Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 31 February 2 >

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.--cj | talk 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin Contributions to Other Religions

edit
Brahmin Contributions to Other Religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic topic, makes ridiculous claims, the "sources" used are POV and not reliable Orpheus 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. To expand: (1) article makes unsubstantiated claims (e.g., "there exist Brahmins of other religions and throughout history, the Brahmins of these other religions have contributed greatly towards their religion."), (2) is based on liberal interpretation of "brahmins" and "contributions" (see sections titled "Well-wishers") and (3) is largely/completely based on original research and synthesis which is to be avoided by itself and, particularly so, if it pushes a POV. Abecedare 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The material in the article is covered quite well in other articles already. The reason the article exists is that one user kept getting his POV rewriting of those sections reverted, so he took his bat and ball and wrote his own article instead. The reason I think it should be deleted instead of rewritten is that overlap. The small fraction of useful content in the article exists elsewhere already, where it fits better. Orpheus 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pointers to some of these other articles would be helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment See Special:Contributions/Maleabroad. Thank you. GizzaChat © 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how DaGizza has a "significant history" when he made one reversion. If you want "significant history", look at the contributions of the article creator instead. I fail to see the conflict of interest mentioned below. Orpheus 09:25, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken-shen ryu

edit
Ken-shen ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deletion (CSD G4). Avi 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball sweat

edit
Ball sweat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable PWnsivander the Great 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The article, in this direct text, was speedily deleted yesterday. From deletion log:

    # 01:14, January 31, 2007 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Ball sweat" (g8 content was: 'I don't think this page should be deleted. There's very little in the article, but all new articles start out that way. The fact is that ball sweat is...' (and the only contributor was 'Cory Davis')) #01:14, January 31, 2007 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ball sweat" (g1 nonsense content was: 'Ball sweat is a colloquial name for the sweat produced by the apocrine sweat glands in a man's genital region. In...')

Page should be speedied then salted. Michael Greiner 00:24, 1 February 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.. Avi 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Ce

edit
Chin Ce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a Nigerian poet who doesn't appear to be very notable. The organization he seems to be affiliated with Africasearch.org is a group of writers who publish via lulu.com [1]. His works of fiction are all from lulu.com (self-published). Google doesn't seem to bring forth anything to illustrate notability either. [2]. An article on one of his books has already been deleted [3]. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is one of his self-published books:

Gamji College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IrishGuy talk 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry All the above comment was mine I forgot to log in Æon Insanity Now! 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire. Articles need to prove notability to be kept, not disprove notability to be deleted. -- Avi 18:13, 8 February 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.--cj | talk 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kovas Boguta

edit
Kovas Boguta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cannot assert notability of the subject as per Wikipedia:Notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 1 February 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 keep, no reason to delete given, no arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadspin

edit
Deadspin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no reason given by Peakdetector (talk • contribs), orphaned entry linked by me. --Kjoonlee 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no valid reason to delete it and its probably dee mirich or lucia doing this just to say HA!. Affirmed. Brent schneider 22:08 January 2007
  • Keepzilla This user who nominated this article is acting in bad faith. If you look at his or hers user page, this is not the first time he or she has done this. BJ Humiston 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (Did someone edit my comment? I'm pretty sure I did not put "Keepzilla.") BJ Humiston 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close - ironically, kind of per nomination: no reason to delete. One is procedural - "no reason given" is not a reason to bring a page to AfD. Two, there is no reason to delete, as this site falls over itself proving notability and verifiability. Three, I'm calling WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website known only to a select group of online subscibers and it's an insult to wikipedia. The editors are racist, sexist and lowbrow at least shorten the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peakdetector (talk • contribs).
Time to delete or cut this way back, they have no relevancy to the sports world and are an example of internet site's seeking credence. The chart of their award winners is pointless-online and print magazines of far greater importance have much smaller or no articles. Deadspin staff have showed rabid contempt for the Barbaro article and are vandalizing it hourly. They need to take their own medicine.
Bad reasons, but reasons nonetheless. Ytny 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The real problem seems to be that Deadspin visitors might not be totally familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Deadspin article and the Barbaro article have had some problematic edits which were probably added by Deadspin's visitors. --Kjoonlee 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it right now, but I see a lot of SPAs here, and they should be tagged as such, even though it's turning into a WP:SNOW. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:04, 1 February 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 A7 --BigDT 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty America: The Game

edit
Naughty America: The Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, "planned" internet AMMORPG. Savidan 00:58, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boss

edit
Dragon Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as nom. Much like the article that spawned in, Spider-Man 3 (video game), this article offers little to no encyclopedic content and no citation. Who is "Dragon Boss"? What do they look like? Are they just a dragon that happens to be a boss? Are they really even in the game? Furthermore, we're dealing with what looks like a non-notable fictional character from an unreleased video game. That alone is grounds for immediate merging, if not simple deletion. Finally, this page is its own top google search result, with literally no other relevant links. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:58, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in Half-Life 2

edit
List of weapons in Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ok, this was apparently nominated in October, but how it survived is frankly a mystery. First of all, it has not improved since the last time; second, as per precedent, such as the Halo weapons lists, it should be deleted, as per the reasons to be outlined; ah, now the reasons. First, its original research. Second, no sources, Third, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Finally, I quote wikipedia's policy from the admin's guide: Basically, the guidelines "which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. It is not veribfiable since it has no sources, has plenty of OR, and isn't written from a neutral point of view. 'Nuff said. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: AfDs set as precedent, including the Halo ones I was involved with, back when I was a moron: Halo 2 weapons, and Weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. The original discussion for this page is here. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC) "[reply]

There is a big difference between the Half Life series and Halo in notability, and also Wikipedia is inconsistent so the fact other articles have been deleted should not unfairly influence the decision for keeping other articles. Mathmo Talk 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely POV- Halo and Half Life 2 both placed 15 and 16 in the top 100 games of all time, according to user voting at IGN. You don't have games called "Half-Life" clones, do you? They are both important FPSs and its certainly a fair comparison. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was referring to the series as whole, arguably on a per game basis they are comparable. As for "Half-Life" clones, obviously games based on and cloning Half Life exist. So much so they even become very famous on their own right. Mathmo Talk 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, who but Halflife 2 players care what the console ID of the crowbar is? And apparently, this IS trying again later. It's the second nomination and (apparently) hasn't changed. -Ryanbomber 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a very nice way of trying again for sources (talk pages with tags as needed is how you ought to first of all do it), and as you pointed out it has been AfD 'but it wasn't included in the nomination. It would have been very handy for past voters to go to there and see the many reasons given in the previous AfD for keeping it. As for reference to the variable names, this is hardly different than refering to error order of Euler's Method. How else than mathematicians would be interested in that? But that is exactly the point, they are the people who would read the article. Mathmo Talk 09:40, 2 February 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.--cj | talk 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IConnectHere

edit
IConnectHere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Could you please explain how this article different than the rest of the articles on the List of commercial voice over IP network providers? I tried to improve it to better comply with WP:CORP by adding some references, but it's just some information about this service and it's similar to the rest of the services on this list. I was only trying to add this article to the list of commercial voip service providers. Thank you. Zetaa 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Zetaa.[reply]

Fails WP:CORP, no sources for anything more that a stub can be found via Google BJTalk 01:19, 1 February 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 keep - apparent bad faith nomination, no arguments to delete. --Coredesat 06:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gawker.com

edit
Gawker.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From Talk:Gawker.com: Pathetic attempt to gain credibility, is every person whose worked on the Deaspin/Gawker online rages getting an article? User:Peakdetector

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

The result was speedy keep, apparent bad-faith nomination. Delete argument is disregarded as there are no arguments to delete among established editors. --Coredesat 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Leitch

edit
Will Leitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated by Peakdetector (contribs, talk), who did not give a reason. (note added by LastChanceToBe 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Peakdetector also nominated Gawker.com at the same time, the company over deadspin. I don't think that these three are serious nominations. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep famous guy famous website nuff said. Brent schneider 18:35 31 January 2007
  • Speedy Keep It doesn't really matter if the person is famous or interesting to be on Wikipedia. You could delete most the articles on Wikipedia if this were to be true. And by simply looking at the edit history of the article in question, you will see it most likely not Mr. Leitch who made this page. BJ Humiston 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close - ironically, kind of per nomination: no reason to delete. One is procedural - no valid reason given. Two, there is no reason to delete, as this, too, falls over itself proving notability and verifiability. Three, I'm calling WP:SNOW, and four, per my vote on Deadspin's AfD, I'm calling a bad faith nom per the nominator's talk page. --Dennisthe2 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known author and creator of a very influential sports blog. I don't see why this is grounds for deletion especially with some of the other junk on Wikipedia.--Freepablo 05:12, 1 February 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 keep, no reason for deletion provided, apparent bad-faith nomination, no arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Denton

edit
Nick Denton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From Talk:Nick Denton:

He was once featured in a Vanity Fair photoshoot." Please, this is so offensive and pathetic, how do all these internet sports people end up on here looking for status User:Peakdetector
  • Keep. Interviewed in Wired and Slate. Runs a huge and notable website. He's notable on his own. This is part of a suite of AFDs that I can't help but say appear to be in bad faith. LastChanceToBe
  • Speedy keep and close. This is the third AFD on this person's name today where there is no reason given, and basically said "I don't know" when asked why he's deleting it. I call bad faith. --Dennisthe2 02:26, 1 February 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 send for cleanup. Consensus agrees that action is required to be taken to improve, reference or/and rewrite the article. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure (magic)

edit
Exposure (magic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, which means it fails standards of verifiability. Uses weasel words liberally. Looks to be nothing but original research. Chardish 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite if necessary. The article is not necessarily that great, but the subject itself is quite notable. Haikupoet 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and CleanupConsidering the subject matter, verifiability is probably a bit harder to achieve, although it is ultimately a requirement. Tough one. I would say, keep the tags, ditch the deletion, and hope that something can be made of the article in terms of sourcing and such.--IRelayer 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: All editors should familiarize themselves with the underlying principles of verifiability. Simply because an article may be about a notable topic does not mean it passes verifiability. Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, insists that unsourced material be "aggressively removed." - Chardish 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced & unverifiable. /Blaxthos 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite as necessary. A look around with google gives me the impression this article does have potential, I'm willing to give the editors of the article the chance to improve it. However if I see it coming back around for second AfD though without any improvement I'd be suporting deletion. Mathmo Talk 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic seems worthy, and this text, while not free from problems, is not useless to someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reference issue cleaned up The article looks like it might have potential, but the references are unfortunately inadequate and it does look like the article is probably original research by the author(s). If in-line published references are provided to verify most of the information, I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I'd suggest possibly moving this article to a user space page as a draft article until the references can be properly cleaned up. Dugwiki 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Article needs a rewrite from the ground up with appropriate references and tone, so maybe deletion is warranted. Certainly a notable topic, I hope some editors can "adopt" this article in their userspace and replace with a much better version. --Canley 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but it needs major work on sources, writing. Realkyhick 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-write/add sources. --KharBevNor 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has sources but needs more, just because it hasn't had a lot of people working on it doesn't make it original research. 163.1.188.201 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up and sources added. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This subject is intrinsically notable (magic is popular and this is a big deal among magicians -- what more could you ask for?), and it makes more sense to improve this article than to delete it and start over. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing is "intrinsically notable." We have objective standards of notability here that must be followed. Furthermore, the problem is that the article is unverified and potentially unverifiable: this is non-negotiable on Wikipedia. - Chardish 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of the notability criteria; my comment wasn't quite meant to be taken literally (apologies for the imprecision). The point was that common sense tells me it's notable. (I do concede that my idea of common sense might not match anybody else's.) Anyway, I will not doubt that lack of sources is a problem, but I'm wondering what exactly might be unverifiable. I won't deny that a lack of sources is a problem, but I don't think it's one to delete an article over, either. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The trouble with unverified information is that there is no way of confirming its accuracy, which is necessary for Wikipedia to be an accurate and reliable resource. Take the following statement, for example: Opponents argue that exposure devalues magic tricks by removing their potential to surprise or amaze audiences. I have a few questions immediately: 1) Which opponents argued this? 2) What was their actual argument? 3) When did they make the argument? 4) Where can I find out more about this argument? Instead, I'm relying upon an unknown editor on the Internet to summarize the argument and remove any specificity from it. Because I don't know where the editor got the information from, I have no guarantee that he didn't just invent it himself (or perhaps played Devil's advocate in an attempt to explore all possible arguments.) The information, therefore, is completely free of credibility or reliability. Now the bigger problem is that the entire article is like this, which is very good reason to delete it. No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. - Chardish 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that particular statement is a well-known viewpoint about magic. That doesn't excuse the lack of a source, but it means a source could easily be found. For example, http://www.billpalmer.com/exposure.htm is a potential source (in particular, the section that begins "Let me give you a not entirely hypothetical situation."), if not a particularly great one, but it was one of the very first google hits I found. Anyway, the "Arguments" section as a whole is indeed problematic, though, but I think the section preceding it is decent. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are added — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:35, 7 February 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.--cj | talk 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Micflikier

edit
Jacob Micflikier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Perhaps I'm incredibly ignorant about Canadian college hockey, but this person doesn't seem that notable to me. The various awards are all team specific, as far as I can tell. Also unsourced. Natalie 01:42, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie (series)

edit
Movie (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't see any connection between these movies, other than one word in the title. Grouping them as a "series" seems as arbitrary as grouping Wall Street, Green Street and Nightmare on Elm Street. Illuminattile 01:42, 1 February 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 as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
List of articles related to scientific skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We've been over this one before. The first AfD resulted in a move to Project space and rename. The deletion review made it clear that it needed renamed as it was still too pejorative. It now resides there. There was a following MfD, which did not reach consensus on deleting it outright from project space. For some reason though, QuackGuru has found it necessary to not only recrate the same list in mainspace, but to append 368 references, apparently in an attempt to justify its inclusion in article space. Not only does this fly in the face of the consensus reached in both prior debates, it smacks of WP:POINT. The article should be Deleted. Kesh 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, CSD G4. So tagged. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4. Levine2112 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has significantly changed and the title is now non-pejorative. "Scientific skepticism" is a phrase commonly used in magazines and other places where controversial topics such as those listed on this article are discussed. This is actually one of the most useful lists I've seen here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Delete. I changed my opinion because of the content of the references. Any article could cite a million (or 368) references that really have nothing to do with the article. This kind of deception is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only actual difference is the extreme number of references appended to the list. The list itself is identical and there is still no serious inclusion criteria given. In fact, the references are simply copied & pasted from the articles themselves. It appears that QuackGuru just went through and copied every reference from every article listed, and pasted them into the list. This does not appear to be an actual attempt to satisfy their reasoning for adding the items to the list, but an attempt to get around WP:V by making an WP:POINT. -- Kesh 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if he really did just copy the text from those articles, it may be a copyvio, in which case all of the added text would need to be deleted as copyvio, which would remove the sources, and the article would be the same. If that's the case, then I'd have to reconsider. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is why I brought up WP:POINT. The references given have nothing to do with whether or not the articles in question are related to scientific skepticism, they're just thrown in there from the articles themselves. Dealing with them one-by-one would be a nightmare, and it seems to me that's the point of why it was done that way. -- Kesh 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would like to see tighter requirements, and some removed, such as Spam (electronic); Penicillin; Pharmaceuticals; Psychiatry. Is spam a pseudoscience? Are medicines fake? There is no context to these entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - just checked 13 references and not one mentioned scientific skepticism. Pretty obvious this is WP:OR. The lead is ambiguous and borderline non-sense as anything could be included. Looks like just another list to put your favorite enemy on.See WP list criteria:

