Almost certainly vanity -- google searches for her name and "Red Eagle" (her alleged nickname) return zilch. Even if all the details provided are true (which, chronologically, seem unlikely) I don't see them adding up to a life that needs recording in an encyclopedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity, genealogy. Megan1967 00:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, some sort of vanity rant or prank. Wyss 02:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete A prank. There is no way that photo is of a woman who was born in 1924. Philip 03:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Pretty good google results: 10,500 as an exact phrase. Hs been in multiple games and has merchandise. Probably a worthy enough character to have a short article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. --Deathphoenix 01:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog. I didn't know this other article existed. --Deathphoenix 14:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, borderline notability, article could do with cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
from VfD:
Doesn't appear to be notable. --fvw* 00:43, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
keep & expand unless more evidence of non-notability is presented. my google search finds at the least many hits for this band, specifying "tiger saw" + band - porter (the last trying to eliminate a porter-cable brand saw). Michael Ward 02:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article provides no evidence of shows, recordings or a following.KeepWyss 02:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
it does now. I just found and added their discography from the 2nd google link above. Wolfman 04:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete, borderline notability, article appears as a list with no explanation. Megan1967 23:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment that the above link to allmusic is to the wrong page. Their real page on allmusic is here. However, neither that page nor this one establish notability, so delete unless and until that happens. Tuf-Kat 00:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have created an article for Tiger Saw which is their correct name. This band has released three albums. They have been asked to write a soundtrack to a forthcoming film and have contributed a track to a Will Oldham tribute. They have toured extensively and performed with acts such as Vanessa Carlton, Songs: Ohia and The Microphones. In short, I consider that they are notable enough within the Sadcore genre to warrant an article. Keep Tiger Saw and merge Tiger Saw with that Capitalistroadster 09:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I mean merge Tiger saw with the new Tiger Saw article. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect to merged article - David Gerard 17:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure "satire" is the right word here; usually satire 1. is funny, and 2. makes a semblence of sense. This does neither. Two semi-literate sentences do not an article make, in or out of the Wikipedia namespace. Delete. -R. fiend 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic, hoax. Megan1967 23:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why not to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Extreme_article_deletion. It is non-Encyclopedic so that's why it is not under article ___domain. Currently is there any policy on wikipedia about non-___domain space articles? Any way if it is deleted I'll create it on my own user space. If it is not declared 'unappropriated user page', It can be put on wikinfo.org. There is no point of stoping speach on internet.Zain 01:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Someone who didn't spot your use of "speach" there might have asked you to learn the difference between letting everyone write whatever they like about anything that they like and writing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 02:39, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Why don't you put Extreme article deletion up for VfD? Two bad ideas don't make a good idea. —Ben Brockert(42)
Hey. Been there done that. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as useless. It's certainly not satire in any sense I understand that word, unless the satire consists of going "Look! A vacuous article!" -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
The community probably *has* to have in-jokes somewhere outside the article namespace, or they'll end up within in it. Having said that, I don't think this qualifies as an injoke. Delete - to the extreme. Lacrimosus 10:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It took less than a day to delete my white minority rule article (I'm pretty certain the only other VfD I ever been signatory too), but this article which consists of two sentence fragments and mis-spells "attempts," and is signed by the author, has a lengthy, active vote and is still up. Therefore, as a sign of good faith in the VfD process, I am voting Keep; keep, keep, keep! El_C
You may wish to sign your vote, since anon ones aren't much good. —Ben Brockert(42) 01:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not an official (or unofficial policy), or even funny like that wrong version thing at Meta. Delete or expand to patent nonsense; I'm sure that someone could come up with something funny, even a randomly changing redirect to, say, Cabal, CIA or the like. Alphax(t)(c)(e) 16:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 "incident" looks like a hoax. Even if it isn't, this is not notable enough for an article. If verifies, I guess it could be merged with some paranormal article. DCEdwards1966 02:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obvious fiction, prank, silly vandalism, could be a speedy. Wyss 03:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probable prank, 27 Google hits for James Worson. JoaoRicardo 03:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment:. I wouldn't exactly qualify this as a prank or "fiction" in the true sense of the word. While not notable in the Google sense, this "incident" has been featured in various print books describing the supernatural. One should also consider the historical factor (an 1873 incident won't feature as prominently as other things). I'm making a comment instead of a vote because I don't know how much WP documents the "unexplained" (probably the same as "supernatural theories", ie, not much), but I can comment that this incident has been mentioned in various print books in the past. However, if you want an NPOV article, I can't see this being anything larger than a stub, so it probably deserves a merge, at most (and probably a delete, if WP doesn't usually document supernatural theories like this one). --Deathphoenix 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep, no need for a merge - I've put an appropriate category on. This isn't a hoax (article, anyway; I remain of cours neutral on the incident itself). This IP has been contributing a few of these. I've added an appropriate category and a note on the IP's talk page - David Gerard 17:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
<<Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. Creation biology is identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things. into:
Creation biology is an attempt to impose on biology a creationist perspective. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology by relying on religious literature instead of generally accepted scientific evidence.
my "vandalism" was to revert. npov presents all ideas sympathetically without implying that they are right or wrong ... but then provides substantive counterpoints by mainstream scientists to explain WHY they are wrong. copyeditor deliberately twisted the intro into his pet caricature of creationism, and stripped out all the qualifiers to show exactly where the issue is. he then made a mockery of all the links. no go, bro. Ungtss 12:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here is another example of Ungtss at his best:
"you're stuck on one stupid little point: "yes, God can create through evolution." so what? Darwin thought genesis was wrong. THAT'S A DICHOTOMY. DID GENESIS HAPPEN OR NOT? i get too pissed talking to you. ben, listen, you've obviously had your head up your butt your whole life. as you were. Ungtss 17:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Bensaccount 14:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I also think that the above edit should be credited at least partially with the recent removal of the disputed NPOV and factual accuracy banner from the page. Bensaccount 14:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
was it that, or everybody else getting tired of fighting with your repeated unjustified reverts against consensus of creationists and evolutionists alike? perhaps we should move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ungtss? Ungtss 15:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In this free-election, it is clear who the victors are. (joshuashroeder).
