High School[edit]

Removed prod. Non-notable school. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN school (nor does it assert any type of notability). - Rjd0060 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD#A7 "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep school have won and also have a Famous Alumni which kind make it notable to me at least. and school have won Ohio High School Athletic Association State Championships which make it notable as wellOo7565 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability for the school in the form of sports championships and alumni, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Above and beyond the clear consensus on notability of high schools codified in WP:OUTCOMES, the article for this school provides sufficient evidence to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - claims of notability are not limited to the generic WP:N test; let's keep in mind that that's a guideline. Article does make reasonable claims of notability. Besides that, high schools are generally considered notable by precedent. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:Notability. High schools are certainly not considered notable by any kind of precedent, and certainly not by default. Sports championships are backed by a primary source, the school itself.Wisdom89 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — It's a valid high school and more than meets my criteria for notability. — RJH (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the fact that a high school is valid be relevant to its notability? Wisdom89 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nation states are generally notable. Multibillion dollar companies are generally notable. Sourcing is a proxy test for evaluating notability, not the determinant of notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are "valid" teachers who are employed at said high school, would an arbitrary entry be notable then?Wisdom89 05:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not following what you mean... could you say it again? — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my ambiguity. All I'm trying to convey is that there is nothing notable concerning this public school - it would be tantamount to just arbitrarily choosing an existing highschool or faculty member therein..which would probably lead us here - hence the original reason to consider the article for deletion.Wisdom89 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think the rough consensus among editors is that high schools are generally considered notable, with occasional exceptions (such as "alternative" programs with very low enrollment that are officially considered independent high schools). Of course faculty members are generally considered not notable until otherwise demonstrated. I think Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education describes the (sort of) precedent fairly well (though the 15% statistic is probably rather dated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've come across that section, but I suppose my interpretation of it differs from yours. After reading the first line, it makes me think that most of the time consensus isn't reached - and that this common tendency to nominate such articles for deletion indicates that the rough consensus is non-notableWisdom89 23:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as with lawsuits, anyone can file an AfD. Absolutely anyone, for any reason, or none at all, can start the Articles for Deletion process, and they often do. The fact that there are those editors unfamiliar with consensus who spot a particular school that they have decided is non-notable, or the small number of individuals who willingly disregard consensus and still nominate articles proves nothing. The fact that the near complete precedent for high school articles is that they are retained is the definitive proof of where consensus stands. Alansohn 23:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per RJHall. VivianDarkbloom 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a better choice for a redundant article. W.marsh 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Axis Struts and Hibernate[edit]

Illogically titled and duplicates the information in Spring Framework, Apache Axis, Apache Struts, and Hibernate (java). Alksub 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It really is an oddly titled article, and the info is found elsewhere. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are bundled technologies. This sounds similar to WAMP, the Windows Apache, mySQL and php collection. If you look at the link I provided, it's a disambig page. Rather than describing the bundled project, the disambig page just says what WAMP is while providing links to the relevant projects. While I've personally never heard of SASH, if it is a valid bundling, then perhaps something similar can be done? Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to Sash (disambiguation)--Victor falk 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: as this article cites significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources in the references section, the incident is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this incident cited in SuccessTech Academy shooting#References would therefore suggest that this incident is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". John254 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