  • "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

There is no room for this in article space. It is a great reference on project space where it came from. --Dematt 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Unprecendented Change is the theme. The List of articles related to quackery was a stand alone list without any references or organization. It was a long and unfocused list. Now, a new and different "shorter and more focused list" with verifiable references meets every aspect of Wikipedia guidelines. The List of articles related to scientific skepticism as gone through a "massive remodeling". Everything has been categorized, organized, and well written. It was NOT a re-creation of the list of article related to quackery that was a long list with any sentences or references. This was an amended list that has gone through a massive change. I invite you to look at the history for the proof. Thanks. New and different articles are allowed to be created. This new list had references and sentences and categories. Obviuosly is it very different from a long long that had everthing mixed up togther. Additionally, the closing admin asserted if everything was referenced it could be back on mainspace again too. Not only is it referenced, it has sentences and categories that were not there before. And the intro paragraph has been updated with a lot more detail for inclusion and focus. This is an easy keep when you look at the history when it was in mainspace under the list of article related to quackery compared to a different, >>> The list of articles related to scientific skepticism. <<< A massive improvement is a reason for mainspace. This newbie article deserves a chance for many Wikipedians to contribute (over the years) and improve further. It has distinct parallels to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has had its own beginning. If anyone has a concern about the list it should be brought up on the talk page. Cheers to Wiki. --QuackGuru 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above, this is clearly OR, with no solid criteria for what articles to include or exclude. Furthermore, a large number of the articles listed seem to have nothing to do with 'scientific scepticism'. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the list is too broad it can be discussed and condensed per discussion on the talk page. Focusing the list can be done. Experienced contributors can easily discuss reason for inclusion and improve the list. That would be easy. Thanks. QuackGuru 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I totally agree with the comments about the list is still a little long. I invite anyone to trim and clean up the list. A condensed list is a great idea. Thanks. --QuackGuru 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE The term 'skepticism' seems to have been hijacked and is being used here as a euphamism for anything Quru hates and has a bug up his beehind about. Can we now start listing MDs who fail boards yet hold themselves up as expert witnesses? Or what about MDs who stalk women or who roam the internet posting under a fictitious woman's name? Does anything go on this so-called list? Besides it seems to link-spamming, link-farm and not to mention, obviouslyWP:OR. Thanks Steth 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The material in project space is what should be returned to article space. It is a perfectly straight-forward NPOV list of appropriate WP articles and so on. The page now in article space has added a list of references on each of the specific topics, & a paragraph of added description or some of them.. This is first of all redundant, because the articles being referred to have the references and the discussions. Selecting one or two key references for this list out of the usually great many in the articles will always be controversial, as will be writing a succinct summary. The pages for the specific articles are the ones for these controversies, or everything will be continually being argued at both places. The final section on phraseology is the worst, because this gives examples, which makes a third place for the discussions. However, the introductory paragraphs of this article seem useful; but still they are found elsewhere. Just maintaining an agreed upon list will be difficult enough.
the best its proponents can say for it is that the new article "ought to be allowed to compete"--compete for what--maximum continual confusion?

Examine for example the annotation for UFOs, which attempts to synthesize the evidence. Such attempts will prove to take matters which have been approximately reduced to NPOV elsewhere and reargue them. Very few of them are simple factual descriptions or definitions of the subject matter, but even those are often controverted. Some of the opposition above highlights this--it is opposition to particular parts. This is a direction that will prove disrptive. DGG 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, Speedy Delete. This looks like an SPA's private, leftover spam & link POV farm that was previously addressed in Dec-January, dumped, moved, renamed into other name in project space. Now it is resurrected with dupicative material that has been long removed, back into Article space! This time let's call its lack of deletion an adminstrative oversight. Next time let's use an RfC about abuse, good faith and commmunity distraction. Also considering the amount of duplicated material and (spam)links, besides SOAPboxing WP itself, one might wonder about manipulation of the Internet search engines' scoring systems also to promote their favorite site(s).--I'clast 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nuked the list of articles to a newbie stub based on comments here to start over and turn over a new leaf. Thanks, --QuackGuru 05:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see above. /Blaxthos 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation of vaguely titled list. "Related to" means nothing. Doczilla 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Didn't we already go through this? This is clearly an article created to push one POV - that of the pseudoskeptic. Delete and salt the earth... again... and use better salt this time. TheDoctorIsIn 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - repost. So tagged. MER-C 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete repost and disruptive POV pushing.--Docg 10:33, 1 February 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 redirect to the metro system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sofia metro stations

edit
List of Sofia metro stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list provides no context or information whatsoever, thus making it totally indescriminate and fail WP:NOT. Article was de-prodded per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Salad Days 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Let's speedy redirect to that page! Salad Days 02:25, 1 February 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 a7, g1, nonsense bio, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam evans

edit
Sam evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, likely hoax, no reliable source suggests the existence of this candidate Wooyi 02:05, 1 February 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.. Avi 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season

edit
List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion from the prior AFD was overturned at deletion review because the article changed during the first discussion and the AFD discussion did not reflect this. Please look at the updated article and read both discussions before opining. I have no opinion, except that I don't want to see it again on deletion review. GRBerry 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Is this article likely to be expanded during the next year? If yes, keep it. If not, I'm not sure. YechielMan 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now At present there's only two entries. I'm not even convinced the Figo one technically occurs during the 2007/2008 season, but I could be wrong on that. As for the other, the source states "Slovenian international striker Zlatko Dedič has left Parma FC to join Serie B side Frosinone Calcio on a free transfer, having previously agreed to make the move in the summer when his contract expired." which means he left in January 2007, which means it happened during the 2006/2007 season anyway. So we're left with just Figo, and it seems a bit premature to have an article with one entry. One Night In Hackney 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: If it seems a bit premature to have an article with one entry, then how many verified transfers do you think are necessary before a real list could be written? Neier 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, could we perhaps redirect it to the previous season? Then later on it can simply be re-editted as needed. Mathmo Talk 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for multiple reasons: because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (has this league started its 2007/2008 season?); because this is excessive detail, not relevant to understanding anything encyclopedic about Serie A or futbol/soccer in general; and because a "list" with one entry doesn't meet WP's list guidelines. I don't think a player transfer is ever encyclopedic, but a case could be made that the recent transfer of David Beckham was noted widely enough to pass WP:V. To me that's still Wikinews, not Wikipedia content, but at least there's been published discussion of whether it heralds a new era of USA soccer being taken more seriously. This list has no context that purports to show any significance. Barno 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I voted originally. I don't understand why WP:CRYSTAL is continuously brought up. That's what got the original AFD overturned in the first place. (Quoting from the Crystal Ball section: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Player transfers appear to be of sufficiently wide interest, per List of English football transfers 2006-07, and List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season and the single event already listed is verifiable, per the reference source. Expectations that the list will grow do not seem outrageous, but, even if Figo was the only player to transfer in or out of a Serie A team this next season, that doesn't make the transfer any less or more notable (maybe more notable; but, that's a separate argument). Neier 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. As it happens, not entirely sure how it could be sourced. So possibly delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Addhoc 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even READ the article and see that it is already sourced?? Neier 22:28, 7 February 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 Vegaswikian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Part Deux 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRAJ Internet Radio

edit
WRAJ Internet Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Internet radio station that claims to be big in its market. (Procedural listing; count me as neutral.) - BanyanTree 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Merge It is different, don't really see many internet stations...I say keep it and merge it in with the Long Island FM/AM stations, giving it a link on the LI Template. - SVRTVDude 03:18, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackrabbit Slim's

edit
Jackrabbit Slim's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Unspeedies, but I do not think this is encyclopedia-worthy Avi 02:27, 1 February 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. Avi 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text 100

edit

I put a speedy delete tag on this, but another editor removed it. There are no claims of notability, and the other article it links to has been speedied for lack of claims or proofs of notability. Corvus cornix 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to those favoring keeping this. I've made some further edits and notes to address concerns. --Timdyson 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Subject seems only notable within its own industry. It's biggest claim to fame is lauching Microsoft in Europe 25 years ago, and its own website is apparently the only source for that. For a PR firm, you'd expect it to have more mainstream press if it were truly notable in the WP sense. Also, while I have tried to remove the POV, it still feels like an advert, and there's not much left. I also have serious COI concerns. The creator even mislabled the 2005 Holmes award so that it looked like Agency of the Year rather than the more limited Technology Agency of the Year, and I don't know if the good faith assumption holds here due to the COI. Finally, the existence of articles on similar firms is just INN. I'll have to look at the other articles mentioned for possible prod/AfD. -- Butseriouslyfolks 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator and the person with the COI I'm happy to address any of the concerns above. SHort of getting Steve Ballmer to post something stating that he appointed the firm back in 1982 along with a former exec Bob O'Rea I'm not sure there is much we can do to verify that we did launch Microsoft. THere are numerous timelines on the web that confirm that Microsoft was launched in Europe then such as http://www.cisnet.com/glennmcc/pc-hist/. There are numerous articles about this firm, most recently in the Financial Times but also in publications such as Business Week which discuss the fact that it is the first PR agency to open a virtual office in Second Life. I would assert that if you remove this firm you should remove all other PR firms. --Timdyson 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Having done some homework on the matter it seems the criteria for corporations are:[reply]

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

  • 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
  • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.1
  • o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
  • 2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3
  • 3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market.

This company meets both of the first two criteria listed and I would therefore respectfully argue that it should not be deleted.--Timdyson 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Leebo. It's, quite frankly, a decent page. Timdyson, can you verify with any references that it does in fact meet criteria 1?--CastAStone|(talk) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I did update the article to include an article in the Financial Times and another in Business Week that recently talked about its entry in Second Life. Here is the link to the FT piece: [6] and here's the one for Business Week [7]--Timdyson 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, both articles are about Second Life and the subject happens to be one of the firms there. The first ref is not much more than a passing mention, and both of them only support the proposition that the company has a presence there. Trivial at best, IMHO. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a good example This is a PR firm, but within its field it's notable, and that's the test. The article at this point has had the advertising removed, and is a sober a statement as can be expected. I think we need it to use as a model to use when telling the commercial spammers what the need to do to make a decent article. DGG 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't looked at the earlier versions, but the current version shows notability. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 4 February 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 and clean-up. No Guru 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ernst Harth

edit
C. Ernst Harth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Seeming combination of self-promotion and non-notability. Avi 02:33, 1 February 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 a7 per author's admissions below. See WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise-0

edit
Paradise-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, software notability superapathyman 03:01, 1 February 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 as copyvio and not an article anyway. Kusma (討論) 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xanth timeline

edit
Xanth timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability claimed. This falls under indescriminate collection of information by even the most conservative interpretation. Oh, did I mention it's a copyvio? http://www.piers-anthony.com/xanthtimeline.html --Infrangible 03:04, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caretaker Gazette

edit
Caretaker Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Caretaker Gazette was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-22. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caretaker Gazette.

This is advertising, as defined under the spam guidelines, and most certainly in violation of wp:coi. The sole author, at ip address 64.185.177.210, has previously identified himself by name, and appears to be the editor of the Caretaker Gazette. The Gazette is itself an advertising publication. Trishm 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A major cleanup has been completed on 2007-02-04. It is not advertising, and if User:Trishm thinks this is advertising, then Wikipedia needs to delete TIME, NEWSWEEK, MOTHER EARTH NEWS, and all the other publication descriptions contained in Wikipedia, which have the same information as is contained here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Avi 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Fischer

edit
Pamela Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

likely hoax Wooyi 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Due to the introduction of new citations and references, it may not be a hoax but still need to be scrutinized. I as of now retract my view and do not support immediate deletion Wooyi 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: apparently not a hoax, but still a notability issue due to lack of other notable cases, issues, controversies, etc., this lawyer is connected with. Edeans 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: though with the new information brought to light is not enough to change your vote to rename/redirect/neutral/etc...? Mathmo Talk 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have changed my vote to Keep on the basis of new evidence arriving and the original reason given by the nominator of "hoax" has been found to be completely false. So in my view this AfD should be thrown out, allow it to stay and then again perhaps in the future have another AfD if people still believe it doesn't meet other required criteria. Mathmo Talk 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may not be a hoax, thanks to Mathmo. The assertion of the article makes a prima facie case for notability, and this link to her CV seems to confirm it. But there are verdict reporting services and other reliable sources for the claims made in this article, and in the absence of a reference to one of these, this article about a living person needs more to stand. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, may not be a hoax but if we can't verify it we must assume it is. Alf photoman 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a hoax. I found some sources. I added two newspaper story references from Canoe.ca, the online service of the Calgary Sun newspaper and other newspapers owned by Sun Media, as well a link from the Law Society of Alberta confirming that she is a lawyer. I cannot confirm whether the $18 million figure mentioned in the story is a Canadian record, but it is quite large. I removed the claim that it was the largest, and simply reported the dollar figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete-user:Texaco oil king's only edits have been either vandalism or vanity, he is the self-identified Paul Klassen, which I am now putting up for AfD. Chris 03:52, 2 February 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.