After trying to work through this, it has become apparent that this article has no potential to become encyclopedic. Nor did there seem to be any result to the debate. A majority of those who posted comments on this voted for deletion. The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas. Joshuaschroeder 17:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In an attempt to circumvent to circumvent the removal processUser:Ungtss has made a number of daughter articles that I'm guessing he hopes will be preserved if the vote is rerecognized for a removal. Please, administrator, when you remove this article, also remove the following articles:
in attempt to circumvent reality, josh has accused me of attempting to circumvent the removal process by creating daughter pages for some bizarre ulterior motive, rather than simply to cut an enormous page down to bite-size nibbles. please, administrator, when you remove this article, please remove josh. Ungtss 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [1]? It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here. I can't even figure out the context for half the things Ungtss is saying. I have pointed this out on the talk page. Joshuaschroeder 20:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can anybody give a good reason why arguments cannot be referenced from the Creation vs. evolution debate page instead of setting up this side-by-side nonsense?
begause talk.origins is not npov. npov is our specialty. let's try it, eh? Ungtss 15:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I once asked Ungtss to come up with a factual error on the site. He couldn't do it. His new tactic is to declare that talkorigins.org is not NPOV. I ask him to show an example of non-NPOV in the site I showed. They are very balanced in their treatment of creationist claims. Please show me where they aren't in the above site instead of grandstanding your own bias. Joshuaschroeder 06:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please, that's a stupid argument. We don't have any control over that site, so it could change at any time without us being able to change it. And besides, we have articles on all sorts of things that there are good alternatives for on other sites. That does not mean that we should get rid of this article and "just reference this page [2]". - Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
when did you lose track of the facts? i demonstrated the strawman on talk.origins to hob, since you dropped out. i find your belief that talk.origins is "balanced" to be quite amusing:). Ungtss 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No you didn't. The result, as far as I am concerned, was:
You and me were talking different languages. I don't think it makes sense to discuss with you because I don't speak Ungtssese, so I stopped doing it. For example, you seem to think that "exquisite design" can be "good" or "bad", and "A, therefore B" is the same as "B, therefore A". Since you don't try to make yourself clear, your position seems to change every few minutes. Or maybe it does change every few minutes, I'm not in a position to know. It's a pain to discuss somebody like that. Anyway, you couldn't explain how the page is a strawman. You ended up claiming that I knew it is a strawman, which is not true. I guess you misunderstand the page because it is written in English instead of Ungtssese. --Hob Gadling 16:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
keep. this page is really getting places. we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, and i think the page is starting to allow for a description of the scope of the debate. this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. with regard to josh's repeated personal attacks against me, i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side, and i have left the mainstream side to present itself as it likes. all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. Ungtss 17:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Above is vote by article creator - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
above is untrue. Ungtss did not create the article, nor did he propose its creation. The article was created by Barnaby Dawson, evolutionist,[3] and originally proposed by Hob Gadling, another evolutionist.[4] check your facts. Ungtss 14:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
this page is really getting places. -- If by getting places you mean mired in quicksand.
we're starting to get cited opinions on all the relevent issues, not even close. Look at the talkpages if you don't believe me. The current incarnation of the page is that only creationists are allowed to write on the creationist side -- there's no editorial control and it's impossible to make heads or tails of some of the incomplete arguments.
this page has a great deal of potential to be encyclopedic, if we're willing to explore the ideas on their own merits. -- nonsense. The minority creationist view has a lot of shrill malarky but if it cannot even be presented in a consistent way, how will there be anything like an NPOV comparison?
i will only say that i have only presented creationist opinions on the creationist side --> I disagree entirely. Ungtss presents his own version of creationist opinions. This isn't anything like an NPOV -- even of creationism. He maintains the strict right to edit out opinions that I know exist in the creationist community but are inconvenient for him to accept. For example, I know that the vast majority of YEC accept a biblical inerrancy, but because Ungtss is one of those peculiar ones who don't, he somehow thinks it inappropriate to include this argument (which is made more often than not by people who are YEC) on that side. However, Flood Geology is trumpeted as if every creationist believes it. That's certainly not the case, there are some creationists that don't think all geological features were created by the flood like Ungtss believes. If this page were to be honest, it would be called "Views of Ungtss and mainstream scientists compared": is that encyclopedic?
all other mainstream editors are welcome to present the mainstream side as powerfully as they like. -- Does anyone else find it problematic that we are setting up a place in wikipedia where people aren't allowed to edit?
i only ask that the creationist side not be weighed down by mainstream caricatures and deletions of creationist ideas. -- according to Ungtss' own POV of what that entails. It's clear that the page should be deleted and Ungtss has no ability to see the problem of this false dichotomy.
It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it. That seems to be Ungtss' goal for this page. Joshuaschroeder 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
all groundless and untrue accusations aside, the talkpage shows that josh's stated goal for this page has been to "make it look ridiculous" from the very beginning. well, it appears he's succeeded. i only hope mainstream scientists who have their heads on straight will be willing to develop this page into something good -- and i do think it has the potential to be something very, very good. Ungtss 18:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The debate is ridiculous. The page, if it were to be done correctly would look ridiculous. This is because there is so much more to put down from a scientific perspective than there is from a creationist perspective. Ungtss doesn't seem to realize that people other than himself are familiar with creationist arguments and the current format discourages them from editting the creationist POV...
Which makes me wonder, why are we entertaining POV at all on wikipedia? Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. you've devoted yourself to caricaturing and deleting creationist ideas on the page, and adding loads of irrelevent information to the mainstream column, making it looking equally ridiculous. if the debate is ridiculous, i can't help but wonder why you take such an interest in it ... especially in light of the fact that there are many other evolutionists who think that the page is a great means of allowing the truth of mainstream science to put creationist pseudoscience to shame. Ungtss 02:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
there are indeed people familiar with creationist ideas, but you're certainly not one of them. utter bullshit. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Joshuaschroeder has been studying the issue for eight years. I have been studying it for 30 years. In my opinion, Joshuashroeder's familiarity with the creationist side is severely lacking. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<*Comment Does anybody see why we shouldn't just reference this page [5]?>>
I believe that this is symptomatic of Joshuschroeder's bias in editing the article that he can't see how POV is his suggestion to reference an anti-creationist website as a substitute for an article comparing views of creationists and mainstream scientists.
Maybe it's symptomatic of your idealization that NPOV means treating all opinions as though they are equals. Your opinion, sir, based entirely on non-science, is frankly not worthy of NPOV inclusion.
(Above comment made by Joshuaschroeder) Since when is science (so called) the basis of NPOV? Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<The main reason this page should be deleted is because there is no way the sole creationist editor User:Ungtss will allow for a reasonable comparison of ideas.>>
As another creationist editor of the page, I would strongly disagree with this. It is Joshuaschroeder who persists in turning the creationist views into a caricature, consistent with his stated aim of making the page look ridiculous.