SuccessTech Academy shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a news service. We don't need a page for every school shooting. Will ^(talk) 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. per nom. Why have an article for these "minor" shootings (in comparison to Columbine or the Virginia Tech Massacre, which also have much more content). I agree, Wikipedia is not a news service.
- Keep for now. Maybe its importance will emerge later. I guess we should give it some time. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any importance being merged to this article, no one died or even got critically hurt, the only difference between this and any other shooting is that it happened in a school. Jbeach56 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Hm? No one died? --Kizor 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think Jbeach56 means that no one besides the shooter died or was critically injured. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school article, doesn't deserve an article on it's own. Jbeach56 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per nomination and suggestion by Jbeach56 - very sad news but cannot see how it is otherwise notable - if it was in another country may be but there have sadly been too many such incidents in the US. It is a shame that this was brought back to AfD so soon - as per the article talk page there was probably no urgency and it could have waited for it to become quite clear that this was merely a news story. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep impossible to judge the importance of such an event when it's still breaking news... as with past articles like the London bombings that have come to AFD, it is logical and (as far as I know) backed up by consensus to just wait a few weeks for the AFD in situations like this. --W.marsh 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre, which was deleted, but occurred on the day of the shooting and some people made arguments similar to mine. Good thing we kept that article, huh? --W.marsh 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AFD was created by a disruptive SPA and it was three days after the event, not the day of. --B 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, people made similar arguments. You can see another two AFDs linked to here Talk:2007_London_car_bombs and the DRV of those AFDs, I think, showed consensus to just calm down and wait on breaking news stories that are getting a lot of coverage. --W.marsh 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are we looking at the same page? At [48], I see the original nomination and then nothing but keeps and speedy keeps. Am I looking in the wrong place? --B 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think so... with arguments like "As the situation is still developing, and the coverage in the States is enormous, it's practical to leave it standing" isn't the similarity clear? --W.marsh 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok ... I misunderstood what you were saying. --B 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we don't know the significance, why would we have an article on it? This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. I'm all in favor of quickly resolving it just so that a high-traffic page won't have that shiny red template on top of it (it really looks unprofessional for visitors), but I don't see any reason to keep it just for the sake of keeping it. --B 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When in doubt, don't delete? It's not like having one article for a few weeks is any meaningful strain on resources... better to keep it and be on the safe side than delete it and realize in a few weeks we got it wrong, considering it costs us nothing to play it safe. --W.marsh 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hear, hear. --Kizor 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge - we're obviously not going to delete it as this title needs to exist, either as an article or as a redirect. I'm really on the fence, but according to List of school-related attacks, there have been 13 high school attacks and 5 college ones this year. I'm not convinced that we need articles about any but the largest of them. --B 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service, and there's no evidence that this shooting has had any impact beyond the school in question. --Carnildo 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was also speedy kept earlier today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuccessTech Academy shooting... no reason given for reopening the nomination within hours. --W.marsh 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That AFD was originally created because the nominator incorrectly believed it to be a hoax. That AFD only considered whether the incident was real, not whether or not we should have an article on it. It was speedy closed by a non-admin and attempts to re-open it so that a discussion could be held on whether or not we should actually have an article were reverted. Thus here we are.--B 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the third round but the AfD wasn't closed officially between the first tagging of it as AfD and the second (post-hoax confusion) tagging of it. I'm not clear on how such things work but the tags on the article page were removed without apparently the discussion being formally closed (history should show folks like me thus entered two votes in the same apparent AfD cycle, and I even posted a confused "AfD again?" At any rate, there was plenty of discussion about the article's AfD after the hoax issue was resolved. - Ageekgal 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, keep it for like a week, then when there is more information on the subject, we can make a better a judgemnet on whether its important enough for its own article. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Crabby -- False Prophet 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion at this stage is premature. There are certainly plenty of sources and it is certainly notable *now*. AFD can be considered in a few weeks... what's the rush??? Jerry 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If, in a few months, the shooting is clearly of no historical importance, I would have no problems with a re-nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - It could be really important, like the Virginia Tech incident, we just haven't given it enough time to see what happens. It was only today. Neranei (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a news service. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not Reuters, neither is it a memorial venue. This is just one more shooting in a long list so it's not particularly notable. It may possibly warrant a 2 sentence paragraph in an article on school shootings but not its own article. ---- WebHamster 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - This is the third time I've had an option to vote. Remains same for reasons given by others. Even if time bears out this article cannot/should not stand on its own due to non-notability, then it's surely a Merge? - Ageekgal 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't body count. Notability is what the public thinks it is, and news coverage is a good guide for that. School shootings are never quickly forgotten, for the public takes them as an indication of gross social dysfunction, as well as of the immediate tragedy. That there are too many incidents in one particular country makes them all the more notable. Even were there one such terrible event a day, we have room for them. Some common sense is needed about what happenings will be worth attention in WP. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per W. Marsh, and because AfD arguments are premised on the incident and not the varied volumes of media frenzying. ThuranX 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I made this article this morning because a lot of school shootings have articles, but agree that a lot of them SHOULDN'T, and I think this is one of them. Titanium Dragon 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into school article, which itself did not exist until this morning. Chris 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revisit in a month or two. I must admit I severely doubt this will have any long-standing notability, and will probably end up recommending deletion in a prior debate, but until the smoke clears we cannot be sure. It's far too early to make a realistic decision on this yet. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jerry. Anchoress 08:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable, this eent is nothing unprecedented. --Philip Laurence 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep...this just passed AfD yesterday. It's also linked off of the Current events portal.- Smashville 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the original AfD was withdrawn by the nominator because the original reason for deletion was a hoax. That reason was withdrawn. This is an entirely different reason -- lack of notability. Corvus cornix 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per comment directly above Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit the issue 8 weeks from now, the current U.S. coverage of this event is just too overwhelming to obtain a consensus to delete right now. But speedy delete the Asa Coon article and redirect. Yesterday. Burntsauce 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an important enough event, but also should be merged with an article about other school shootings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.103.2 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunate as it may be, this is just a run-of-the-mill shooting. The only death was that of the alleged shooter. Why should we ignore WP:NOTNEWS and revisit it weeks or months down the line? Why not do it the opposite way? Delete this now because there's nothing noteworthy about the shooting, then only recreate it if it proves somehow noteworthy later on? Corvus cornix 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is important!!!!!!! This happens to much in our schools, and it needs to stop, keep to inform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A98726 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reason for ignoring WP:NOTNEWS, for starters, is that it is an essay that doesn't mesh well with current policy. This is not just news, it is the number one headline on Google News. Unless we're going to do away with the In the news section of Wikipedia entirely, a feature which appears on the Main Page, I think it is safe to ignore the WP:NOTNEWS essay in this instance and apply old fashioned common sense. Many encyclopedic stories make news headlines, and NOTNEWS is hardly a reason for excluding them. RFerreira 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per Smashville. Rob T Firefly 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Smashville's comments have been proven to be invalid. Corvus cornix 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to me, they haven't. I stand by my !vote. Rob T Firefly 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Keep This event is a part of a mounting epidemic of school violence in this country, and a record of these events needs to be kept here. The statement above that this is another "run of the mill shooting" because "no one died" is an equally important and sad commentary on our times. These acts are tragic and unacceptable in a civilized society when they occur ONCE; their repetition should augment our concern, instead of diluting it. Ask any of the students that attended that school if they thought this was just another "run of the mill" event. This article absolutley needs to be kept.Solace098 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...I hate to sound soapboxy, but here goes...some are arguing that because only one person died and it was the shooter, that this is not notable. The WP criteria for notability are:
- Presumed. Obviously, there is no doubt that the shooting took place.
- Significant Coverage. The lead story in virtually every American news source...that makes for significant coverage.
- Reliable. Considering the NYT, CNN, and virtually any other news media can be used as a source, there are thousands of reliable sources.
- Sources. There's no doubt about this one.
- Independent of the Subject. All of the sources are independent from the school.