Owais Qadri

edit

The result was Speedy Delete. Conscious (talk · contribs) deleted it with deletion summary "WP:CSD#G4". James086Talk 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm just fixing the botched AfD process, also nominated for speedy deletion under G4. RWR8189 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator had placed nominating text on the talk page:

I may have messed up the steps to get this article deleted. If I did, I sincerely apologize. This is my first time doing this; however, I think it is clearly justified in this case. This article is more of a eulogy than an encyclopedia article; in addition nothing is cited. Seems little to nothing is salvagable. ZaydHammoudeh 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks 07:09, 1 February 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:SNOW – PeaceNT 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Hussein controversy

edit
Jamil Hussein controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Controversy" consists of bloggers blogging about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The blogger's controversy was cited in many traditional media sources. 71.39.78.68 04:05, 1 February 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, presidental-cruft. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by middle name

edit
List of Philippine Presidents by middle name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While verifiable, both the topic and the contents of represent a perfect example of indiscriminate information. The information itself can already be gleaned from List of Presidents of the Philippines, a featured list, and the pages of the individuals themselves. There are quite a few of these articles in Category:Lists relating to the Philippine presidency; I am going to be conservative with my nominations here for the sake of clarity in this particular AfD. Dekimasu 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason given above:
List of Philippine Presidents by first name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Philippine Presidents by last name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Philippine Presidents by birthday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note: not nominating birthdate list at this time)
Dekimasu 04:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the lists of US presidents by first and middle name were deleted and that the deletion logs were linked on this page. Also deleted were similar lists for US presidents by birthday. I initiated the deletions for those articles. I for one was serious about finding other similar articles for other countries and getting rid of them. There is no value in a list of national leaders by first or middle name regardless of the nation in question. Otto4711 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all of us here (including me), please, sarcasm is unproductive. Some people might be offended, especially people from other cultures ---- Lenticel 08:24, 4 February 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, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest High School (Fort Worth, Texas)

edit
Southwest High School (Fort Worth, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. Prod removed. — Swpb talk contribs 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly, emphatically agree with Soltak. What are we here for, if not to make a better encyclopedia? Getting rid of content that doesn't belong here is exactly that sort of work. And AfD's don't keep editors from working on other articles. By Eastmain's logic, no article should ever be deleted, because the effort would be too great. Wikipedia would then be nothing but free hosting. — Swpb talk contribs 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I'll answer that. For things like schools and churches notability doesn't arise simply from existence. If every school were "notable" this would have the practical effect of depriving the word of meaning when talking of schools: we would have the equation "school = notable school". Rather, notability for schools is like notability for people: we think they are notable when they do something which marks them out from their peers. For schools we might regard them as notable if they consistently educate their pupils to a high level of excellence in Latin, say, or if they meet a special need. A school is not notable simply because it teaches: all schools do that, so it's rather like eating or breathing for a person. Notability arises when a school outperforms ( or, sadly, underperforms ) in its tasks. For example, we have an article on Eton College because, somehow, it's managed to educate an enormous number of successful UK politicians: it does something different, though it's not clear what the "magic ingredient" is. Similarly, we have an article on Harvey Milk School because the school is providing something that virtually no other school is doing. As it happens, I have reservations about the wisdom of the Harvey Milk School approach to education, but I strongly feel we should be documenting their work, and I strongly support retention of its article here. But for Southwest High there is no evidence that the school is doing something unique: it's not doing anything special that marks it out. There's no evidence of sustained academic excellence, nor does it appear to be winning notable awards for its educational policy on a consistent basis. It isn't meeting a need for special educational facilities for a minority group, and although it may be a good school it is pretty much just another normal school. Giving it a Wikipedia entry is like giving an entry to the ordinary guy you see every day: he's a good, honest guy, and he works hard, but he's just like the rest of us. Southwest High is a good, honest school, working hard to educate its students, but it's just like most other schools. Show us something unique and interesting about a school that has relevance outside its local community, and I'll gladly advocate retention: in the past I've advocated retention of school articles for reasons that have varied from being the only military school in its country to entering into a unique business partnership with a federal agency. Notability, it seems to me, arises from doing something different that people might want to know about, not simply from existence. I hope this helps explain the opinion I express below. WMMartin 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-stated, but not quite right, I think. Although it is true that "notability does not arise merely from existance," the general notability criteria at WP:N make it perfectly clear that the subject of an article need not be exceptional or extraordinary. excellent or abysmal. Schools don't have to do something unique or admirable or different, although they are, of course, all different in sufficient detail to result in the publication of official government reports and published news stories about their activities and their performance, This is all that is needed to make them "notable" per WP:Notability. The most important sections follow:
"The primary notability criterion
"One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."
"Notability is not subjective
"Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc."
"General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy."
Since there is no consensus guideline on school notability, it seems to me that many of the efforts to delete school articles are contrary to policy, since they are based on subjective personal opinions about what should not be in Wikipedia that go beyond accepted consensus. There is no arguing taste (even if people do it all of the time). If the deletion-inclined want to prevail, it seems that their discussion should be at {WP:N]], where they could try to build a consensus that to achieve "Notability" in general, any subject must be exceptional and interesting. Finally, regarding "interesting:" I do not think that every article here should have to be able to catch the interest of any user who drops in and presses the random article button. Most of the users of this project are not idlers trying to becomed enlightened by Wiki-browsing—they are looking for something specific. It is much more important that anybody who drops in to look up something specific finds something useful. Preferably something that is thorough,NPOV, and verifiable.--Hjal 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before I start, isn't there policy here about being civil? Some editors above clearly did not learn everything they needed to know in kindergarten. Since I just finished a version of this elsewhere, I will go on at some length:
The only way to reach a consensus here would be for everybody to just give up. There have been one or two previous thoughtful posts to the effect that the participants in all of these discussions didn't appear to be heading toward a consensus on what does or does not make schools notable, and the only possible resolution was for the deletionists to accept that all schools (more or less, with a few exceptions) belong in the project, while the school inclusionists should agree to work on developing guidance (probably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools) about what makes an acceptable school stub and what doesn't. I think that this is the only solution.
We should all also accept that a new school article should not go to AfD unless it has first been prodded and ignored for months or tagged for CfD, if appropriate, and subsequently challenged. If every farm boy that made it to the major leagues for a week in the 1930s is automatically notable; if every English football team playing at a level I never heard of is notable; if every company included in a stock index is notable, then every school is notable (or darn close).
All of the school AfDs that I've participated in or looked at have resulted in a keep or in no censensus and keep by default if anybody from WP:SCH participated seriously. The few high schools that have been deleted recently were not only candidates for good articles, some of them were notable by the strictest interpretation. Look at the AfD for Windward High School and then look at its website for five minutes--it looks like one of most innovative and interesting new high schools in the country, but a dozen people who made no effort to research the school and one administrator sent the article to the void.
WP:V is the only test that a high school or other public school article should have to pass, and almost every school could have a good article written about it that meets that policy, just as they could meet WP:N. Good editors will have to revert WP:OR and WP:POV violations frequently, unless posting by anonymous IP are restricted, but that's true of many articles.
  • Every school is the subject of numerous publications by reliable sources. Every school. The information may not be available online, but it was published and it's out there. Public schools are planned and built following, in almost every case, multiple public meetings and formal public hearings; for teh past 40 years, most require significant environmental review and documentation; most are the subject of a bond election; many are conroversial, with local disputes by NIMBY neighbors and remote parents, struggles within the district or City for funding, dusputes with state education departments over designs and budgets, and hiring of the first and subsequent principals; followed by bond issues and parcel taxes to replace derelict buildings; sports dynasties and football coaches fired for incompetence; extraordinary teachers and pedophiles; and, however derided because of their universality, the mandatory reports required in the UK, California, and almost everyplace else are, in fact, not just verifiable and, generally, reliable, they are evidence of the "notability" of schools in the eyes of the whole community. These are not just "records," like a utility bill or a traffic ticket; they are complex, expensive, sometimes comprehensive, "reports." That we mandate them, pay for them, and dedicate scarce staff resources to them demonstrate the significance that society places on the differences between schools, their faculties, their facilities, and the success of their students.
  • Almost every "notable" person went to school. Their schools get listed in their biographies (almost every serious biography about a modern person discusses their education). A blue link to their schools makes it easier for editors to write good articles about people, without having to do separate lookups about the person's schools themselves. It makes it a better article for subsequent readers, who can decide whether they want to know more about the subject's educational abckground or not.
  • Almost every city and many CDPs have schools, and the rest are in one or more school districts or individual school attendance areas. Having school articles to link to allows the settlement's educational system to be discussed in summary or in a few bullets, with detailed information in the appropriate district or school articles. And, yes, localities provide a good place to list useful information about schools that have not attracted an editor willing to start a serious article about them. In either case, coverage of local schools makes for a better locality article, while links to separate school articles keep articles about small towns from being overloaded with school information.
I realize my discussion is specific to the U.S, in some ways, but I'm sure that similar arguments apply in most other countries. I also realize that many school articles are subject to constant vandalism, but it is usually fixed easily and without getting trapped in endless revert wars. I realize that the opponents of school articles are sincere in their belief that Wikipedia should include only "notable" schools (by which they usually seem to mean "extraordinary" schools), but I know that they are wrong. Jimbo has spoken on this issue, and even though it was not ex cathedra, I know that he was right.
Finally, this specific article is not even a very good stub. However, it has only been up for two weeks, the information included is useful to interested people, if not interesting to general browsers, and it is not contaminated with POV or vandalism. Make it better or leave it alone. I'm too tired to bring it up to start class tonight and I'm taking my first grader on a field trip tomorrow moring. Why don't some of you go fix it up a little?--Hjal 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SCHOOL is not the only notability criterion that applies to schools. The general WP:NOTE will do just fine. To say that all discussions about the notability of schools should default to keep just because the specific notability policy is in flux is ludicrous. And don't pretend like AfD's don't result in the deletion of bad school articles all the time. North Side High School (Fort Worth, Texas) is heading there right now. Nothing is automatically notable, and schools are no exception. Unless valid sources can be presented, the school should go. Period. — Swpb talk contribs 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Comment just above.--Hjal 01:06, 3 February 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. Avi 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas Multiplayer

edit
San Andreas Multiplayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:WEB. No independent, reliable sources, and cruft regarding history. Drat (Talk) 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Part Deux 04:03, 1 February 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 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Schneider

edit
Vadim Schneider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so brought here for community input. Non notable actor, most famous for dying in an accident but Wikipedia is not a memorial One Night In Hackney 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris 04:58, 1 February 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 and redirect to List of Kanto locations. Avi 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Plant (Pokémon)

edit

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This article covers an extremely minor area in one set of video games. It does not deserve its own article and there is no suitable place to merge it into (it is pretty separate from Lavender Town, the nearest city). Prod removed without reason. Hbdragon88 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that fact is notable, this article can be merged/redirected to Zapdos.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: While we're at it, how about merging Indigo Plateau as well? The cities might be abile to stand on their own; if so, the List of Kanto locations should probably link to those, and Kanto (Pokémon) should probably link to that. Tiakalla 08:14, 2 February 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 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Communications

edit
Bite Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally tagged this article as A7 because it does not assert that the subject is notable. It was reasonably suggested that AfD is more appropriate because the subject purportedly has extremely large corporate clients. I took a quick look in google and gnews and got plenty of hits, but the subject is a PR firm, so that might just mean it is successfully propagating its clients' press releases. Rather than have me spend the night on google trying to prove the negative, let's hear from persons in the know why the subject belongs in WP. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:09, 1 February 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 and cleanup. Avi 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian

edit
Kim Kardashian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) � (View AfD)

Non-notable daughter of notable lawyer. Being related to someone notable does not necessarily make that person notable. Page is also plagued by original research. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the only reference provided in the article is the People magazine article. So the article itself only has one reference, not multiple references. Dugwiki 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct but it was trivial to see that multiple references exist on Google and Factiva. Regardless, someone has put some of those reference in saving me the time and the article now meets WP:N. Ccscott 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's all over the tabloids and is well-known enough for there to be an article on her, celebutante or not. There are kept articles on people with much less "notability" than she. Icemuon 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep as any other whose notability is limited to being in the tabloids, of which we must have a million on Wikipedia (or delete the others with her to make space) Alf photoman 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. She is claimed to be "in the news" without much by way of citation. Non-notable offspring could be mentioned in parent's article. Edison 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better references provided The only valid reference provided within the article is the People magazine bit (myspace pages unfortunately aren't considered reliable sources). As discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (people) the article should at a minimum have multiple non-trivial external references for verification. The above comments seem to indicate that the article could possibly be expanded with reasonable references and information, and if that happens I'll reconsider my recommendation. But as it currently stands, my suggestion is to delete as having insufficient references and information about the person. Dugwiki 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Charlene (above) if she is mentioned frequently in People magazine she is notable if not admirable. WP does not require importance, just being noticed in a non-trivial way. --Kevin Murray 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the People article, there are may other published works that are primarily about her. Here are just a few - [16] [17] [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=5&num=58931]. We might not care for the reason of her notability, but as other editors pointed out above, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article and Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade. She is notable as a celebutante, meaning she is a celebrity (who also happens to meet the primary notability criterion). She's not notable for being the daughter of a lawyer, as the nom suggests. schi talk 01:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not a catalog of E-list quasilebrities. /Blaxthos 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's hot. But seriously, she's been getting a pretty fair amount of tabloid-style press lately (that's not necessarily a good thing). An up-and-coming Lindsay Lohan type, I fear. Realkyhick 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as sad as it is, she does seem to be a notable "celebrity", and as others have said there will probably be a lot more "news" about her in the coming months. Krimpet 06:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my ideal world, the media would've ignored her and used the space to discuss Darfur or our health-care system or some such. Wikipedia, however, compiles information on the real world, not my ideal one. JamesMLane t c 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge her with the Robert Kardashian article, if in the future she actually does anything of note then she will of course get he own page but ATM she's a non-entity. Kejoxen 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mulitple independent coverage - I don't care for attention whores, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't trump multiple reliable soruces providing verification. -- Whpq 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Just because she can strip to a magazine and fuck with anyone in entertainment business, and drink with Paris, doesn't have to work because her dad worked enough don't mean she's notable. If she releases an album like Paris (God, please don't do) or act in a notable film or do some charity work or whatever that is related to the verb DO than she can be re-created here like everything was done so on her body. Lajbi Holla @ me 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the references confirm notability, and the fact that she was on a magazine cover really seals the deal. Everyking 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthy of inclusion as a notable fake celebrity, especially with the pending sex tape later this month. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per youngamerican. qwm 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is only notable because of the sex tape, (and her friendships) but after the furor dies down, that'll be that. I suggest that we merge her into the Paris Hilton article. -QuestionMark 16:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is mentioned routinely on Hollywood Gosip magazines and websites. Now she will be a notorious pornstar. If Pornstars can have pages, a celebutard turned Pornstar should certainly have a page. You may not like that she is a celebrity, but the fact is she is. Vivid didn't pay $1M for her sex tape because she was a nobody.
  • Keep Like it or not, quasi-celebrities like this are an unfortunate hallmark of American culture today.Randomjohn 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Page is plagued by original research" is an argument for improving the article and removing the OR, not for deleting the whole article. Kardashian is mentioned in many tabloid news sources and people will come to us to find out what the fuss is about; the article should be kept to make the encyclopedia more useful to our readers.AxelBoldt 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a wikipedia user, if I come to wikipedia to find information, I want it to be there regardless of whether or not the article is about a pathetic person or thing, the fact is that there is a place for knowledge here that we can't find elsewhere. I trust this encyclopedia a great deal for information that stands out above ordinary blogs and opinion rags, I appreciate the fact that when i read something in the news about someone whom i know nothing about, I can come here and learn something about them, even if they are useless people. Tinman8443 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the same way about this article as Tinman8443. She might not be important or notable in the long-term, but Wikipedia serves as a good place to keep this kind of information available. Rageear 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are individuals with even less significance than her, with articles on wikipedia. Duhon 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Association with Paris Hilton and her own sex tape are quite significant. Definite keep. Andrew73 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A socialite with the same basic background as a Paris Hilton, She is mentioned in numerous celebrity gossip magazine and tv shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.11.247 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly not a space issue the page takes up a minimal amount of space. The issue of her notoriety is obviously resolved as per above. She is well known enough now that people will remember her and recognize her. Her notoriety is unlikely to fade with the impending release of her sex tape. With the tape itself being so high profile there can be no doubt that she will be well known for a while.Diemunkiesdie 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no problem with the article about her sister, Kourtney Kardashian, isn't it? Which is still a stub! --Vlad|-> 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because you don't like a certain person, or resent them for being famous and talentless, doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Especially in light of the new Ray J sex tape, Kim is getting lots of tabloid play that should at least be mentioned in wikipedia.--Agnaramasi 16:04, 8 February 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 12:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Chavalier