Phil and Ungtss have demonstrated that they don't even the most basic of science (for example they make claims on radiometric dating that are absolutely absurd). How can we have a constructive article writing if the writers of the article who are supposed "experts" don't know science? Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Translation: Philip and Ungtss make claims that you don't agree with, so you accuse us of not [knowing?] science and accuse the claims of being absurd.
I didn't make claims for radiometric dating. I cited claims made by creationary scientists (including physicists). Joshuaschroeder seems to think that if it doesn't agree with the POV that he sides with, it isn't science and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<It lists all the claims and actually cites them instead of the monstrosity we have here.>>
I rewrote the section on radiometric dating to list the claims of creationists, citing essentially every one, and Joshuaschroeder deleted virtually all of them because he thought they were ridiculous. He didn't dispute that creationists claim them; he disputed that these creationist arguments have any merit. Any wonder Ungtss would rather he stick to the mainstream science side?
There are creationist who also claim that the earth is the center of the universe (see Modern geocentrism). Yet their claims aren't included. Why? Because they are nonsense (as they are shown to be in the referenced article). Likewise, putting in lies and non-facts is hardly encyclopedic with regards to presentation. And it is a bald-faced lie that I deleted all of them. But then, creationists do tend to break the commandment to not bear false witness. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is not exhaustive, so not mentioning something means little unless the possibility of mentioning it has been suggested and rejected, which I don't believe to be the case here. And geocentricism is only accepted by relatively few creationists, so may not warrant mentioning in an article about creationists' views. Wikipedia is supposed to take a NPOV, and it is disputed that some of the things Joshuaschroeder calls "lies and non-facts" are in fact that.
His view of NPOV is clearly that if the majority of scientists consider it to be fact, then those "facts" can be presented as true regardless of the existence of opposing views, and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy ("... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.").
As for his claim that it is a "bald-faced lie that [he] deleted all of them", I actually said that he deleted virtually all of them.
His remaining comment about creationist lying is vilification that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia.
<<It must be very encouraging for the creationist to be able to present his POV without having to worry about someone who actually studies the stuff edit it.>>
Translation: The creationist POV is not allowed to be presented on a page comparing POVs if Joshuaschroeder "who actually studies the stuff", thinks that that the creationist POV is wrong. Which of course he does, as he thinks the anti-creationist web-site Talk.Origins is neutral!
It's more neutral than any other site I've found. Joshuaschroeder 07:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It gives arguments against creation and for evolution, etc. How is that even purporting to be neutral? It speaks heaps for Joshuaschroeder's POV that he thinks an anti-creation site is neutral! Philip J. Rayment 02:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, despite some problems (which are not unique to this page), it is informative and has potential. Pollinator 19:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
If anyone bothers to count the votes, they will find that it is 20-9 delete (don't forget my vote), which gives a 69% ratio. All that is needed is an admin who will stand up to the usual lies. Bensaccount 17:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. There's no policy against renominating VfD survivors for deletion. But to do so barely a week after the previous debate is closed isn't going to convince anyone. —Korath (Talk) 18:05, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
When User:SimonP added the vfd template to the vote, there was no explanation for what the ruling should be. As User:Bensaccount has rightfully pointed out, we need to know how to proceed, as it isn't clear from the results.
Delete. Fails fitness criteria - David Gerard 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, still POV flame war material. I cannot see this article becoming NPOV. Megan1967 03:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. i still maintain that it is a good comparison. is this the reverse inquisition? Xtra 03:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I dont see why we are doing this again, though, the majority already voted for deletion. Bensaccount 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view. Martg76 03:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It does no such thing, and your POV that creationism is not a scientific view, is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In order not to suggest this, the article title would have to be Views of creationists and scientists compared. In any case, comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic. Martg76 18:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But it doesn't suggest it now, and your suggestion would imply that creationists and scientists are two mutually-exclusive groups, which is demonstrably wrong. Creationists argue that their views are as scientific as evolutionary ones; your claim to the contrary is merely a disputed POV. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV. This assertion in itself is a POV (and in my view rather a ridiculous one). Martg76 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science" suggests that creationism is opposed to mainstream science. But if you can come up with a better title that doesn't suggest the opposite POV, that creation is not science, be my guest. And I disagree with you that calling creationism science is ridiculous, but this is supposed to be about the merits of the article, and our respective POVs should be irrelevant to that. Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All of the above criticisms of this page should be dealt with on the TalkPage. This page is too big and unfocused, yes? A few short arguments on both sides would make the comparisions in the two columns clearer, yes? Yes. But these and the above criticisms of this page should be handled on the TalkPage, not here on VotesForDeletion. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The fundamental problem with this page is that it assumes that all creationists hold one set of views and that all "mainstream scientists" hold another- this is simply not the case. --G Rutter 09:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure what's going on here. I voted in the previous discussion, so discount this if it is a double vote. My objections are the same. Gamaliel 09:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is what I voted before, and my opinion hasn't changed. I would like to hear from the admin who processed the previous vote as to how he/she disposed of the previous vote. Is the point of submitting this again to VfD after only a short time that the first vote wasn't tallied correctly, or that there was something wrong with the previous vote? I think this so-called article is a discredit to the Wikipedia, but it doesn't make sense to vote every couple of weeks on the same article, unless there is some new development. --BM 13:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, possibly move to a better title. The thing is too long and its current formatting is awful. But it is a compendium of useful information, too valuable to just delete. It is obviously also a source of some bad will. The main problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between the editors. Some don't understand that creation can't be proved or disproved by science and that the debate is purely about whether available information supports the view that the universe was created by design or not. Others insist that certain assumptions of science are necessarily true, when they are in fact just tools that allow us to make sense of the world and may as well be wrong. This can't be a discussion between scientists and creationists on the existence of a god and the uniformian assumption - these are not falsifiable and are thus not a good subject for scientific debate. Zocky 15:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The whole concept is pretty much doomed.Potatojunkie 16:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page is a good exercise in compromise. Neocapitalist 02:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rename. It is doomed under this title which presupposes what is "mainstream" U$er 06:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - All the information on this page is already covered in the articles on evolution and creation. No need to duplicate the information. It also seems that the views on this page are the views of all scientists and creationists, which almost certainly is not true. people on both sides subscribe to a whole bunch of different views and if we start including all those the article it will become