It meets the notability criteria. It meets the notability criteria now and it meets the notability criteria 5 years from now. WP:NOTNEWS is not a policy and should not be taken into account when making a deletion and the fact that it is being used as the main argument for this AfD means that it should be speedily kept. The nominator's reasoning is based on a non-policy and an unexplained opinion with no basis that we don't need an article on every school shooting. Why shouldn't we have an article on every school shooting? There seem to be about 10-12 per year. It's not an insurmountable task. There are usually a ton of sources for each one. The fact that each one makes the national news makes them notable. Furthermore, for the arguments that "only one person died" begs the question...should we have a policy on how many people get killed before we consider a nationally covered school shooting notable? Smashville 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is not a policy, and yet it is used over and over again in discussions as to the notability of musicians and bands. It is used in an attempt to explain how notability can be assessed in order to determine whether or not an article meets WP:N, which is policy. Speedy close just because you want something kept is hardly a valid !vote, either, so perhaps your comments should be ignored, as well, since WP:ILIKEIT isn't policy, either. And where do we stop? Why should only school shootings have articles? Why not the multiple murders in every major city in the United States every year? Corvus cornix 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and BTW, this event is not the number one article on Google News. This one is higher. Who's going to write the article on this? Corvus cornix 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where at any point did I argue that the article should be kept because I like it? Arguing notability is hardly arguing that I like it. The fact of the matter is that it's notable and WP:NOTNEWS is an essay meant to explain why every traffic accident doesn't get an article despite having independent sources. The reason that school shootings are notable as opposed to murders is their rarity. Of all the murders in the world, there are still only 10-12 that occur in schools each year. It has become a hot-button topic, but that doesn't make it any less notable and in no way whatsoever was my argument based in any way on WP:ILIKEIT. I mean, what part of detailing each of the 4 main notability guidelines fell into that criteria? Smashville 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikinews. We are not a group of journalists, we are not a news agency, we are an encyclopedia people! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument just makes no sense to me. Despite the fact that thousands of sources will be available in the weeks and months and years to come, the fact that it's recent means that people argue that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Smashville 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Transfer to Wikinews This is not wikinews. We shouldn't be making an article every time a school shooting happens. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary neutral. It's still too early to determine the significance of this as compared to other school shootings, so a judgment as to notability can't be made now. –Crazytales♥♥ 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging, reluctant keep: It is our job as Wikipedians to report what the media thinks is notable, whether or not we think it is notable. shoy 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to school shootings. Our job isn't to report what the media thinks is notable. If that were the case every single news conference ever given would warrant their own article. Front page news does not equal encyclopedic content. Newspapers and online news sources are the easiest to find and the easiest to access, and because of that people often fight for these articles that are, in the scheme of things, front page stories that disappear from national media coverage after a couple of weeks. It's not a very notable story. AniMate 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All kinds of news stories get covered in depth (such as a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed "only" 13), and this was front-page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Minnesota bridge collapse led to extensive discussions of the condition of roads and bridges in the United States. This shooting seems to have vanished from the news after one day. --Carnildo 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not having your TV on doesn't constitute a story vanishing from the news. Last I checked, it's still being covered by the news media (TV, print and web, as well as radio), two days after the shooting (shooting was Wednesday, not Thursday.) Anyway, I don't know what's going on with this as there are ample Keep/Neutral/Revisit Later votes, but now we have an anonIP editor removing the AfD without (it seems) proper closure. - Ageekgal 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Touché! I just saw a report on CNN with pictures of the shooter and friends of his (electronically masked) talking about him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And a follow-on story is on USAToday.com's front page today, about a woman buying guns for her son. One story heightens awareness and helps feed coverage of the next one. [49] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Touché? Touché? (rolls eyes) Gimme a break. If people want to follow this story, they can go to WikiNews. People always scream about entries that have coverage in major news publications being notable. It doesn't. Sitting back and waiting to see if this really plays into the publics awareness and the debate on how to stop school shootings is what should happen on something that is borderline like this. This shooting, while tragic, doesn't really satisfy the threshold for notability, except in a "tabloidy we want people to tune in to our broadcast or buy our paper" way. AniMate 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The argument was made that the story had disappeared, and that was a verifiably false argument. In reading through the "delete" comments, a common thread appears to be a POV grudge against the way news is covered. That is not our place to judge. If the major news sources say it's notable, it is not our place to override that with our personal dislike of the major news sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The media doesn't gauge what is notable on Wikipedia, WP guidelines do that. The media just gauge what is 'printable'. The two aren't necessarily the same.