edit
Meghan Chavalier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly self-promotional and unsourced autobiography written by Meghanchavalier (talk • contribs) in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Notability of the porn actress has not been established using 3rd party sources per criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). --  Netsnipe  ►  04:24, 1 February 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 12:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phpns

edit
Phpns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon objected to PROD; I'm proposing because it fails WP:SOFTWARE Josh Parris 04:28, 1 February 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. Avi 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Fitch

edit
Jon Fitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

notability, not sure this measures up to WP:BIO Chris 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search gets 42,500 for "Jon fitch" but only gets 28 for "Jonathan Parker Fitch" Jaenop 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AFD is rather ironic since there's been talk in the mixed martial arts blogosphere that Fitch is someone who does not get the recognition he deserves. Still, there are just enough articles written about him by independent sources, here and here, with a third article written by the UFC themselves, which may not count as an independent source. Fitch is a UFC fighter (the UFC is among the top organizations worldwide in mixed martial arts) who also is the #7 ranked welterweight according to MMAWeekly. All of this should fulfull WP:BIO's requirement of a notable sportsperson. hateless 05:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question is #7 notable? if it were 1-3, I could understand. what are the criteria for the organization? he sounds like he nips at the edges of notability, but is not yet there. for the record, I'd like you to be right. I found him doing a related name search, always want genuine notables to stay. Chris 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By organization, I meant something like a sport league. While the UFC is not technically a sports league like the NFL or NBA, since it's not in a team sport, it functions almost just like one. Fitch could be considered a major league fighter in that sense, and like any major league player, his status in the majors depends on the subjective evaluations of whoever controls the purse strings. I do recognize that he is on a borderline in terms of WP:BIO criteria, and I can't say being #7 confers automatic notability (albeit I think it strengthens the case), but a search for "Jon Fitch" ufc in Google yields 36,000+ hits and enough verifiable material to expand the article beyond a stub, especially on the topic of his fighting career. Most hits are accounts and descriptions of his past matches in the UFC. hateless 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated in WP:BIO, "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable". The UFC is clearly a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport. There are plenty of reliable references out there. This seems like a gimme. 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Does this even need to be discussed? The guy is legit and famous.
Comment Of course, else we wouldn't be discussing him. Legit, more than likely. "Famous"? Not hardly. The Dalai Lama is famous. Michael Jordan is famous. We're determining that the guy is notable. If he were "famous", then there would never be any queston at all. Chris 02:59, 6 February 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, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Qube

edit
Rapid Qube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertising for novel software product. Whosasking 05:21, 1 February 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. Avi 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum poll

edit
Hum poll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references; probably original research. Less than 150 ghits, so it's not notable either. The suggested association with a corporation saves it from speedy A7, but not by much. YechielMan 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki/Delete to Wikitionary. This seems like dict-def, but it really doesn't explain what it is, so it might be better to just delete it. --Haemo 07:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nothing like a dictionary article. It is an encyclopaedia article about hum polls, explaining who uses them and the rationale for their use, not a dictionary article about an idiomatic phrase "hum poll". It is a stub. We don't delete stubs simply for being short. We delete stubs if it can be shown that they are unverifiable or impossible ever to be expanded beyond stub status. Only the nominator has come close to addressing this, but xe didn't actually do research to see whether and what sources exist. Xe merely counted Google hits, which is not research. For all that xe knows, each of those 150 hits could be a detailed article by a reliable source about hum polls.

      To all editors: Do the research at AFD! Uncle G 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For example: One of those hits, the Testimony of Jonathan Zittrain describes hum polls, but solely as a tangential mention in describing the operation of the IETF, which implies (if no other sources come to light giving further information) that the bare fact that the IETF uses hum polls should be presented in Internet Engineering Task Force, in the same context inside Wikipedia as the sources present it outside Wikipedia. Uncle G 10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. If the google search specifies English and filters out Wikipedia plus Answers.com, then just 11 google hits For the avoidance of doubt, none of them are reliable sources. Addhoc 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could only find the tangential mentions of hum polls being used at IETF meetings, with no real explanation of what a hum poll was, or how it was developed or used. I can't see how either notability or verifiability can be established.--Kubigula (talk) 15:56, 8 February 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eilat bakery bombing

edit
Eilat bakery bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable terrorist attack in Israel that killed three people. If there was a page on every such attack, there would be hundreds of pages. KazakhPol 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N multiple instances of non-trivial coverage already cited in the article. Alternatively would also support a merge and redirect if there's a sensible target. cab 06:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply a sec, WP:NOT#OR is the section of that policy that deals with News Reports, and what it specifies is that Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports because Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, this article is not offering firsthand reports, but is rather collecting information from previously published reports, and thus is not acting as a primary source for the story. WP:NOT#OR nowhere specifies that otherwise well referenced articles from major publications about current events should be deleted. Dugwiki 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge. Chris 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a "reverse merge" from Eilat into this article; I think that's the right solution. I think Wikipedia may have a tendency to evolve, and sometimes news events can sprout articles which turn out to be about nothing special. I think's it's too early to tell, and because of the fact that this is an incident after months of calm, and in a new ___location, I say keep it. YechielMan 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per IslaySolomon and also YechielMan. "and because of the fact that this is an incident after months of calm, and in a new ___location, I say keep it." Mathmo Talk 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Speedy Keep. very notable attack, no grounds for deletion. [20] Amoruso 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is done in the midst of Palestinian factional violence, and was committed by the Palestinian rival factions -- Hamas AND Fatah together. The incident has a lot of history and background to be considered that is not mentioned yet. I am still compiled many news sources and others and it will be much longer. It is also important to note that this was the first suicide attack that both Hamas and Fatah claimed together as a way to end recent Palestinian factional violence and redirect it at Israel. Keep. --Shamir1 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Individual attacks in or around the world should not deserve their own page unless it has gotten a much wider news coverage. Merge it to where it can be preserved. SynergeticMaggot 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple referenced published sources for notability. Also, fyi, I cleaned up the references in the article, putting them in a reference section using ref tags. Dugwiki 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable GabrielF 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The simple fact of the attack doesn't make it notable. Pretty much every death on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reported, but rarely are they notable enough to warrant their own articles. The reason for 'keep' on this one is the possible Egypt connection that was reported. This is significant, and could really go somewhere, so the article ought to stick around just in case something turns up about Egypt. The Behnam 19:06, 2 February 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 12:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twist ending in anime

edit
Twist ending in anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. Squilibob 06:40, 1 February 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. Robdurbar 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black gay

edit
Black gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfounded something some people made up while riding on a bus with their friends one day stuff Nekohakase 06:46, 1 February 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 Yannismarou. MER-C 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lane goldberg

edit
Lane goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested ProD. Suspected WP:HOAX, completely unverifiable and unsourced original research. /Blaxthos 06:46, 1 February 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. A Train take the 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HeavenGames

edit
HeavenGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails every criterion of WP:WEB and also fails WP:V. No coverage in reliable sources, 150 unique Google hits mostly coming from their own ___domain. Should be deleted RWR8189 06:54, 1 February 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. A Train take the 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Opera Community

edit
My Opera Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:WEB. In the 100 unique Google hits I cannot find any non-trivial references in reliable sources, no evidence it satisfies any other criteria of WP:WEB. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to pass WP:WEB at The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators.... But it's borderline; I'm not sure we want to publish everything that Opera does. Part Deux 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on references The article lists numerous references, BUT almost all of those references are directly from www.opera.com. I would feel much more comfortable with the references if they at least had the appearance of greater independence from the company. I'll abstain on making a keep/delete recommendation here, though, since I don't currently have time to review the references for verification more thoroughly. Dugwiki 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How is this more than the news/support/forum mechanism for Opera (internet suite)?. Registering to post in a help forum doesn't make you a member of a "community." And all the high tech stuff mentioned in the article surely has more to do with server load from people downloading Opera and other commerical software offered than merely running the forum. This is the worst sort of commercial advertisement to me. Static Universe talk|edits 07:01, 3 February 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 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Debbs Phillips, III

edit
Eugene Debbs Phillips, III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From speedy. Not clear if the subject is notable Alex Bakharev 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, I have to correct myself as I now found the institute directly over its website peacethrougheconomics.com as mentioned in the articles edit comments. Still it has just been founded and not yet notable as there are no third part references. Tikiwont 14:35, 1 February 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 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire (band)

edit

As I've made clear elsewhere, I'm fine with the concept of self-published. However, has this band had any radio play or significant club appearances or press? Sales over a small number of privately sold copies? They're on Amazon with a sales rank of ZERO. Their site isn't even a direct URL--it's a free hosting. If not, they're not notable enough to have an entry. It would fall under the category of "Self promotion."Mzmadmike 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)mzmadmike[reply]

I agree, obvious self-promoting "vanity article". --PhoenixVTam 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone from the band created this entry, but it may be (as mentioned above) a form of promotion. On the contrary, the band has founded a mind-blowing style, almost a genre, that is just in it's beginning stages. This may of interest to someone. Whether or not they're approved of by the Wikipedia staff makes no difference to their uprising. No, they don't usually play at overpriced 21 and up venues or clubs, rather in basements or bars. They play for mainly underground, all-ages audiences that are the Chicago suburbs area punk scene. Their popularity is gaining across the US, the UK, Japan, Austria, and probably some other countries- just in a very underground way, and they cannot play in these areas. Delete this entry if you so desire, but only if it is breaking some sort of Wikipedia law, do not discriminate. It is a guarantee that this article will re-appear in the near or distant future, due to the band's (and the scene's) rising underground reputation. (This was unsigned)

++++++++ Without rancor, let me point out that EVERY band believes this to be the case. Can you list some articles in zines of some kind, industry commentary, sales numbers, anything? If they're so underground they don't have notice, they are, by definition, not something to be listed in an encyclopedia. I get less than 400 Ghits once I remove "Rage Against the Machine" who had an album of that name, Wiki's references and duplicates. Everything I see is myspace and blog references. A Wiki article needs references to support it.Mzmadmike 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that most of the articles or pages put up that are promoting Evil Empire are by the band themselves, and they haven't had anyone make a page or article for them, until now (unless this wiki entry is made by the band as well). I found one page, but it's in Japanese, and it doesn't translate well. But, if self-promotion is how the band wants to do it, it's all their choice, I know for a fact that they are ok with people promoting them, and PEOPLE have, just not many online writers that are in some authoritative position to write about them. They have most-likely been in their local newspaper as high-schoolers. I'm not really trying to keep this article from being deleted, I'm just stating some facts and trying to point out that they are very popular to punk scenes around the country, despite their lack of corporate sponsorship or online reviews. And, I would really appreciate it if I was talked to as a normal person, rather than mocked and talked down to, thanks. Sorry I'm not educated on how to sign things or use Wikipedia code.

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with self-promotion. However, Wikipedia has policies that all subjects must be notable. Bands that lack any reputable sources attesting to notability do not meet article guidelines. For more information, please see WP:N and WP:MUSIC. While there are many outlets for self-promotion, Wikipedia isn't one of them. It isn't appropriate to use a Wikipedia page to help establish notability. I'm sorry you feel as if people are talking down to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. janejellyroll 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the "unsigned" merely to separate it from my response. I'm rough with the code myself. No offense was intended.Mzmadmike 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! As a member of the band I feel it should be deleted. No one in the band wrote it and I agree it is not a subject for an encyclopedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alela Diane

edit
Alela Diane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Up-and-coming singer, speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review. An extended version of the article is here. Procedural nomination, no opinion, etc., etc. ~ trialsanderrors 07:32, 1 February 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 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Delgrosso

edit
Peter Delgrosso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has had major contributions from editors with apparent conflicts of interest: created by single purpose account User:Simpli and then heavily edited by Pdelgrosso. He's aged 32, and has had ten years of experience in ecommerce, and the main relevant non-wiki Ghits shows that his role is often that of a spokesman in all sorts of communications, be it press, email, web fora etc, in a PR or IR capacity. He has a brief bio listed in the Forbes directory (which states he's "Divisional VP at web.com), and a few other hits which are SEC disclosure filings. However, divisional VPs are pretty common, and I'm not convinced that getting your name on a few thousand press releases as a contact person is sufficient to make one notable. Ohconfucius 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... -- check out Pdelgrosso's other contributions. There are edit wars at Interland and Web.com as he, anon IPs and some new SPAs try to sanitize these companies' images. See the article histories for Interland and Web.com -- looks like they're winning. If he's notable at all, it may be because of something buried in those deleted links to news stories. --A. B. (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See AfD talk page: for a list of related biographical articles and editors also connected to Interland a.k.a. Web.com. The other articles may also be non-notable and some of the associated editors' user names are similar to those of the articles edited (example: JonathanBWilson started Jonathan B. Wilson). Many edits have been made by anonymous IPs that traceroute to atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net
--A. B. (talk) 16:56, 1 February 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. Avi 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Chuk

edit

Article concerns a non-notable student politican. All he did was get elected. None of the other Gen Secs, and only two of the NUS presidents have wikipedia pages. Seems like a bit of vanity to me.