unmanagable and lead to a huge edit war. kaal 19:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The header in this incarnation of the article addresses some of my concerns about the presentation (the false dichotemy argument). However, this still feels like a fork to me. The split from the main article will make future maintenance much more complex while adding little value to future readers in my opinion. No change to my prior vote below. Rossami(talk) 03:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I strongly concur with Kaal and Rossami, and with similiar views expressed above. The very title of the article seems an invitation to a flamewar. Edeans 04:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not because this article is inherently going to be POV or flamebait or whatever, but because it is nothing close to an encyclopedia article. It is a set of two lists placed in parallel which, while serving as a wonderful metaphor for the actual Creation vs. Evolution debate in that they don't really seem to be talking to one another at all, is not a proper format for a Wikipedia article under any conceivable model. The other problem, that having only two literal columns, and thus only two categories, restricts all opinions to a simple one-or-the-other (the "all scientists"/"all creationists" problem) is another consideration, but ultimately I think that the article is unencyclopedic as is, and has no possibility of being encyclopedic—to make it an encyclopedia article would mean to make it an article on the Creation-evolution controversy, which already exists. So I don't really see the point. --Fastfission 06:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fairly obvious stuff, and what isn't should be in the article on the creation/evolution debate. -Sean Curtin 06:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yeesh, what an unreadable, disorganized mess. Delete this thing and put it out of its misery. --Calton 10:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any reason why this material couldn't be handled in existing articles. This one is unweildy, unhelpful, and unworkable. The title, format and approach mark this out as an article that is never going to be helpful for people LOOKING for information on the topic. It's for people who feel strongly about one side or the other and want a place to fight it out. Mattley 10:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is an ugly, impossible-to-follow mess that doesn't help to explain either side of the issue well, and I see no way to improve it. 4.232.147.209 12:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
delete the problem with creationism is that their views are deliberately vague and consist of a diatribe against science, I can't see how this page is useful; and I am concerned that it comes out as Untgss's views on creationism versus science. In each case the views ascribed to creationists can be better described in individual articles on their beliefs, and as a footnote within a sensible article on genuine science (e.g. second law of thermodynamics). Dunc|☺ 14:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping for a ruling on whether this second call for votes was legitimate. But it doesn't seem to be coming. In case it is, I vote to keep. Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Or at least move the information (or disinformation as some declare it) to whatever pages are deemed properly related to Wikipedia. Dan Watts
Delete. Creationism is not science. --Viriditas | Talk 20:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are supposed to be voting on the merits of the article, not your POV of the topic. Philip J. Rayment 13:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ugly and unwieldy. ral315 21:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. needs edits. no need to delete what is true. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 00:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. Also the split off pages ("...in..."). Before they start to multiply and evolve. --Pjacobi 10:14, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Delete. It seems there is no hope for this article.. the beliefs of all creationists (or even most) can't be so easily nailed down.. and many of the editors seem incapable of separating their own views on the subject with perhaps the 'mainstream' views.. believing (consciously or unconsciously) their view simply is the mainstream view. Even the title can imply there are only two views. Also the split off pages referred to above should be deleted. Mlm42 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's good, personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with its daughter articles.--FeloniousMonk 05:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
old vote -- a week before new vote -- administrator archived discussion without comment (20 delete 9 keep or rename: 69%-delete)
Page typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists. Also subject is fabricated and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bensaccount 02:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, The article does not even come close to presenting the scientific side. For example, it should have been mentioned that there is not enough water on earth to cover all the land. Example: even a child can calculate how long it would take for a stalagmite to form given a simple rate of mineral deposition. Even the smallest cave will show age in excess of 6000 years. user:bconline
Creationists would dispute every one of your claims used as reasons for deletion (and one is a strawman anyway), so the result is that you are voting to delete because it doesn't agree with your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Creationists are also fond of presenting a false dichotomy that this page advocates. To be truly NPOV, we should mention that there are other pseudoscientific theories that are not creationism that can be referred to in the debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't bother looking for Mr. Bconline's "User contributions." 8))) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs, a comparative article on creationsism and objectivist science has no traction and will ineveitably mislead on both topics. Wyss 02:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As with bconline, creationists disagree with the claim you use as a reason for deletion, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if creationists disagree. There are facts and there are opinions. The facts are that creationism is wrong. There has been objective studies of all of creationists claims (that are decipherable) and they are found to be incorrect. Joshuaschroeder
Keep, excellent work. The article does not use the term "pseudoscientists," and creationists are in fact outside the mainstream of science. Wishing that people saw things differently is not a proper basis for a POV complaint. Gazpacho 03:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - controvesial, but worthy of inclusion. --Zappaz 03:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Provides a comprehensive comparison of the self-proclaimed assumptions and arguments of both camps and maintains NPOV. Acb 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP It is a very good and well balanced article. ping 06:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Server problems logged me out. Above anon is me. Mgm|(talk) 11:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant content. Merge anything useful into one of the many other articles on this subject. --Centauri 11:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This was an experiment with a new format which was my idea - I thought that edit wars could be prevented if both sides had their own section. But it failed. It has become the same opinion stew as the other creationism articles. Also, there is just too much material in this subject, enough for a wiki of its own. So leave the debate to EvoWiki [6] and... hmmm, CreationWiki [7] seems to be dead at the moment. --Hob Gadling 13:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I would say it failed because editors failed to stick to NPOV rules and while this is not acceptable it does not give reason to delete the article (just one to change our behaviour). If there is enough material to make this into many articles there is no reason not to as long as we can mantain NPOV. However, most of the science should probably just be linked to from other wikipedia articles. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep The stated reason for deleting (that it "typecasts all creationists as pseudoscientists" is not true (and I say that as a creationist), and it is still being heavily bashed into shape, so deletion is at best premature. Philip J. Rayment 14:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. It's not even clear how to edit this page at this point. If I had my way, I'd go through with a sledgehammer. We do have a Creation vs. evolution debate page anyway, why not just use that as our outline? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- the page compares two sets of views clearly, concisely, and with npov. non-"pseudoscientist" creationists are free to associate themselves with "mainstream science." Ungtss 14:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no way that the views are compared clearly. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- after merging content somewhere else, probably Creationism. In general, when we have an article X on some set of views that aren't "mainstream", the comparison of X to mainstream views should NEVER be in a separate article but in the main article. If X is not a "mainstream" view, the X article should say so, and should summarize the debate between X and the "mainstream" views. Anybody reading about a non-mainstream X shouldn't have to go hunting for the "Comparison of X with the mainstream views" to find out why and what the "mainstream" has to say about X. If the X article does not have this comparison of views, then it is POV propaganda for X, and if it does then the "Comparison" article is redundant. If the X article gets to be too long, it is very doubtful that the best way in general to split it up is to remove the section contrasting X to mainstream views. --BM 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Consider how one distinguishes a Wiki article from a forum argument. I suggest that a forum will accommodate ongoing discussions, with no intention to reach a state of completion, but that it should in principle be possible to complete a Wiki article – that is, to have it include virtually all relevant information in an NPOV form at some particular time. I can’t see how this article could ever reach a state of “completion”, since the debate is ongoing. It is far better to report the present state of the debate in related articles. For the same sorts of reasons, the article will never be “comprehensive”. Furthermore the article assumes that each side of the debate has some agreed account of their position that can be set against the view of the opposing party. This is not the case. Plainly creationists disagree with each other, and scientists disagree with other scientists. The format does not allow this to be shown.Banno 21:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge with creationism if any of the content is not redundant. Martg76 23:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this is in fact a fork of one of the Creation vs Evolution articles (which Hob Gadling implies above), I would rather see this redirect back to a source article. Redirect preserves the history of the debate. Having said that, I didn't see anything in this article which was not already covered in some other article. Further, I believe the other articles do a better job of sourcing the various opinions. This article's presentation presents a false dichotomy and obscures conflicting beliefs among groups within the columns. If there is not concensus for a clean redirect, please interpret this as a vote to delete the fork. Rossami(talk) 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV flame war material. Wyss is correct, the article will mislead. Megan1967 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. To be NPOV and fit its title, the righthand column would need to include the entire output of the sciences of biology, geology, astronomy and physics, to name a few. This is "things creationists dispute with science and what science has to say about them" masquerading under a more NPOV title. I think there is a case for an article that does list the problems creationists have with science but it would need to be meticulously sourced -- not a list of "some say this, some say that", and it should certainly not be presented as a dispute within science, which it is not.Dr Zen 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Creationists dispute that they have a problem with science, so you also are voting to delete on the basis of your POV. Philip J. Rayment 13:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Creationists do have a problem with science inasmuch as they think that the vast majority of those who are employed as scientists are not doing science! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons mentioned above, and more. Most importantly (which I don't think anyone has mentioned), the title seems to me highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia content. Wikipedia does not "compare" views, as that would be original research. Rather, we report the views of creationists and the views of evolutionists, and let the reader compare. Article's contents seems to be setting up some false dichotomy between "mainstream scientists" and "creationists" (with a disclaimer that not all creationists agree with whoever's opinions are in this article). Tuf-Kat 00:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia most certainly does compare views - that's one of the cornerstones of the NPOV concept. As long as this article maintains this, than it's acceptable. The subject matter is one of those things 100% of the people will never agree upon, so therefore the "disputed" disclaimer at the top is fair. I do feel the article needs to be retitled somehow; as it stands I don't believe it's NPOV enough. However I can't think of another title at the moment that wouldn't come off worse. 23skidoo 07:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep good comparison. Xtra 07:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete The article is horrendous, the comparison of views is just a hide-behind for a creationist endeavor to paint a false dichotomy. There is science and then there is pseudoscience. Creationism isn't an alternative scientific theory: it is one of many alternatives to science. Joshuaschroeder 20:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep but only if it can be agreed to set up guidelines for NPOV in such articles. Please interpret my vote as delete if no such agreement can be reached. See wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) for a first attempt at such guidelines. This is a set of guidelines on NPOV in articles making comparisons between scientific or pseudoscientific positions. I believe that if those guidelines were strictly adhered to (and perhaps a few more sensible ones added) it would be possible to create an article such as this without it becoming NPOV. This topic is dealt with very badly in the web as a whole and it would be great if wikipedia could cover it properly and in an NPOV manner. I think the current version is heavily biased towards the creationist viewpoint but I do not think it is inevitable that this be so. Barnaby dawson 09:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the most balanced treatment on the web to date is the talkorigins archive [www.talkorigins.org]. The creationists, however, think that it isn't balanced at all. If there is to be a debate at all, it has to be in the form of an exhaustive rendering of facts and a willingness (as expressed by the maintainers of the archive) to be constantly vigilant in keeping up to date on the latest creationist fad.
If this page is kept, it will either degenerate in a free-for-all posting of whatever flight-of-fancy creationists feel like pursuing with the scientifically-minded scurrying to find the appropriate niche-counter for their nonsense or it will be a complete repeat of the talkorigins archive. Either way, I'm not sure it behooves wikipedia to engage in a rehash of a very tired "debate".
My main point, however, is that this isn't really a "debate" at all. There are many alternatives to the scientific mainstream and to post a "debate" as such makes it seem like the only alternative is creationism. More than this, the current slant of the article is definitely YEC in flavor, which is only one type of creationism in general.
Delete This article is redundant and clearly slanted.. I think it's important to explain the creationist beliefs, but this article does so in a manner that seems insulting to science. Mlm42 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Much as I dislike creationism, this article is inherently POV. Lacrimosus 10:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to me to be more of a debate forum than an encyclopedia article. Also, as has been pointed out, it gives the impression of a false dichotomy. It would set a precedent for inclusion of a myriad of articles comparing "the views of scientists" to every other theory held by someone somewhere. Alarm 00:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The debate between the two viewpoints considered on this page is of encyclopedic relevence. That the debate occurs regularly in legal and governmental circles in america should be enough to establish this. There is no slippery slope here. Barnaby dawson 20:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The debate itself is ocf encyclopedic reference. This page does a poor job of covering it, though. We should delete the page and work on Creation vs. evolution debate. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Many good points have been made above in criticizing this page. However, we should keep this page to reflect the history of this debate accurately. Mr. Rossami argues that this page should be merged and redirected to Creation vs. evolution debate. But this page is a breakout of the detail of that debate and has a totally different advantage for the reader--namely, to present data in a table. Mr. Schroeder suggests that the talk.origins site duplicates the function of this page, but it does not--because the talk.origins page presents only the right hand column--the mainstream science rebuttal to the creationist nonsense in the left column.