---- WebHamster 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec)How dare we question the media?!? Seriously, though, everything reported by the media isn't encyclopedic. There are front page stories about celebs, for instance, that don't make it into wikipedia, because in the grand scheme of things they aren't notable. Is this front page news? Yes. Is all front page news notable? No. Every single news story doesn't need their own entry here. That's why we merge things, which is an argument I think you unintentionally made above. One story heightens awareness and helps feed coverage of the next one. If this were truly notable, we wouldn't need separate news stories to feed into it, it'd stand on its own. It really doesn't, and I think your sources that we can't question will reflect that in less than a month. AniMate 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue of whether a current news event is "notable" appears to be strictly a matter of opinion, i.e. "POV". Right now I'm hearing more coverage of this story on local news in Minneapolis. The story still has legs, although the media haters would wish otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        T*It's got "legs" because it has ratings-appeal, not because it's notable. ---- WebHamster 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is your personal opinion that it's "not notable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does that matter? It's also your personal opinion that it is notable. If you want to repeat everything you read in the media, why not go to WikiNews? And for the record, I do not hate the media, as most of the sources I use to contribute are media publications. I just don't think every front page scandal is encyclopedic... and I hope you don't either. AniMate 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If Casey Wise is notable under wiki guidelines, then so is this story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event was notable and some people will definitely want to read about it. Besides, it's presence certainly isn't hurting anything here so why's everyone all up in arms to delete the article? Abyssal leviathin 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. These articles get started on every new sensationalist news story to come down the pike, and then six months later the article is still hanging around pointlessly. People who enjoy writing this kind of thing: Wikinews is the appropriate place for it. Start yourself a Wikinews account and go to town! It is not appropriate here. Dybryd 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTNEWS is simply an essay, that's true. However, it is an essay that expands on the section of official policy WP:NOT#NEWS, which reads in part "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." That's policy, folks. Dybryd 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a guideline. I failed to make the distinction often enough until recently, but it's important enough to be ~~precise~~ anal for. The policies - V, OR, NPOV, amusingly IAR, some things on things like copyrights and civility - are ends in themselves, or close enough to make no difference. They're inarguable. The rest aren't. (And even so, ask ten editors how to interpret OR and you'll get five different answers...) Guidelines are tools for making a good encyclopedia, ones that deserve some respect but are definitionally not binding in themselves or the final word on their topics, and can lead to undesirable situations. Now that we've made the distinction, maybe in the future I'll get to the rest of your argument! --Kizor 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, WP:NOT says it's official policy at the top of the page. And here it is in the template "policylist" Dybryd 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'll just sign off for the rest of the night, shall I? *cough* --Kizor 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I believe WP:NOT#NEWS exists more for random trivia that ends up being briefly newsworthy. The examples given are "announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism" - this is hardly on the same scale. There's every reason to believe that a school shooting will easily meet notability. At least I hope so - it's a rather sad state of affairs if school shootings are so common in America that they're considered non-notable trivia! Mdwh 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At most, it should be merged into SuccessTech Academy. Many schools have their own Wikipedia page, and it seems reasonably that such a page should cover a notable event such as this. Mdwh 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an eminently more reasonable idea than an article of its own. ---- WebHamster 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough sources to cover this as a notable event. • Lawrence Cohen 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per the above reasoning, some delete artists who have a grudge IMO, this is clearly keepable.JJJ999 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a horrible systemic bias towards the US, especially towards news articles. For example, this, and like the UoF tasing only got a couple of days coverage but have an article. In the UK, Nothern Rock's financial crisis and the Diana inquest has been front-page news over here for at lest a couple of weeks, but they only have subsections. Will ^(talk) 11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one would have no objection to you expanding coverage of notable happenings in the UK. :) Abyssal leviathin 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Yes, Wikipedia is not a news source. But it's an encyclopedia. Isn't Wikipedia a website devoted for people to learn? If SuccessTech Academy shooting was deleted, a lot of people would be missing out on what happened. Yes, there are news websites. Not everyone listens to the media. Not everyone wants to look around the internet for every detail of the shooting. They can just go to Wikipedia and BAM, there it is. I hope I didn't make myself sound like an idiot here.. Like I always do.--Xxhopingtearsxx 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also covered (where it's most appropriate, IMO), at SuccessTech Academy. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 13:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though this is not a newspaper, this was significant. The fact that there are many shootings documents a trend, and wikipedia provides a historical research function through the detailing of many such incidents. Often, significant reports are no longer available online at various newspapers, and then wikipedia becomes a keeper of the historical record. There probably should be a some way of sorting out the US news bias noted above. Obviously there should be a main article on School shootings in the USA, with a pointer to the stories on individual incidents. I see no problem with stories on individual incidents. Ema Zee 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might talk to WikiProject Countering systemic bias. shoy 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article is no longer a copyvio and initial good-faith efforts to show notability have been offered. Closed pending further justification with no reservations against re-opening should notability not be further established. Avi 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Against Zionism (book)[edit]