  • Keep I just wanted to address some of the above concerns. Firstly, none of the other gen secs have a wiki, but as I have explained clearly in the article, the current gen sec is unique in that he is an unaligned independent who has defeated a heavily backed party candidate - for the first time in almost two decades. Secondly, regarding janejellyroll's fruitless search, I just wanted to draw attention to the highly unusual spelling of his first name. Most of the references pertaining to him spell it with the conventional double t, hence the apparent lack of references when the correct spelling is searched. Thirdly, with regards to none of the references establishing notability, can I draw attention to the fact that Chuk has been mentioned extensively in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, with the former photographing him for their newspaper and the SMH devoting most of an article to him.
Further to this, Chuk's election is described in detail in no less than seven other Wikipedia articles. I have gone to a lot of trouble to reference this article to prove notability. Finally, and most particularly, before you cast your vote, I urge you to first visit the Felix Eldridge and Rose Jackson articles. Eldridge's article remains an unreferenced stub and the two outdated references on Jackson's article certainly don't prove notability yet neither was deleted. Thank you for your consideration.Walid khalil 10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 20:32, 7 February 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 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Day

edit
The Seventh Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable student film that was never released. Lots of crystal ball and "future projects" on the page as well Nekohakase 08:03, 1 February 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. Avi 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-17 Galbaldy Alpha

edit
MS-17 Galbaldy Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Zero assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. Contested prod.

And remember, don't just vote keep because you like it. If you do so, you're expected to address the problems above. MER-C 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to main article on the series or to Principality of Zeon per WP:FICT. Isn't notable enough to merit its own article, but I wouldn't call it OR (how can anything be OR that comes directly from a published series?). Walton monarchist89 10:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/but probably best to send over to Gundam wiki. I've also nominated a whole chunk of these for deletion, and I fear that very few of these have the potential to become encyclopedic. Moreschi Deletion! 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from Wikipedia. Would be right at home in a Wiki devoted to the series. All original research. No evidence it has multiple independent coverages in reliable sources. Edison 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the other articles like this. Yes, I agree that they can't stand on their own, (*looks at infobox* dear GOD no) but it would be nice to be able to have a chance to merge these into a minor character list-ish article. It's not OR, most of the info is from the series itself or the official website. I myself am going to go through and push for some merges (albeit I'm starting with the series I'm more familiar with) but that's a lot of articles to deal with right away. Tiakalla 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT on minor fictional elements not getting their own articles and WP:NOT#IINFO on plot summary. 'Merge' may not be consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which suggests out-of-universe perspective and discourages this kind of in-universe focus. I agree with Moreschi that it would be welcomed at the Gundam wiki.--maclean 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 20:25, 7 February 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. Avi 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autocoitus

edit

I do not think it is notable Alex Bakharev 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - according to the sexual intercourse article and wikt:coitus, coitus is penetration of a vagina by a penis, so autocoitus is the wrong title for the page anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...and isn't this patent nonsense? This has got to be a joke, as someone mentioned (just a smart way of saying "Go f*ck yourself"). Anyone who could pull this trick off, though, I'd count as notable. And flexible. --UsaSatsui 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. I've used "recto-cranially inverted", but that doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about it. Arakunem 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of references in literature. I added a section on references in literature to the article. Since the practise is real and sufficiently widespread, I cannot see that wikipedia should not cover it. If the term is deemed a neologism (which I personally do not see), it should be moved to an accurate heading. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sufficiently widespread"? Please. One sci-fi book isn't a very reliable source. Maybe Dennis Miller uses this all the time in private or something, but you're going to have to do more than "they used it in a genre of fiction that's famous for making words up". --UsaSatsui 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, as the term is inaccurate but the practice does happen. Simply becaues most "proof" is documented in porn at this time does not invalidate that the act gets performed. --Imaddman 09:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sci-fi and porn. Two great forces combined for a noble cause? Personally, I'd accept porno movies as a valid source here, but only if they demonstrated this was a common theme in those movies. That would settle the notability question. Personally, I still doubt it's possible to perform aside of movie magic. For the record, what would you rename the article? --UsaSatsui 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper, nor is it censored. Anyway, perhaps a rename, but not a delete... .V. [Talk|Email] 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as "porncruft" at all. It's a sexual act that, like other different sexual acts, is capable of sustaining an encyclopedic article. It is also probably notable and verifiable in its field of "sexual acts". FT2 (Talk | email) 00:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it obviously exists, as per the two image links that were removed. .V. [Talk|Email] 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: Note that this isn't an article about a neologism. Regardless of the term used, the act is what the article is about and the act existed before the term used to describe it, and independent of it. The act is not a neologism, and the article is not in fact an article on the word, whether made up or recognised, neologism or otherwise. As Imaddman, .V. and Cimon Avaro state, the act itself (independent of chosen article title) seems clearly outside the grounds of WP:NEO, and I don't see WP:NEO as applying. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:44, 7 February 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 11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baskerville's syndrome

edit
Baskerville's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Because of the length of the article, I had to do a little homework. We have a rule that says Wikipedia can write about hoaxes as long as everyone understands that they're hoaxes. Fair enough, but the hoax must be notable in real-world terms. This one produces less than 500 ghits (or less than 100, depending how you count), and not one from a reputable independent source. The website to which the article refers is inactive and has been taken over by an advertising directory. In short, it looks like this was made up in school one day. YechielMan 08:21, 1 February 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, default to keep, but moved to Incest between twins. A merger is an editorial matter, but I've put the merge tags in in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twincest

edit
Twincest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A neologistic dictdef, with a handful of "examples" from pop culture that don't actually use the dictdef. The single reference doesn't use the dictdef either. This page doesn't even establish the common currency that Wiktionary wants, let alone notability (in the form of references in reliable sources) or importance or anything but a definition and a handful of OR examples.

This was prodded, but it was deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that any term that finds currency among fanfic writers is going to be disproportionately represented on Google, while often not being represented at all in publications (as opposed to personal sites, fansites, and forums). This does not prevent a term used exclusively by fanfic writers from being a neologism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise? - merge/redirect -- OK, I see your point and the consensus seems to be delete or merge (as noted below, I had overlooked the option of merging before). How about merging the content into the incest article and then turning this page into a redirect (as it obviously has relatively wide use--even if only among fanfic writers)? The new section in the incest article would be titled not "twincest" but something like "incest between twins" and would mention the term twincest only in the context of being a fanfic term. This would also avoid claims of NOR based on applying the term to particular instances in fiction or real life. I don't anticipate it would take me more than 5-15 minutes to complete the merge and subsequent cleanup. If you express your support for this proposal, I will go ahead and do the merge (without your support as hte nominator, it may seem as if I'm going against consensus even though at least 4 editors have supported keep or merge). Black Falcon 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a merge if someone produces some sources, but right now we have zero sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I performed the merge and some cleanup, but I don't think the Incest article is the appropriate place for this, so I reverted the merge. Incest is essentially affiliated with (and most often a form of) physical/emotional abuse. Incest among twins, on the other hand, is a subgenre of erotica, pornography, and fanfic. I have replaced the Twincest article with what I think is an improved version, and will add a few sources presently. As for WP:NEO, I agree with the proposal by User:JoshuaZ that the article should be renamed to "Incest among twins" -- I can do this once the AfD closes or you withdraw your nomination (if, of course, you think the new verison is satisfactory). Black Falcon 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism at best, seems to be mostly a fanfic/fanart term. A book search does turn up "twincest" in a fancy-sounding book called "An Anthropology of the Subject", but looking at the context it seems to be unrelated: "a figure and a feeling that is simultaneously attractive and repulsive." At best, this would be a redirect to incest or perhaps it belongs among Fan fiction terminology if a good source can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would love to see the source that uses "twincest" to describe the Ring cycle.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NEO. MER-C 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable dicdef Avi 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article needs significant improvement (mostly further research and sourcing), but how is this WP:NEO. A Google search of twincest excluding Wikipedia gives over 80,000 hits. Also, it's not just a dicdef as it gives real-world cultural references (I find the Balinese example to be particularly noteworthy as it's non-fictional and sourced)! Black Falcon 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Allow me to flush out my argument by responding to the article's criticisms:
    1. "It violates WP:NEO/is non-notable" - see the Google search above; the term gets over 80,000 non-WP or WP-mirror hits. Now granted, many of those hits do not meet WP:RS, but it is proof that the term has widespread usage (even if within a somewhat specialized community).
    2. "It is a dicdef" - it is not just a dicdef as it provides actual examples (including 2 nonfictional) and other content. Only the first line is a definition--what about the rest of the article?
    3. "It violates WP:NOR" - given the very clear and simple definition, it doesn't take any research to note that the incestual sexual scene between the Sorrel twins in Cruel Intentions 2 qualifies under that definition. The examples don't have to mention the source by name. If a politician says that Germany is going to invade the country south of it, east of Switzerland, north of Italy, and west of Hungary, he/she doesn't have to name Austria for us to understand what he's referring to and to include the comment in German-Austrian relations.
    4. "It's a fanfic/fanart term" - this is essentially the same criticism as the first. Yes, it is a fanfic term that has relatively wide usage. Being fanfic is no reason for deletion.
  • A final comment regarding the article's potential for expansion. I expect there would be a significant amount of notable research on this subject within the general literature on incest (twincest being a subcategory of incest). Black Falcon 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon. Edison 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Seems like cruft as well. Fundamentaldan 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Original research, poorly referenced, and not at all notable. Plus it's disgusting and illegal --TommyOliver 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Child molestation is "disgusting and illegal" but it's an encyclopedic topic. I cannot help but think that you are voting simply out of a negative emotional reaction to the topic. In an AfD discussion, we should consider whether the article merits to be in this encyclopedia, rather than whether or not it's a pleasant topic to ponder/read about. You claim its non-notable, yet the term gets over 80,000 Google hits (this still excludes all print sources that aren't available online). You claim it's poorly referenced, and I agree with that (in part)--so put an unreferenced tag on the article. Finally, you say it's OR--how so? What part of it is original research (there is no new, unique synthesis of material--it's simply a compilation of a few examples)? Black Falcon 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you enjoy twincest that's your business. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for sexual fantasies. There's one single reference. Most of the examples are ambiguous and/or works of fiction. You don't need to attack me just for adding a contribution that you disagree with. --TommyOliver 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I do not, as you put it, "enjoy twincest". To say that I do is equal to saying that those who created the "child molestation" article are child molesters and contributors to the "Holocaust" article favor genocide. Secondly, this IS an encyclopedia and it should include terms that have wide usage, despite how unpleasant (either for one person or for many) the subject matter they concern. There's a single reference in the article, but there are >80,000 ghits. I'm sure at least a few of these can be used as references. I note, again: if the problem is references, add an "unreferenced" tag. Thirdly, there is nothing in my comment that is an attack. "Voting out of a negative emotional reaction" is inappropriate for AfD, but certainly nothing insulting. I can't imagine anyone ever saying: "Yo mama so [insert some term], her vote on a Wikipedia AfD was based on an emotional reaction." Finally, I believe my statement was a reasonable (though I realize not possibly incorrect) induction given the text of your vote: "Original research, poorly referenced, and not at all notable. Plus it's disgusting and illegal (emphasis added). I merely asked you to clarify your reasons for claiming that the articles is OR and NN. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do keep in mind that articles about neologisms need to have sources that discuss the term, not sources that simply use the term. I have heard this term before, it definitely "exists", but it doesn't necessarily warrant an article unless the proper type of sources are found.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single source given uses the term. Now, if someone wanted to write an article entitled "Incest among twins" or something similar that might be encyclopedic- it would still have WP:OR issues but that might be able to be dealt with. So if this isn't deleted, I woudln't object to rewriting the intro and moving it to something like that. JoshuaZ 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - merge? I would not oppose a similar solution. (Note, however, that the term "twincest" is not a neologism. I do not make this claim out of some "expertise" in twincest as TommyOliver might suggest, but out of a simple online search for the term that yields a great number of results.) It may also be appropriate to merge the article into the main Incest page. I had not considered this before, but it may be a viable alternative to keeping or deleting it. -- Black Falcon 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after a couple of edit conflicts)Keep, but move as per JoshuaZ - needs a massive rewrite, but this could form the basis of an interesting article, and the large number of ghits indicates that this name could stay as a redirect if such an article is created. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move any material that is interesting to relevant articles. The article offers no support for its notion of the meaning of the term and therefore fails WP:V and WP:OR. The only reference that actually uses the term is the performance art group, and their definition is rather different. (If they’re notable, maybe the article should be about them instead.) Also, why would Germany invade Liechtenstein? —xyzzyn 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touché ... unless I hold the non-neutral and unverified view (which I am willing to defend to the death) that Liechtenstein is really just a breakaway province of Switzerland that is controlled by a shadowy junta--called the Liechtenstein Order of Social Education, Reform, and Security (LOSERS)--that wants to establish a rogue state with nuclear capabilities in an effort to achieve world domination! On a slightly different note, I would support moving the material to relevant articles (the only one I can think of is incest, although another article that I don't know of may be appropriate). Cheers, Black Falcon 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The meaning of the term is instantly comprehensible, and as has been noted, used many thousands of times. Significant major works (Wagner, Lucas) have key themes involving twincest. Stating that they are fictional is without merit as WP contains numerous articles on fictional subjects (Shakespearean characters and Back to the Future characters come to mind as representative examples.) The existence of the article does not imply support for the practice. Ringbark 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsorced. --MaNeMeBasat 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced? The article currently has six sources of which three are from scholarly journals. If you mean that the article's current title is inappropriate for the subject matter, then I agree, but that is hardly a reason to delete when it can be solved through a simple page move (I simply haven't done so yet as I don't know if it's appropriate to do a page move during an AfD). Black Falcon 18:15, 3 February 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. Sandstein 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zazaki given names

edit
List of Zazaki given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:50, 1 February 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 what appears to be a complete rewrite of the article, with sources cited. Sandstein 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Giuliano