Untrue. The talkorigins archive contains references to all the nonsense (how else could they critique it? Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Bconline complains that this page does not honor properly the scientific view. But this is not the SciencePedia, this is Wikipedia, and NPOV at least requires that the creationists should get to state accurately the documented history of their nonsense view of the world--which in my view this page does quite well. The page is getting there. 8)) As Mr. Zen complains, this page does not yet have the citations to scholarly publications. We will do that--and we will eliminate the original research that does not have citations to scholarly publications. But let's get the comparison of views first. Mr. Rossami suggests this page presents a false dichotomy, but it does not. This page merely tabulates the contrasting views in the debate. Nowhere on the page does it imply that you have to pick one or the other--quite the opposite. The parent page at Creation vs. evolution debate makes clear that there is a whole continuum of views in the debate from "Young earth creationism" to "Materialist evolutionism" (Scott 1997).
This is baloney because there is no way in the side-by-side format to decide where a nuanced view or a view that's not creationist but extra-scientific should go! Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Along that continuum, there is less and less disagreement between the creationist view and the mainstream view as you move from the extreme of "Young earth creationism" toward the other extreme of "Materialist evolutionism." Accordingly, the Views of creationists and mainstream scientists compared page merely tabulates the observed differences where the empirical data indicates differences. I definitely agree with Mr. Dawson that we should consider seriously the proposed Wikipedia guidelines for tabulating comparisons of science with nonsense. The issue here is how to treat nonsense in a legitimate NPOV manner. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think Rednblu is evaluating a hypothetical article and not the one that currently exists. How are we going to decide what constitutes a reference that we can use as part of the argument? Creationists have views that range from the most absurdist miracle-based ideologies to technical disparaging based on physical misconceptions. To reasonably do the "NPOV" suggested here would mean the article would stretch out ad infinitum. How would anybody decide what was reasonable to include and what wasn't?
Much of what the argument against creationism is is that there is a VAST body of scientific evidence against them. I could begin posting public ___domain sources of the hundreds of thousands of rocks that have been consistently dated to counter the claims that the creationists make against isochron dating. However, this obviously isn't in Wikipedia's best interest.
i'm not editing the page because it looks like it's about to be deleted. the fact that you think the left column is nonsense does not make lining that nonsense up with scientific truth pov -- if anything, it should make the left column look like nonsense in the light of the truth. i think this page could serve the purpose of getting the "issues" of the debate off the debate page and into a side-by-side comparison, so the debate page can consider more of the "big picture" issues, and it's only as long as we make it. Ungtss 19:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In short, those who are crying NPOV for keeping the article haven't really thought the issue out. Nor have I seen contributions from them that would seem to indicate that they were moving in the NPOV direction. It would be a sad thing if this article were kept as it is. We should expand Creation vs. evolution debate and make a reference outside of wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This belongs in an article, not a chart which creates a false sense of equivalence. A flame war will be inevitable. Gamaliel 16:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article presents YEC arguments on the creationist side, many of which OECs would not accept
Delete. Citing from NPOV: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.J. 'mach' wust 04:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into various creationist articles. "He said, she said" does not an NPOV article make. Heck, this monstrosity isn't even an article; it reads like someone's notes for a school assignment. However, there are real articles that could benefit from some of this information. foobaz·✐ 05:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This comparison is not only unwiedly, but it fails to properly capture the biases from each group; insofaras, creationists are filling in portions of the "mainstream science" section and vice versa. This is a big POV problem that has failed to be addressed.04:41, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This project page was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.
This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
A very sad memorial page for someone who sounds like a genuinely nice man who was, unfortunately, completely non-notable. I'm sure that his wife and friends still miss him, and I know that his friend had the best of intentions in putting up this page for him. But Wikipedia can't have an entry for absolutely everybody ever. DS 02:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, tribute, not encyclopedic. Wyss 02:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this independent spirit, as hard as it is. JoaoRicardo 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable hairstyle. Googling for the exact phrase returns zero hits. Google gives 2 hits when searching without quotes around the phrase. Now that I think about it, this is probably a hoax anyway. DCEdwards1966 02:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete could be a stealthy vanity, obscure. Wyss 03:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, possible prank. JoaoRicardo 04:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Do As Infinity and delete. The man is not notable, but his band is, and there's not much content to merge. JoaoRicardo 04:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: "Redirect and delete" will be interpreted as "redirect and keep". See talk for why. Rossami(talk) 23:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Tribal in nature, distinct related group (linguistically and geographically) from an isolated area in the Alps that did not see the first roads until after WWI. Not genealogy, as it is a small known group, nor vanity, but a note on what may be one of the few remaining tribal (Ladin) subgroups. As to whether it is encyclopedic, it goes to showing background of a more general nature. comment added by anon user:66.28.243.27. (Please consider signing in before contributing to these discussions. Due to the risk of sockpuppetry, anonymous votes are steeply discounted. Rossami(talk))
Delete. This isn't even accurate. The dolomites do not touch Switzerland, as the article claims. Martg76 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fuzzy genealogy. Wyss 23:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm? Strays tend to go feral, but I'm not sure it's the right place to redirect it to. Also, since we don't have a feral animals article, the redirect would be a candidate for speedy deletion. --fvw* 17:04, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
Google only gives one hit for this. DCEdwards1966 04:52, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, and incoherent too. Cdc 16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a software ad. Wyss 22:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and watch out, the guy who made these is trying to remove the VFD notices. CryptoDerk 23:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Are you not a bit paranoid ? I was trying to correct it again.
Now I am terrified of trying to correct the other pages, as then you will surely bann me. Did you not see it ? Whats wrong with articles about Free Software ? How are Free Software going to be made available if its not possible to express it even in a free forum ? Shakain
No evidence of notability. --fvw* 04:58, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Four hits in Google and suggests notability within minority group, but possibly insufficient for encyclopædic entry, delete. Stombs 05:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
===There are over 1000 Articles in Vietnamese, that are available online--Bnguyen 07:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep if there are this many articles, though a Google link to that would be welcome—in any case, needs clean-up, POV. Stombs 23:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP-why did you protect his page, I started this page on Nguyet Anh Duong she is a Influential Vietnamese American.
-Nguyet Anh Duong Accomplishment in Naval technology saved lifes of American Soliders in Iraq and Afganistan.