Book does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). Author is not historically significant, no multiple non-trivial' discussions, etc. Avi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Also, the creator of the article has an extensive history of ignoring wikipedia policies and guidelines with the motive of pushing a distinct point-ov-view vis-a-vis Jews and Zionism, one that has, in the past, been challenged and removed by the wikipedia community. For further reference see:[reply]

Delete Clarifying opinion. -- Avi 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Avi 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article is less than one day old. The article asserts the notability of the book and it already has two non-trivial references. Wikipedia suffers from WP:Recentism, and an article like this may help readers understand that prior to 1948, Zionism did not enjoy majority support among Jews (granted, most were not anti-Zionists, like the subject of this book). Keep this article in spite of the editor who created it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may be less than a day old, Malik, but it is a WP:POV fork created by the author to try and "save" his other POV forks as listed above. The two references in the article are trivial. One is a paragraph, the other a passing mention. -- Avi 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the text was cut-and-paste, but the subject of the book is notable and the book was published by an academic press. Given a little time, I'm sure I can find some book reviews and other articles about the book and help write a decent article about the book. While I agree that the motives of the editor who created the article likely were WP:POINTy, I don't see how an article about a book can be a POV fork from another article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the "sources" in the article is clearly written by the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested party. The second source is not about the book at all; it is about its publisher, the book is only mentioned in passing. If sources can be found that it made a controversy when it was published I would consider changing my opinion, but as it stands now it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Jon513 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional references to support notability by way of peer reviews in respected journals and the article satisfies criterion 1 of WP:BK. → AA ^(talk) — 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article was a word-for-word copy of http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/717_reg.html, a blatant copyright violation. I have blanked out the text. Either replace acceptably, or it is a Speedy due to WP:CSD G12! -- Avi 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - hadn't noticed that when I added the link :) → AA ^(talk) — 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This Book passes and flies by easily the first and most important criteria of Notability: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles and other books--יודל 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The nominator attacks me personal by labeling me as ignoring policy because i am writing about Jews against Zionism. Let me make this very clear: never ever was this a consensus decision not to write on the subject. Fact is the opposition of Jews to Zionism is documented in wikipedia in numerous articles for a very long time. The privies discussions he links to, are about drive by attempts of long gone users who wrote about one organization without proper sourcing of its Notability claim, which I have not written in the first place yet, I only recreated it as a stub after a suggestion of an other Admin, and it was deleted indeed by this nominator. I have nothing more invested in this issue than the nominator himself, only we are opposed on it as you can easily see. --יודל 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs): You know, why should I be surprised that on one hand you attack Reform as being far more removed from Judaism than Christians [50], and then you go ahead and create an article attacking Zionism based on the views of Reform rabbis: "In 1942, a number of dissident Reform rabbis founded the American Council for Judaism, the first and only Jewish organization created to fight against Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state. [51] -- but it's no surprise that you come down on all sides because this is all a game to you, of "tricks" to disrupt Wikipedia, like workings of a typical Troll (Internet) (see also WP:TROLL) because you will never hold to one line of reasoning but you will pick and choose to fit the moment or your mood, so that if the situation is a toss up between Christians and the Reform you will choose the Christian side and if the toss up is between the Reform and Zionism you will choose the Reform! So are you with Reform or aren't you? And even with the the Orthodox Jews you will attack some and edit and vote first to create and then to delete. This is yet another sign of WP:DISRUPT. Very bad. IZAK 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed this personal attack on my talk page.--יודל 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a personal attack at all. It is a summary of your highly problematic flip-flopping editing and POVs that I document for your benefit. IZAK 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Thanks i will let others decide if taking a personal opinion from a talk page and comparing it to my edit pattern is an attack or not. which surly i do thank you if it was meant for my benefit. Thanks a million--יודל 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the general Wikipedia community is concerned, articles are not intended to reflect only ones personal viewpoints, so including material from different and contradictory points of view is not generally considered a problem. See WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Izak. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be sourced. The sources are all either obscure (a review of a book in an academic journal does not establish notability) or trivial mentions (basically, simply citing the book rather than talking about it). Wikidemo 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you consider book reviews in the most prominent newspapers?--יודל 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-trivial reviews (i.e. where the book is the subject of the review) in multiple peer reviewed journals (the most reliable of RS's) establishes notability. Additionally, it is used as a reference by other authors ([52]). → AA ^(talk) — 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is published by a recognized University press and the publisher cites reviews in major, well-recognized publications like the New York Times Book Review. This is easily sufficient to meet standard notability criteria. This doesn't seem to be a difficult case. --Shirahadasha 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see nothing wrong with the article. It looks like a healthy stub.--SeizureDog 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like any other stub to me....It can always be expanded. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certianly not notable. No evidence of any notability. Also unsourced. Yahel Guhan 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aa.--Mostargue 07:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:aa. --Kitrus 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MalikShabazz and Shirahadasha. I don't see what the problem is with this article at all. The author's intentions which are mentioned by the nominating admin are irrelevant to this discussion. The book is written about by reliable third-party sources. It's a stub in need of expansion and should be expanded, not deleted. Tiamut 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream for Africa[edit]