edit
Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am not sure about this one. Definitely it has to be heavily edited, as it reads like a cross between a CV and a PR sheet (but this is not a reason to delete). It lacks any reference but personal websites of the subject (but this is not a reason to delete). Somebody regularly patrols the article, removing NPOV or OR tags and deleting other people's remarks in Talk (but this is not a reason to delete). I don't feel as this person might be actually notable, even if what the article says is mostly true (but this is not a reason to delete). So I'd like other people to have a look into it. Goochelaar 08:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup - the article is a terrible mess, but a cursory google search confirms his notability. It does look an awful lot like he wrote this article, though.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A REPUTABLE ARTIST UNDER ATTACK Geoffrey Giuliano is the premere rock historian and writer of his time. The controversy here is simply a personal attack on this noted author, actor and syndicated radio host from a fringe group of Hare Krishna's who have been dogging Giuliano for years ever since he renounced their particular form of religious fervor some ten years ago. They have put up a very, very libelious website and now are attacking this Wikipedia entry to try and further disdcredit Giuliano. Google this man and you will see he has a long career in the media and is certainly most notable for his dozens of books etc. Please see through this defamation. Researching Mr. Giuliano is VERY VERY easy. While some may not like what he has had to say in the media for almost thirty years he is indeed very accomplished and continues his work internationally.
Please avoid melodramatic attacks on the nominator just because you disagree.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - Researching Mr Guliano is indeed easy and he has written enough books for recognised publishers as well as acchived a slate of notability/notoriety to merit an entry here. The real problem that appears form the arricle history an also from above comment is how to convert the current favorable representation into an encylopedic article. Tikiwont 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published and bunch of stuff through random house. I would advise the above poster with the insanly long "vote" to sogn their posts. If you don't you vote may be disregarded.--Tainter 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, conditional on somebody willing to clean up that mess and properly source and reference the article Alf photoman 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have done a quick rewrite to remove the horrible POV & other stuff which leaves it as a neutral stub for further contributions. In my view, however, subject fails notability standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete pending references and more info As of this moment the article has no independent published references and is one sentence long. Delete unless the article can be expanded and independent published references provided. Dugwiki 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is Giuliano a very well known author but he is also a noted film actor currently filming three major motion pictures in large roles in Asia (Bangkok Adrenaline, Cargo and Slumberland). The sources WERE all there with live links to various subjects within the article but were vandalized about two months ago and deleted. Please check the history well and you will see this is indeed true. Why the controversy regarding this very well know well published American author? I believe the post concerning defamation posted above to be correct. Giuliano's thirty something books are well documented and available on amazon.com and every other major book selling operation globally as are his nearly 100 audio books published by the likes of Random House. Please consider WHY this strong attack on a well known artist! There are people who clearly do not like what he has written and vare seeking to erase his profound literary contributions due to their personal bias and this is just not right. I also do not see how this article is not well written. I have spent some five hours researching the content and it is indeed accurate.124.120.182.79 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Freethought Joe[reply]
So if the article's sources were deleted by a vandal, then simply revert them and we'll take a look. Meanwhile the article still has no sources as of this moment. Dugwiki 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The comments above about the importance of the "very well known author" were once again made by Giuliano himself, anonymously. He lives in Thailand, and it came from that country. Plus, it's written in the same dumb style he writes everything, just read it and compare, 'cause it's as clear as day. He's abused wiki too much, it's gettin' ridiculous! Oh, and by the way, Give Peace a Chance!--Lennon's Ghost
  • Keep The comments refered to above as coming from Giuliano were made by myself, a nearly twenty year reader of his many fine books. While I have heard he has made some films here in Thailand I can assure you I have NEVER met him and that the thoughts herein were, and are, my own. There are MANY folksd here in Thailand Bwana! Besides, he IS a highly notable author. That is a matter of record. What is all the fuss about, if indeed, it is not simple character assination?124.120.185.95 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Freethought Joe From Kokomo[reply]
  • Keep. Amazon lists several books of his ([34]), so he's notable, but article needs heavy cleanup. The comments above suggest to me that Giuliano or one of his partisans will relentlessly patrol the article to attempt to ensure that it violates WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and any other policies found inconvenient to the goal of promoting Giuliano. Per nom, however, that's not a reason to delete. JamesMLane t c 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I'd vote to keep a trimmed, referenced, NPOV version of the article. Is there a way to ensure that it remains so, without counter-patrolling it (one has better things to do)? JamesMLane's editing has lasted all of two hours... --Goochelaar 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look this guy HAS made these films etc so why this hatchet job? Isn't the best thing to use the article as it is (informitive, accurate and well written) and just take the time to source it out? Besides the VOTES are HEAVILY in his favor!!!124.120.182.176 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Freeflow Joe[reply]
Of course, voting several times doesn't hurt, does it? --Goochelaar 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto! You obviously got a real problem with this man and your bias is showing. Giuliano fans GLOBALLY are being notified and they are determined to prevail as his works both important to music history and also his readers. And so it will go 24/7 if needs be! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.120.182.176 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Boy, this guy keeps using different alias to defend himself!? Finally resorting to intimidation and threats (Not Wiki style). This should cement his notability, I mean, even Hitler has a Wiki page.---just passing

DELETE?? NOTE: I see Goochelaar has no problem with subject. It is not bias. He wants references. It is Wiki LAW. No references, NO article. It's Wiki way, or the highway. Can't just have PR sheets as articles...it's NOT Wiki!!!

124.120.182.176, you are not supposed to delete remarks by people taking part in the debate, as you did with the previous one. --Goochelaar 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat a liable IS a liable and Kevin Hanley and Eye were very sucessfully sued for the publication of the above article. removing actionable material I am sure is VERY MUCH "Wiki". Thus I will do so forthwith. Please see article below:

http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_06.29.00/news/letters.php124.120.182.176 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Joe[reply]

Joe, you remind me of Nixon. The link you gave doesn't lead to anything referring to a lawsuit against the EYE or its writers, it leads to a letter to the editor that was printed in the EYE. It is interesting, though--the letter is complaining about an article they had just printed about Giuliano, and it was written by a woman who worked for him as a researcher on several of his books. I don't think the EYE was too afraid of a lawsuit about the article, though, 'cause they added a sarcastic heading to her letter. Hmmm, someone who depends on ya for her bread and butter writing a letter to the editor in your favor--is that anything like "Guiliano fans GLOBALLY are being notified"? Gimme Some Truth!--Lennon's Ghost

I see the article has been reduced to one sentence. But still those claims, although provable by a www search, are not properly referenced here. That is the rule...references must be given. Please list at least several references that are neutral 3rd party published reviews or articles, and list your published books with ISBN# in Wiki reference format. Please listen to Goochelaar, who is trying to help.---2 cents

ALSO, even BAD articles, if properly referenced, can prove notability.---2 cents

  • Keep, dig up sources, and wikify. As a polite reminder, it is a good idea to Google something you are not sure about the notability of. I'd not heard the name before, but I doubt any of you have not heard the name Ronald McDonald. I'll volunteer to dig up references for this article if we decide to keep it. I warn, however, that my transcription of the information might get sloppy, so we will need people to proofread the additions and copyedit the article as it grows. Fact is, this guy is notable. V-Man737 09:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, back at the ranch: here is a Google search for the gentleman in question. I've stuck a few of those references in the article and tried to represent them as well as I could, but there are thousands of other important facts yet to be extracted from the sources. I invite everyone to examine them and expand the article; meanwhile, it's my bedtime. V-Man737 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEEDS LIST OF PUBLISHED BOOKS - A WRITER. IF FAMOUS OR INFAMOUS, IS NOTABLE. THIS SUBJECT IS CLEARLY NOTABLE. WHAT IS NEEDED (AT LEAST) IS A LIST OF PRIMARY BOOKS WITH BOOK NAME, ISBN, PUBLISHER, YEAR, BY THIS AUTHOR. IT WOULD BE EASIEST FOR AUTHOR TO PROVIDE THIS INFO AND PUT INTO WIKIPEDIA STYLE. THE AUTHOR CAN FIGURE OUT WIKIPEDIA "BOOK REFERENCE" CODING SYSTEM. EXAMPLE: * Book name. (author) Last name, First name. 19??. (ISBN 1-00000000000). THE SUBJECT KNOWS BEST WHAT BOOKS HE'S HAD PUBLISHED SO BEST IF SUBJECT DOES ALL THIS WORK.

  • Comments. Much of the above discussion should have been posted to the article's talk page, not here. Relevant to the notability aspect of the deletion debate is the exchange in Eye Weekly. Giuliano's anon partisan deleted the link on this page to the unflattering article, but the Eye Weekly article does serve to show notability and argue against deletion. Link: [35] Although the anon asserts there was a successful lawsuit, I find no online evidence of any such thing. (My search: [36]) As Lennon's Ghost noted, the link provided by the anon is only to a letter to the editor, which disagreed with the Hainey review. Finally, I don't agree with the above anonymous comment (the one in all caps) inviting Giuliano to edit the article about himself. Wikipedia frowns on that practice. JamesMLane t c 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGING MY VOTE FROM "DELETE" TO "KEEP OFF THE GRASS": I'm persuaded now by all the good discussion on here that Giuliano IS notable (in his own lovable sod way)and that "we can work it out." But--I'm concerned about the son of Tricky Dicky who keeps changin' things back and deletin'. While I'm changin' my vote, I think the discussion should remain open for a while, 'cause the anonymous block and lots of vigilance and mannin' the barricades is gonna be needed to keep the blue meanies away while the evolution revolution of this entry goes down! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT ON!--Lennon's Ghost — Lennonsghost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .THE INFORMATION NOW IS WRONG. HIS WIFE IS VRNDA DEVI NOT VRINDA RANI. HE DID NOT POSE AS RONALD HE "PLAYED" RONALD. NOR WAS HE THE SECOND RONALD!!! LOOK YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE VERSION WE FEEL SHOULD BE UP AND ARE FIGHTING FOR BUT IT IS 100% ACCURATE. EVERY NAME IS CORRECT. TRUE DATES. ALL OF IT. NOW IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

HE DID NOT GRADUATE IN 1976 NOR ARE HIS CHILDREN HINDU!!! HE HAS FIVE CHILDREN NOT FOUR. YOU ARE TAKING THINGS FROM THE INTERNET WHICH ARE THEMSELVES WRONG AND REPEATING THE MISTAKES. THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO GO??? USE THE OLD VERSION AS YOUR STRUCTURE FOR THE NEW ONE. GIULIANO DID SUE AND WIN AGAINST EYE MAGAZINE WHETHER YOU CAN FIND IT OR NOT. YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW THIS MANS LIFE AND WORK. THE STUB SAYS HE'S AN ACTOR BUT WHILE THE OLD VERSION IS CORRECT HERE YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT. GIULIANO'S WEBSITE IS THE BEST SOURCE. GO TO THE AUTHOR PAGE AND ALL HIS SOURCED REVIEWS ARE THERE WITH DATES ETC. GIULIANO I AM SURE WILL TAKE ACTION WHEN HE SEES THIS. WHO WOULD NOT AS IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. YOU SAY YOU WANT TRUTH WELL GIULIANO'S WEBSITE HAS TONS OF HARD SOURCING. ALSO WHY THIS OBSESSION WITH THE EYE ARTICLE ... GIULIANO HAS DOZENS OF ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ON HIS SITE INCLUDING THE LONDON TIMES!!! YOU ARE SCREWING THIS UP. ITS ALL WRONG. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

THIS ARTICLE IS 10000000000% FACTUALLY CORRECT HERE IT IS PLEASE USE IT: Geoffrey Giuliano (born September 11, 1953 in Rochester, New York) is a American writer of dozens of commercially published, best selling books translated into some sixteen languages over twenty five years. He is also a noted film actor and syndicated radio show host. Raised in Albion and Olcott Beach, New York, Giuliano was the youngest of five children. He and his mother, Myrna Oneita Juliano, moved to Tampa, Florida at the age of twelve where he first became interested in acting, Vedic philosophy and fine art seriography as a young man. Geoffrey became enamored of the emerging hippie movement in 1967 and went through that door taking with him as he puts it, "All the very best of what my generation was about. The drugs I left behind early on and never went back, although LSD, in particular, was an important portal for me. It opened me up in many beautiful ways. Most importantly, pointing me eastward in the direction of disciplined yoga, Vedic philosophy, vegetarianism, a life free of addictions and much more. That was the point in which my adult values were really formed. I thank God everyday for India and everything I have known and seen because of Her. America gave me birth, but India made my bones." Giuliano attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC) and in the mid 1970s, SUNY Brockport (where he was later named one of the top fifty students of all time) near his hometown of Rochester. In August 1976 he married college sweetheart Brenda Lee Black (later author/animal rights activist, Vrnda Devi) and together they had four children, Sesa Nichole, Devin Leigh, Avalon Oneita and India Skye. He also has a young son from another relationship, Tulsi Mala Kuptsov born in Bangkok in mid July 2003. In the late 1990's Giuliano founded the umbrella charity, SRI/The Spiritual Realization Institute (and later Sri Radhe International Inc.) which manifested as a free veggie food pantry (Dasa Food For All) in Lockport, New York, as well as an animal sanctuary, Devotional Yoga center, spiritual retreat and not-for-profit publishing house. In 2000 he also founded a charity in aid of the abused women of Radha Kund, North India called The Vrndavana Widows & Children's Trust which feeds, clothes and provides acute medical care for the holy residents of this sacred village. Giuliano has written some 36 critically acclaimed, scholarly, internationally bestselling, though often controversial, biographies on such luminaries as John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Brian Jones, Pete Townshend and several audio works (100 to date) on subjects as diverse as Frank Sinatra as well as archival interviews with survivors of the Titanic entitled, "That Fateful Night: True Stories of Titanic Survivors In Their Own Words." Giuliano has also written two London Sunday Times bestselling biographies, "Dark Horse: The Secret Life of George Harrison" and "Blackbird: The Life And Times Of Paul McCartney." Along the way, he has collaborated with such pop luminaries as Cream/Blind Faith drummer Ginger Baker, Pete Townshend, Dr. Timothy Leary, Richie Havens, Ben E. King, John Lennon's sister Julia Baird, 'Legs' Larry Smith, and British BBC TV presenter Gloria Hunniford, among many others. In late 1998, Random House Audio asked Giuliano to form a company for them called Tribute Audio, which produced a line of celebrity, interview laced, original spoken word CDs, all written, produced and narrated by the author. He worked in that capacity for some five years. In 2003, Giuliano founded a successful publishing house, SRI Books, as a resource for publishing his more esoteric literary works. On November 19, 2005, a film, "Stoned: The Wild & Wicked World of Brian Jones," based on his bestselling book for Virgin in the UK, "Paint It Black: The Murder of Brian Jones" premered in London. The movie was directed by Stephen Woolley and co-produced by Nik Powell, the producing team behind such films as "Mona Lisa," "Interview with the Vampire" and "The Crying Game." At the Bangkok Film Festival in February 2006 Woolley and Giuliano fell out over what Giuliano felt was, "A thoroughly botched adaptation of my book as well as obvious ommissions in reference to my credit in the making of this horrific, pretentious and historically inaccurate film. It is a load of self interested garbage. If Woolley spent ten years of his life making this, he wasted the better part of his professional life for nothing!" As a singer songwriter Giuliano has written for and/or recorded with George Harrison, Richie Havens, Ben E. King, Steve Holly, Ginger Baker, Denny Laine, and 'Legs' Larry Smith [ex-Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band]. His has released two CDs, "Chocolate Wings" (2001) and the haunting Indo fusion work, "God Dwells Within" (2006). Giuliano has been a sterling (and much lauded) advocate for animal rights since the early 1980's for his very public renunciation of the fast-food giant McDonald's after portraying their promotional personality, Ronald McDonald, for some two years in Toronto, Canada. Shocked at the hypocrisy he found within the company's mammoth corporate structure Giuliano testified for the prosecution in a famed 1991 London court case known as McLibel. He has been very public on his views as an ethical lacto vegetarian ever since. In an interview he gave in London some years later, Geoffrey summed up his bad experience playing Ronald north of the border. "There's no question that I was manipulating these children. I was a highly paid, highly trained, highly polished actor. Every show was a performance and I had a mandate to get that message out there, and yeah, it was not too hard - anybody can manipulate a child. I just went home one night, and I said, 'I cannot do this, I can't live with myself if I continue to do this.' Giuliano also played the Marvelous Magical Burger King for the Burger King Corporation doing shows and other appearances throughout New England. The seasoned author /actor has spoken widely regarding his turbulent term as the McDonald's clown and the shadowy ethical implications of factory farming and animal rights. Giuliano has been an ardent vegetarian abstaining from meat, fish or eggs since 1970. Giuliano has resided primarily in Southeast Asia since 2000 with his two grandchildren, Kashi and Varsana Jones and his filmmaker daughter, Avalon Giuliano, with whom he co-authored several books and DVD documentaries ["The Beatles Scrapbook" and "John Lennon: Working Class Hero" - KRB Music]. Their latest tome, "Revolver: The Secret History Of The Beatles," was published by Blake Publishing of London in mid 2006. Giuliano is a thirty five year student of Vedic philosophy from the Gaudiya Vaishnava school of Hinduism (Bhakti, or Devotional Yoga) under the noted Bengali master, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. Giuliano was also co-author of a particularly stirring work on ethical vegetarianism with his wife, Vrnda Devi, entitled "Compassionate Cuisine," published by SRI Books in 2003. In recent years Geoffrey has returned to his early career as an in demand character actor, recently co-starring in the Hallmark Channel mini-series, "Jules Verne's The Mysterious Island" as Captain Tweezer Lee with Patrick Stewart and former British actor/soccer star Vinnie Jones. In August 2006 he was cast in a French film entitled "Cargo" which was filmed in Bangkok. In September he signed to co-star in an action adventure film (also in Thailand) entitled "The Devil's Playground." In late 2005 Giuliano was hired by American radio syndicator (KGB) to host a series of two hour radio shows, "Geoffrey Giuliano's Roots Of Rock". He has also worked in the theatre at various times over many years. He has performed voiceover narrations for such clients as McDonald's and Burger King. Giuliano has also worked tirelessly against the perils of crack cocaine addiction having been personally touched by the issue when several young people close to him became addicted.