-I would like you to read it over.--Bnguyen 05:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. We read: She is noted as the "Scientist who developed the bomb that ended the war with Afghanistan." by the Vietnamese American National Gala. There was a "war with" Afghanistan? I thought it was supposed to be a "liberation" of Afghanistan, or similar. Whatever it was, has it ended? -- Hoary 07:12, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
weak keep, article needs cleanup and removal of POV. The link above this to vangusa.com doesn't work with Firefox, and with IE only has the fragment in quotes anyway.-gadfium 08:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, agree with Gadfium on cleanup and POV issues. Searching for "Duong Nguyet Anh" gets around 100 hits on Google, seems vaguely notable in her field and in the Vietnamese community. Probably needs some work on figuring out her correct name in accordance with established guidelines on Vietnamese names. --JuntungWu 10:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Above my notability threshold. Needs cleanup, kudos to Bnguyen for doing that. jni 10:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Messy, but keepworthy. DS 16:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, article needs cleanup, removal of POV and expansion. Megan1967 23:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs cleanup is all. Wyss 22:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
end moved discussion
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
That was actually just what pushed me over the edge; I've been threatening this for a little while. --SPUI 05:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a disruptive entry, and should be quickly removed. Keep and chastise the editor who listed this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've changed my mind back to my initial reaction on seeing this article. This is way too much detail about a fictional road. --SPUI 06:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Abusing the annoying term "cruft" is inherently POV, and if you're going to delete articles about fiction there are far worse examples to start. Nothing in the Wikipedia policy can be abused to delete this article. This is not just any road in Middle-earth, but arguably the most important one. -- Jordi·✆ 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete a road in Middle Earth... wow. Grue 07:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eh, why the fuck can't I make up my mind? I'm neutral again. Maybe after I sleep I'll be strong keep. Fuck the man with the deletionist plan. I'll abstain, now and in the future, due to not being able to make up my mind. By the way, the 'cruft' labels were sarcastic, lashing out at those who label articles like York Road 'roadcruft'. I'm too tired to be doing this shit now. --SPUI 07:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I see that initially I voted to delete Route 128 Station and have since changed my mind. If it comes up on VfD again (as it should) I'll vote "keep." Foolish consistency, hobgoblin, etc. Dpbsmith(talk) 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, disingenious nomination. Gazpacho 08:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Category:Middle-earth_places is chockfull of valleys, rivers, peaks, and several roads. If this is a test case then it should be framed better. -Willmcw 09:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there are a lot of places in the middle earth less deserving articles. - Jeltztalk 09:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Important element in one of the key fictons of modern literature. The mind boggles. Agree this is a poor test case, I'm not sure that test cases are a good idea at all in fact. Andrewa 10:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep reasons above Lectonar 11:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. SPUI raises a reasonable question, and doesn't do so offensively. The only time he's rude is about/to himself and about the general business of commenting on Wikiworthiness. (Out of laziness, I'll assume he's male.) There are now 80 "Middle earth places", 22 "Middle-earth hobbits", etc. List of Middle-earth articles is what makes my mind boggle. I don't rush to say that there's anything wrong with this -- they're much-loved books and all that. (I enjoyed them myself when I was about 14.) But I too wonder whether something is askew when fictional roads are OK but admittedly less-than-famous roads in the real world are not. Is this where SPUI should have raised the question? Perhaps not, but I see no reason why anyone should "chastise" him. -- Hoary 11:15, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
While I do believe that all these breakout Middle-Earth articles are getting out of hand, this isn't the place to address it. I think a lot of merging could be done, particularly for the minor articles (of which there are plenty). Of course, any proposal to do this will be fought tooth and nail by the Tolkien fans. A modest proposal I made for combining the all the Kings of Numenor into a single article (with the 3 or 4 important ones still keeping articles of their own) was dismissed as crazy and threatened with immediate reversion if it were even attempted. And yet with many other important works of fiction people have no problem with characters redirecting back to the original book. At some point Wikipedia as a whole has to get some sort of sense of proportion, and some consistency. -R. fiend 17:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's a road. In a book of fiction. Not majorly central to the plot (in the way that, say the Mines of Moria were), and with no break out effect whatsoever on the world. And people think that someone should be chastised for daring to question why this is would be in an encyclopedia? IT'S FICTION, PEOPLE! Put it this way - would anyone voting 'keep' for this consider voting 'delete' if I wrote an article about the recent Chelsea vs Manchester United football match? Be honest, plenty of you would thing that was unnecessary sporting trivia. Well, some people think the same about what you may appear to find tremendously interesting. If you want to know about this road, read the book. It doesn't exist separately. Delete. Average Earthman 21:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Disingenous nomination. If SPUI is "neutral" about the article then he should not have nominated the article, it's as simple as that. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point VfD is for executing established policy, not a forums for creating new policy. The article itself is a borderline keep. It is a reasonably good article about a reasonably important part of an extremely notable fantasy world. Given this, the level of detail is not grossly excessive, i.e. these five paragraphs belong in some Wikipedia article. Personally I would prefer to see them within a larger, well-organized article, with or without a redirect. Dpbsmith(talk) 22:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I am soooooo tempted to Pi for deletion, just so I could say "Delete, pi-cruft." Dpbsmith(talk) 13:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't care. —RaD Man (talk) 23:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, I normally vote against roads but there is something here I think worth keeping for now, borderline. Megan1967 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the other JRRTfanroadcruft. —Ben Brockert(42) 03:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
cruft /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n. An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction. 3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly says "a cruft of hackers".
What's offensive about that...? Wyss 00:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Confusing format corrected by Jerzy(t) 04:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)]
Perhaps a confusion between the relatively inoffensive "cruft" and the relatively offensive crud. Jeepers! Dpbsmith(talk) 20:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. On procedural grounds that too much insincerity has been evidenced by the nominator. (I have no objection to renomination and consideration then on its merits, after a decent interval (weeks) by a different nominator, who has not tainted the nomination as this one has.) Nominations, like article creations, should not be done to make a point, and this nominator has exhausted any deserved benefit of the doubt several times over. --Jerzy(t) 04:16 & 13:45, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only reference in Wikipedia is in Matthew Mankuzhikary, a relative (which I'm also tagging for deletion). Got 42 Google Hits for "Sebastian Mankuzhikary". Article is quite enthusiastic, looks like it was written by a descendant (or maybe by Matthew). JoaoRicardo 05:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: Mar Sebastian Mankuzhikary was the auxiliary bishop, and for one year the bishop, of the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly of the Syro-Malabar Church. The Syro-Malabar Church is an Eastern Rite (Oriental) Catholic Church with a strength of four million. Ernakulam-Angamaly, situated in Kerala, India, is the Major Archdiocese of the Syro-Malabar Church.