Completing incomplete nom. Questions regarding notability. Tagged as unreferenced. Appears to be WP:OR and a violation of WP:NPOV. I would delete. Evb-wiki 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn't save. I can't find that this actually exists as a program or organization. While there is a missionary group by that uses this name, but they are likely non-notable and the article clearly is not referring to them. Searching the African Union website for this term gave 0 hits. I think this is simply someone's opinion essay.BirgitteSB 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure political fluff.--Victor falk 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VoL†ro/\/Force 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francheezie[edit]

Non-notable recipe. BirgitteSB 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN food. Bearian 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a decent amount of coverage by reliable sources [53]. --W.marsh 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 264 cites there, 227 of them are from 1972-1974, and not a single one of them is from after 1989. A brief dazzle of spotlight != notability. Given that, there is almost nothing to say about this other than what is already said in the article. An article that can never be more than a stub is a prime candidate for delete. - Che Nuevara 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not paper... documenting nearly-forgotten information is actually one of the cooler things we can do, so long as the information is verifiable. Obviously some people remember this. --W.marsh 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a dic-def for a dead neologism for some junk food I'd probably like. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely non-notable, with short context and lack of sources as well. --Angelo 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert what is notable about this particular food. Cheers, CP 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh not War[edit]

I can't find any sources for this organization. There is an arabic comedy tour by this name, but it is not any sort anti-Bush thing. Information in article is claimed to be from a pamphlet put out by the group. I think it might have existed in 2003 but is non-notable and not traceable now BirgitteSB 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirdah Ali Ahmad Khan[edit]

Possible fabrication or just bad info. No non-wiki ghits. No cross-reference at List of leaders of Afghanistan or through the succession box BirgitteSB 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, article is contradicted by not just the article List of leaders of Afghanistan, but by the articles on those actual leaders. Edward321 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the List names the dynasty Habibullah Kalakānī (1929), Emir Habibullah Ghazi as reiging (January 17, 1929 - October 13, 1929). Bearian 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] sorormystica's bookmarks tagged with "schizophrenia" on del.icio.us

[2] WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

[1]

[1]