THIS AINT OVER. IT WILL BE RESOLVED WITH TRUTH AND ACCURACY.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF REGARDING THE USE OF ALL CAPS ON THE INTERNET. IT IS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS SHOUTING. THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO SHOUT; MOSTLY A DAY CARE CENTER IS THE PLACE FOR THAT. Having said (shouted?) that, I thank you for your enthusiasm and invite you to acquaint yourself with the guidelines concerning reliable sources that are the driving factor behind this bit of info about our buddy Geoff. Perhaps the wording of "posing" or "playing" as Ronald McDonald might for the moment not quite sound all right to you, but please note what the source is — an interview with Giuliano, where he makes these statements himself. The sentence may be reworded to better fit what the reference says, but by no means should you form it to what you personally understand about him. Doing that is called original research and is not a basis for reliable information. The article you have posted here, having no sources, is original research until you can provide sources that back up the claims made therein. Being ten billion percent factual is meaningless until it is shown through cited references. V-Man737 01:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, sorry. If you think it necessary, feel free to move my comments there. V-Man737 03:07, 7 February 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 11:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used hardware

edit
Used hardware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To quote the prodder, "WP:NOT a how-to guide (what to look out for), and it reads like an advertisement (inclusive link to UsedCisco)". I agree. MER-C 08:55, 1 February 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 (WP:SNOW) --ZsinjTalk 12:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Monkey Films

edit
Pirate Monkey Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An assertion of notability is made (winning awards) so I didn't speedy it. Overall fails WP:N and most of the article is a bizarre "history," that is nonsense. janejellyroll 09:13, 1 February 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 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Akurang

edit
Cliff Akurang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO notability criteria WikiGull 09:30, 1 February 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 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham climbing centre

edit
Nottingham climbing centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of update. No external links. Empty Content. Delete Real96 10:05, 1 February 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 11:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communication Load

edit
Communication Load (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman1974 10:06, 1 February 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 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faunoiphilia

edit
Faunoiphilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman1974 10:10, 1 February 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 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plushophilia

edit
Plushophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman1974 10:13, 1 February 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 ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene fixation

edit
Gene fixation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

ANY mutation, not just genes, can become fixed JVC 10:19, 1 February 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. It's possible an article could be written on this subject, but at the moment being unsourced it is libellous and is an attack page. Robdurbar 13:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Per-Olof Svensson

edit
Per-Olof Svensson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article bothers me. First it is an uncited biography raising WP:LIVING concerns, even thought there are sources in existence Guardian for instance. Second, the claim to notability is being a suspect in a high profile case (Anna Lindh), but the man completely innocent, and I really don't think that a person who had nothing to do with the murder should be burdened with having a Wikipedia article on him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 1 February 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 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2's Dublin

edit
U2's Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rather a wiki theme guide than an article itself, but it may fit somewhere else Tikiwont 10:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well the links are weblinks back to wikipedia, which is why I called it kind of theme guide. Tikiwont 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree on it redundancy to Dublin and is highly relevant. I might suggets you come to Dublin and slot the U2 article into the U2's Dublin article. Those two articles - U2 or Dublin - do not connect into a coherent U2's Dublin - both geographical (Dublin) and historic (U2) information not giving much appreciationas to where U2 came from

Dave 16:21, 1 February 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 a disambiguation page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miserable

edit
Miserable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT#DICT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary Jvhertum 11:08, 1 February 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 since we already have dumbass, speedily redirect. (Or should I have redirected to dumas?!) -- RHaworth 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumass

edit
Dumass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and even if this were discerned to not be just a dictionary definition (due to it being created by a tv show) it is still a neologism. James086Talk 11:16, 1 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jagath Wickramasinghe

edit
Jagath Wickramasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even he released his one album under the M Entertainment(Sony Music) label.[43][44] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 14:11, 2 February 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 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignopedia

edit

Do not think this parody is notable Alex Bakharev 11:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears to be a semi-regular column. Suggest the entry be re-written with more emphasis on any slant or point it makes?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Long Island Exchange. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Jack

edit
Mushroom Jack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-existant book, Not listed on Amazon, Random house website, library of congress or worldcat + no google hits. Prodded but prod removed without comment - seeming to be created and edited by limited purpose accounts Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 1 February 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 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lagana

edit
David Lagana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn writer for WWE wrestling programs. Very hard to find verifiable information on him and only notable to hardcore wrestling fans. Other WWE writers have had articles deleted in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Gewirtz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris DeJoseph) and this writer is far less notable than the other 2. Booshakla 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient references for notability purposes. The only sources cited are his writing credits at IMDB and TV.COM, neither of which is necessarilly a good source when it comes biographical information or for notability purposes. Unless some actual published sources can be cited discussing Lagana, such as maybe a magazine or newspaper interview or article about the man, delete. Dugwiki 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki. One Night In Hackney 01:23, 6 February 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. -Docg 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Monarchism

edit
Anarcho-Monarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term with little or no contemporary usage. Only identified usages are two individuals and appear not to be connected; also term does not appear to have been a major part of either one's work. Black Butterfly 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! - This article shall not be deleted. The concept of anarcho-monarchism may be rather obscure, I agree, but it's interesting enough to warrant keeping the article. One should note that the content of the article, including references, has been significantly expanded (by various editors) since the first deletion template was added one week ago. LHOON 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "expansion" in question consisted of providing references for those things which had already been mentioned. subjective ideas of what is "interesting" do not qualify as arguments. --Black Butterfly 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well said! This article should be a keep indeed, and not be sacrificed to overzealous deletionism! LHOON 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "overzealous deletionism." Because the topic of the article has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other" (see WP:NOTE), it must be deleted. -- WGee 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was created before and later deleted. Discussion
  • Delete As per all of the above. Blockader 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more here than just a neologism and Dali. I am not an expert here but this seems to a part of the far-right that is mirror maze reflecting and distorting the left. The principal cite is an article by Wayne John Sturgeon, a major contributor of Alternative Green. He has contributed important articles on Patrick Harrington a former Leader of the National Front, among other far-right figures. This article is notable not because it's "interesting" but because it can explain, in part, a world in which Kadfhi, the IRA, and anti-globalist may at times act in concert. Sources can be developed for this article which needs to be improved.Edivorce 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is actually a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. I was thinking of adding a speedy delete tag to the article, but I thought since the discussion was taking place I would just mention this here. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion of recreated material under CSD-G4 requires that the article be identical or "substantially identical" to the previously deleted article. This article has undergone 40 edit versions since recreation. It is no longer possible that it is "identical." Edivorce 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing wrong with resurrections if they constitute an improvement. The article still has room for improvement, and can be further expanded as stated by Edivorce, and become a source of interesting background information. Speedy deletion is certainly NOT an option, nor is deletion for the sake of deletion as proposed by some of the more zealous deletionists. Please give this article a chance to grow and further develop. LHOON 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not an improvement. I just looked at the history, and the original "resurrection" was actually much worse than the original article and was clearly not a recreation, but another attempt to create an article on the subject. The revisions that have taken place since than have made it closer to the old article. I think it would be helpful if an admin can look at the old version before it was deleted and compare it to the current version, and tell us what they think. It's been a while since I saw the old one and my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure the intro is the same. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 19:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, but see the arguments above! There is room for improvement and for not deleting just now. LHOON 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in this case, make the article a redirect to this session? LHOON 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is fine. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is only about an off handed comment of Dali it should not exist at all. Better to delete and permit someone willing to seriously treat article to resurrect than redirect to Dali. Note: I am not endorsing delete. I still believe the article should be kept and improved. Edivorce 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an existing movement. Just cause Dali claims a certain identity that doesn't make it an ideology of its own. --Soman 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because there is no such political philosophy as "anarcho-monarchism." The term itself is original research (even if it is derived from monarchist-anarchist); plus, the subject clearly fails to meet the standards of WP:NOTE, as evidenced by the lack of reliable secondary sources that use the term. -- WGee 22:15, 6 February 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Crawford

edit
Nick Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn minor league hockey player, lots of players from this team have had their own articles deleted, has not even been drafted by NHL and stats are not noteworthy. Booshakla 12:00, 1 February 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 mean, seriously... Afffffffff...? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam fantastic film festival

edit
Amsterdam fantastic film festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article created by single propose account AFFF whose edits are only to this article. Consists of original research with no sources used or referenced. Strong possibility of a WP:COI violation. Farix (Talk) 12:18, 1 February 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 Deletezzzzzzzz ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBuzz (2nd nomination)

edit
IBuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously nominated in March 2006, and the discussion ended in "no consensus." Since then, the article has not become any more encyclopedic, nor has there been any additional indication of the product's notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:34, 1 February 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: CSD A7 still applies. See CSD G4. Avi 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Blond

edit
Forever Blond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated speedy, contested prod. Looks like a promotional piece for a non-notable individual. Wouldn't be surprised if it's a WP:AUTO job. -- Steel 12:36, 1 February 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. Avi 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyPhotoAlbum (2nd nomination)

edit
MyPhotoAlbum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was proposed for deletion in December and the result was "no consensus." Since then, nothing has been added on its notability, and it still appears insufficiently notable to me. Delete. ---Nlu (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, has a bunch of references at the bottom. Perhaps it would help if they were used to put some more text into the article. Mathmo Talk 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Previously the vote was 2-1 in favor of keeping. I disagree with the conclusion that there was no consensus before. In addition, it is a well-known and well-used website, there is no earthly reason to want to delete an article about it. --Lee Vonce 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article is expanded There are a bunch of reference links in the article, but where's the actual article? It appears to be only one sentence saying that this is a "photo sharing site". Unless this article is expanded to have at least some information worth noting, delete the article and recreate once a more filled-out article can be submitted. Dugwiki 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be moving backwards rather than moving forwards. Mathmo Talk 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That sounds more like a "keep and expand" vote to me. --Lee Vonce 20:49, 2 February 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. The objections raised seem to have been addressed fully. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digit (magazine)