Delete Less than 50 Google Hits, and no evidence of notability outside the article itself that I can see. Maybe a redirect to a list of bishops? (is there such thing?) [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 06:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I doubt the Google test is very useful in a case like this. Have you searched Google in Malayalam as well? The article looks like an obituary from a church publication, but a bishop is probably of enough local and regional significance to deserve an article. Would a bishop of a Catholic diocese in e.g. England have been nominated for deletion for lack of notability? / up+land 13:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I have stubbified the article (something from the original version can perhaps still be worked back in) and modify my vote here. Mankuzhikary held an important position in an ancient church, which in terms of membership may seem small in a country like India, but is the size of some national churches in Europe (see data below). It is important to avoid cultural bias in a case like this, taking into account that language and transcription problems probably makes the information easily available and searchable in English less than complete. / up+land 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. A Bishop is a fairly senior post but if you check the article, he was a Bishop in the Syrian Catholic Church which is a semi-autonomous church, and not the full Roman Catholic Church. According to this website there are only 30,000 Syrian Catholic Church adherents outside of their middle-east base. If we could get some confirmation of the number of people in his diocese then that might help make it clearer whether he was a substantial religious leader or not. If he only ever had a flock of a few hundred even while called a Bishop, then that would not be notability. Dbiv 14:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
After reading some of the links below, weak keep. Would still like more info. Dbiv 01:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are looking at the wrong church. Sebastian Mankuzhikary was bishop in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (See data on him at the "catholic hierarchy" site), which is part of the Christian tradition (of ultimately Syrian origin) which has been native to India for 15 centuries or more. According to their own statistics, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has 3,596,198 members and is divided into 26 dioceses, which makes an average of 138,000 individuals per diocese. / up+land 16:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PS. A page on the diocese and the present bishop: http://www.thesyromalabarchurch.org/thamara.htm Data on the diocese of Thamarasserry: Area: 5,893 sq.kms. Catholics: 1,15,356. Languages: Malayalam. I suppose "1,15,356" is to be read as 115,356. / up+land 17:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, even if there a some hits in Malayam. Megan1967 00:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. All real bishops of all real churches are inherently notable. --Centauri 03:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, As per Problems that may require deletion at Deletion policy I dont see any reason to delete this article.
Google hit should not be considered on this article, lived in Kerala, not a politician or a film star.
written by a descendant - if it was a relative then there would have been more contents at related article of Matthew Mankuzhikary. I believe it is by somebody who was influenced by Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary, and that should be OK.
No reference in Wikipedia, 1 Google hit. Looks like vanity by some descendant. JoaoRicardo 05:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I get more google hits than that jeez. Delete for vanity. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 05:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a case where the number of Google hits is absolutely meaningless. His language is Malayam and his area of influence was a part of India that doesn't have a lot of Internet usage. The article itself, if accurate, establishes notability. He wrote lots of books and was a popular speaker at spiritual retreats. That's good enough for me. --LeeHunter 23:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity? Where do you folks see "vanity" in this article? We've got hundreds, if not thousands of articles about people who did nothing but write one book, played one season in an NFL club, or were a fictional character on one episode of the Simpsons. This guy wrote a bunch of books and was an influential religious figure for 70 years. --LeeHunter 01:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well those articles should be made FvD candidates then if you dont think they did anything. He may or may not have written a "bunch" of books but they still do not make this person noteworth. Megan1967 00:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral for now....if anyone could find more information, that would be helpful.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. Could be a merger into Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary. Would like to know more. --JuntungWu 05:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Vanity by genealogical proxy? Nothing here to establish notability, though possibly notable. Weak delete, subject to change if notability can be demonstrated. Lots of folks have written books but don't deserve an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the article or at the very least merge whatever is useful with Sebastian Mankuzhikary, provided that article is kept. If the article is deleted, Matthew may possibly still deserve an article of his own in the future, and meanwhile the present text could perhaps be moved to the talkpage of Sebastian M:s article. If Matthew was a significant person in his own cultural and religious context, which does not seem unlikely, this would (I think) make him as notable as many of the pornstars, baseball players or fictional characters from TV-shows already having articles on Wikipedia. / up+land 12:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Edited: changed my vote to keep above. / up+land 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I searched the Library of Congress catalogue for the name Mankuzhikary and was directed to an entry on one book by Matthew, where the name is transcribed from Malayalam as M¯atyu Manku_likkari. One book doesn't make him notable, but I can imagine that even the LoC is less than complete when it comes to religious literature in Malayalam. (It also illustrates the transcription and searching problems involved.) The National Library of India does not appear to have an online catalogue (at least I couldn't locate it on their website). / up+land 22:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and collect updated information on him from Kerala Catholic Church. You may get proper information from [8] The congregation he co-founded working for the down-trodden in many countries of the world. You can enquire and verify it. He led thousands into mental and spiritual happiness. Beware of geographical and cultural biasHe died at the age of 93 on 2nd January 2003. He was the Guru of 1000+ Catholic priests. Also he led a saintly life. Anybody interested can verify the facts.
Keep if the information in the article is correct. This is one case where internet sources are likely to be unhelpful. The Steve 11:51, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep if the article is correct (but some kind of attempt at verifying the information and possibly include a bibliography would be appropriate). An author of several books and articles should normally be considered notable. As mentioned above, we have many articles of people that have achieved far less. Not to mention the Pokemon characters... Alarm 12:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, As per Problems that may require deletion at Deletion policy I dont see any reason to delete this article.
No reference in Wikipedia, how do you expect a reference if you start deleting articles and scare away new authors, we should have educated the original author to wikify the article. Also please spend time to contribute to articles than delete.
Google hit should not be considered on this article, this is about a person who may have died before www (as DOB in 1909), lived/lives in Kerala, not a politician or a film star.
vanity by some descendant - if it was a relative then there would have been more contents. I believe it is by somebody who was influenced by Bishop Sebastian Mankuzhikary, and that should be OK.
This persons main work is not literature, it is his community work.
Thanks for your input, Bijee. I strongly agree that references from other Wikipedia articles is a particularly weak argument when it comes to underrepresented cultures or geographic areas; it serves to conserve an already existing systemic bias. I hope that we will get more from Kerala. I wouldn't mind seeing lists and, when possible, biographies of all bishops from all dioceses of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, just like there are redlinked lists of all bishops of English dioceses from the 7th century until today (and for that matter all important leaders in other religions in the area as well). But Wikipedia needs more editors who know the area and the language. / up+land 00:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