edit
Digit (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't currently back up its claims to notability - 600 000 readership - with any sources. Listed for deletion rather than speedied because I think its possible this could be verified. So at the moment a 'source or delete' kinda nomination. Robdurbar 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are included that assert claims ( circulation should be the easiest one to verify ) Alf photoman 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent references provided in the article. Delete unless independent published references provided. Dugwiki 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sources indicating notability, thus failing WP:V.-- danntm T C 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This magazine is published in India. The readership figure appears to have been calculated by taking the circulation and multiplying it by an average of five readers per copy. I removed the readership claim and replaced it with the circulation of 120,000, as stated on the publisher's site. Verifying the circulation is more difficult than one might expect. For a U.S. publication, I would check the listing in one of the publications of Standard Rate and Data Service (SRDS), which receives the circulated figures audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulation or similar agencies. I am not sure what the Indian counterpart of SRDS is. I visited the Audit Bureau of Circulation in India at http://www.auditbureau.org , but access to its data requires a login and password. Similarly, a U.S. publication might be mentioned in Advertising Age magazine, but I don't know what the Indian counterpart is. I think that independent published references exist, but being in North America, I can't easily find them. --Eastmain 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While 120,000 is a lot, does this really qualify it as "best-selling" in a country like India? Not that I doubt the claim, but I'd rather not accept it at face value. (Preferrably, an Indian without an interest in the magazine would say yes ...) Saligron 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rewrite as needed) per Eastmain. Mathmo Talk 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some references. This article originally existed at Thinkdigit. Two years ago, I nominated it for speedy deletion[45] and created a new article on Digit instead. According to NRS 2003, it had a readership of 395,000 ahead of PCQuest, while according to IRS 2003, it had a readership of 299,000 (lesser than that of PCQuest)[46] According to a 2004whitepaper, Digit had a circulation of 74000 and was No. 3 IT publication in India, after Living Digital and PCQuest in terms of circulation (Note that circulation and readership are different). I don't know where we can get the current readership figures, but it's substantial readership is evident from 23 mouthshut reviews and fan blogs. A blog post[47] says that Digit was India's top technology magazine according to the 2006 National Readership Survey, with a readership of 3,28,000. I couldn't find the NRS 2006 (India) results on Internet. It is also listed as one of India's major Tech Distribution Points at marketWire. I think a merge with Jasubhai Digital Media would be best. utcursch | talk 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article previously claimed enough notability for a standalone article, and it's now also backed up by sources. Saligron 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep I am surprised this article is for deletion. This magazine is very popular in india like PC world for USA. Iam a regular buyer of this magazine. --SkyWalker 11:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why was the article protected? The vandalism wasn't that bad it seemed, or at least why wasn't it made to merely be semi-protected? Otherwise as it stands now I (and numerous others) are unable to improve the article with new information that comes to light because I'm not an admin. Heh, maybe it would be a good idea to go to RfA... though obviously this isn't my only reason why! Mathmo Talk 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Its a leading magazine in India. Perhaps the most popular computer magazine. If some references are not correct then they could be corrected. Why delete for a small matter? --seXie♭♭c 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable magazine run by a notable organisation. There are multiple reliable sources available on it. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have sufficient third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The magazine is quite popular in India.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:23, 4 February 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. -Docg 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Side High School (Fort Worth, Texas)

edit
North Side High School (Fort Worth, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school. — Swpb talk contribs 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't worry, my friend, I make virtually all my contributions to Wikipedia in AfD debates, because that's what best matches my limited skills. I don't mind having my time absorbed in this way, so long as the result is a better Wikipedia. I express my opinion on this article below. WMMartin 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, what we need is a speedy criteia for non notable school articles. Especially those that offer nothing more than 'school x is in place y'. Nuttah68 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable school. Soltak | Talk 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not just an ordinary sort of NN school, the article says remarkably little. DGG 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not proven, and references/sources are inadequate. WMMartin 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability and no sources. Nuttah68 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added some references. --Eastmain 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reviewed the references, but do not find that they support a claim of notability. I am particularly uncomfortable with the reference claiming architectural merit, which seems to be from the personal website of a local architectural enthusiast: this is merely a statement of preference, not a substantial claim. We need to see something more like "the Texas Architectural Association rated the building one of the top 3 most architecturally significant buildings in Texas." That would be notable. Simply being liked by one person is not enough. WMMartin 13:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am afraid I am not convinced at all of the importance of this for a world wide encyclopedia.What is next, listing McDonald's locations? Seven-Elevens?--Filll 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a recent edit has added some sources. I personally doubt they establish notability, especially since the aspects described in the sources are not discussed in the article, which merely says "North Side High School is located in Fort Worth, Texas. It is part of the Fort Worth Independent School District." I would think this qualifies as a speedy delete for A1, "Very short articles providing little or no context" DGG 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With interesting content and proper references, this high school could qualify for an article. What's in the article now is, I believe, not enough to show notability or be worth keeping. EdJohnston 05:09, 5 February 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. -Docg 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Hills High School (Benbrook, Texas)

edit
Western Hills High School (Benbrook, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. — Swpb talk contribs 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep so we don't have to do work to delete them" is, in my opinion, a fairly weak argument. Either the article meets policy and guidelines or it doesn't. If deleting articles means extra work, oh well. Dugwiki 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Dugwiki. That's not an argument for keeping at all. In fact, by that logic, no page should ever be deleted, and Wikipedia should just mere become free hosting. — Swpb talk contribs 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's no OK. You don't even claim that all schools are notable, instead insisting that schools should be kept, notable or not. Why? Soltak | Talk 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i ment All high schools/ upper leval schoold anywhere in the world how smail they might be should be kept because someone could add more information on them. to be honest i been trying to start an article every high school in the USA when i start the page adding a little amount of information than add the Expand tag so other people can expand the article to mold it to a bigger and better one so all i am saying that how big or small high schools should be inclueld here on wikipedia even if they noteable or not i hope explanes my view if not i will try again later okOo7565 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You basically repeated the same argument I questioned before but with more words this time. I'm still confused as to why you want to include what you admit might be non-notable material. Because it some day might become notable? Soltak | Talk 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let me try this again i hope this helps it my not who knows. The information whick might seems non noteabel to you and me it might mean a lot to someone who goes or went to that school which make them proud to part of the school. one more thing at least my mind we (all) of us have no right to say schools are noteabel or not i hope this helps if not if you do not mind i will try again but this time maybe leave meassage on my talk page instead of here okOo7565 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to leave a message on your talk page only because I think this exchange is relevant to the AfD discussion. Your argument is flawed in that your basic reason for inclusion is that "it might be notable to someone". Notability is not subjective. In addition, I'm proud of my old high school but it doesn't have an article and I wouldn't presume to create one. Why not? It's not notable. Again, I must stress: Notability is not subjective. Soltak | Talk 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 COMMENT thats my point that this is inculusion does not mean is noteabel i understand that but also my point is there other things along with schools someone could agrue that they are non noteabel as well so unless you want to delete those articles as well in my point of view you have no legs to stand onOo7565 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I understand your point, and I believe you don't understand mine - the point of the essay is that the inclusion of other articles, no matter their notability, has no bearing on the notability of this article. — Swpb talk contribs 20:25, 5 February 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple drops

edit
Apple drops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable candy. I found 1500 ghits for <"apple drops" candy -wikipedia>, and at least half of those were unrelated to the subject. Admittedly, the candy was popular before the Internet age and has ceased to be significant. But isn't that the whole point? Those of you who vote "keep" should defend that vote by cleaning up the unverified parts of the article. I'm not sure it's worth the effort. YechielMan 07:30, 1 February 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 keep, reliable sources showing clear notability beyond the usual college athlete. NawlinWiki 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Olsen (American football)

edit
Greg Olsen (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable college football player. Fails WP:BIO.Hondasaregood 14:23, 31 January 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 keep, reliable sources showing notability beyond average college athlete. NawlinWiki 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal Anderson

edit
Jamaal_Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Drafting still fails WP:BIO.Hondasaregood 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-Please undelete this article--Bucs10 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Bucs10[reply]
  • Strong Keep- This article does not fail WP:BIO. He is a major college football player that played at the highest level. He has been rumored (by several reliable sources) to be a very high level draft pick in upcoming draft. There are many reliable sources which document all of the facts.--Thomas.macmillan 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Anderson will be a NFL player within three months. It wouldn't make any sense deleting this article now. --Bender235 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Predicted top 5 draft pick. I don't even see how it fails WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.↔NMajdan•talk
  • Strong keep: When will people with no knowledge of a subject (in this case, football) stop making determinations on whether or not he is notable enough. It seems like someone nominates a football player for deletion at least once a week. Fortunately they are never successful. Seancp 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above (except nom). --MECU≈talk 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verified. Contains more in-line references than Dumpling. Passes WP:BIO. Part of building a complete reference guide to this topic. Johntex\talk 06:28, 1 February 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 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James (DUNCAN) Anderson (musician)

edit
James_(DUNCAN)_Anderson_(musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Delete - Lack of information and un-noted on the discography pages. User:Chiketychina 08:52, 1 February 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.--cj | talk 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bionic series

edit
The Bionic series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created last fall and at the time I felt it was a neologism and a duplicate of information already present in The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman. I let it be in case it was expanded, but it was not. My rationale for nomination is that I can find nothing to support that Universal Pictures or any other entity officially group the two TV series together under this title, and that this article simply duplicates information already present in two other articles. See also the present AFD underway for a similar article, Movie (series). Note that if this AFD results in deletion there is also a related category that may need to be renamed or examined. 23skidoo 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unreferenced Article appears to be completely unreferenced. Delete unless suitable published references can be provided. If they are, I'll reconsider my recommendation. Dugwiki 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To be fair, the article is about two primary sources - the two TV shows. So those are the references. However what is unreferenced here is any indication that this is an official series or sequence name. 23skidoo 23:35, 1 February 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. Consensus dos't get much clearer then this.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Loeb

edit

This is not quite speediable, IMHO. It's (not quite obvious) nonsense, but (falsely) claims notability, however, the webpages at the bottom of the article don't mention the guy. delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:13, 1 February 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. - Bobet 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL players of Indian descent

edit
NHL players of Indian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of a whopping two people. I'm sure someone could write a fascinating article on race and ethnicity and the NHL, but this is too specific a topic to ever have any content. When NHL players of Korean descent, NBA players of Japanese descent and MLB players of Armenian descent get created, I will be nominating those too. Recury 15:54, 1 February 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 Redirected to furry fandom. Avi 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yiff

edit
Yiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a dictionary definition. It can't be expand beyond a dicdef because of the lack of reliable sources. Everything relevant is found on the wiktionary page. Ayatollah's hashish 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider this to be the last "good" version before the gutting began. Mwalimu59 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yiff is a fairly bizarre phenomenon but a well-established one, and I'm sure there are RS out there that can verify that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to furry fandom - if it later expands into a large section within that article, it can be broken out then. FreplySpang 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Claiming that this article "can't be expand beyond a dicdef" is patently false; the article was significantly more than a dicdef before most of it was deleted last night. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of that content was unsupported by any sources at all, however, and had sported requests for sources since 2006-12-02. To demonstrate that it can expand beyond a stub you have to show that there is verifiable content to be placed in the article. Please cite sources to show that your argument that the article is expandable holds water. Uncle G 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to furry fandom. The nom sums it up quite nicely. The larger article was even worse, by the way. (edit: if there were references from reliable sources I wouldn't object to an article.) Voretus 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to furry fandom. I've read the stuff that was deleted; I'm not surprised it was deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Redirect per all the other redirect votes. JuJube 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article can be improved. The criteria for deletion is unverifiable, not unverified. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is a redlink for a reason. Milto LOL pia 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It seems to me that most of the material in the old revision was totally unsourced, or sourced from Wikifur - which is, in my opinion, most certainly not a reliable source. It won't be more than a dicdef until more reliable sources are found, but I am open to the possibility that they could be (though it seems unlikely that they will be found right now). Just redirect it to furry fandom-from K37 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page got crippled in the last week - beforehand it was a page that had alot of information in regards to this particular fetish, regardless of the information's source, now it's basically a broken page that is begging for deletion or movement. Restore the page to it's prior state and then verify it. The images were appropriate and I believe they were fair use as well. There are many pages on Wikipedia that are based upon people's opinion rather than directly sourced from an already written document.--DragonChi 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited information was removed in accordance with WP:V, fair use images without fair use rationale were removed in accordance with WP:FAIR. Doesn't sound like "crippling" to me. - Francis Tyers · 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to revert to the completely unsourced version? Did you even read WP:V ? - Francis Tyers · 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the sources I mentioned above to the article. They have been removed, however, by Francis Tyers. In the interest of avoiding an edit war (and 3RR), I will no longer be reverting to restore them, but I did want to point it out here for the closing admin. Shimeru 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't seriously believe this is even under discussion. Yes the word is notable, yes, we all know what yiff means. Find some relable sources. I just took a stroll through the article's history, the fact remains it never had a reliable source and had a LOT of OR. Keep voters saying there's "good stuff" in the article but can't produce a source (outside of wikifur or tigerden, which both fail WP:RS) need to find some real sources. I'll give you ONE. "Pornography and sexual representation, by Joe Slad, ISBN 0313315191, 2001, pg 395 , mentions yiff for about a full paragraph. Get digging. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion, so there's bias that easily violates WP:FAITH. Lithorien 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was an unfair comment, but this is a rather strange deletion vote. She acknowledges that reliable sources exist, so the article is verifiable, even if it weren't currently verified (which I would dispute). It's also clearly notable -- even the short version of the article has two independent print sources. This is a strong argument to keep, not to delete. Also, since people insist on misreading the citations as to web pages, I have removed that aspect and reinstated them in what I hope is a clearer fashion, referring to the original documents themselves. Shimeru 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My vote stands based on the rationale of almost all the keep votes, namely, that the article was cut down and then AfD'd. The full article should be deleted, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore WP Policy. If you want to start with a referenced stub, then delete this pile of OR and start over. I agree there are sources out there that REFERENCE it, but not necessarily that such sources make it notable. The same book, for example, spends a paragraph on minor fetishes such as attraction to clocks and plants. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. On a side note, though, I wasn't under the impression that it's WP policy to delete articles that are verifiable and notable, as you've acknowledged this one is, because of their current (or former) states. Could you please point me to that policy? It sounds as if it would be very useful to cite in future discussions, when I'm on the delete side of the fence. Shimeru 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very common term in furry fandom and it's quite appropriate to have more than a dictionary entry on it. Bryan Derksen 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not voting the potential in here. Right now it's a dictionary definition and as such it does not belong in here. Ayatollah's hashish 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a WP:DICDEF currently because people keep reverting it in the middle of people working on it. Lithorien 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean because people keep removing uncited information or information with invalid citations from unreliable sources? - Francis Tyers · 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean exactly what I said, Francis. This is a malicious AfD and both you and Ayatollah know it. Lithorien 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So people should keep unreliably cited/uncited information in just because it's on VfD? That's not a good thing to think. If so, I could go to any number of articles on VfD and make up a bunch of stuff about them to make them seem like great articles. The information should be more reliably sourced precisely because the article is on VfD. I don't think this is a malicious VfD. Hashish doesn't seem to have an agenda. He/she had not even edited any articles relating to furries before nomming this for deletion. Heck, I think the article as it is should be deleted, but it could be a great article on the subject with sources. Aren't furries usually complaining about MTV and Vanity Fair doing something? Those things are probably about yiff, aren't they? If this article gets deleted, an article that asserts notability and gives cited information beyond a dicdef would most likely be approved by the majority here, and I'm sure that most would not be against a creation. Voretus 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep on its own merits. The term seems to be standard; the media in the field are increasing; the need of a main page is evident & this is the one. Reply to possible objections: it unquestionable N, and there seem to be several thousand sources. It does not have OR, at least it its present state: it is an appropriate summary of more specialized material. Collecting material is not OR. Collecting material and making an original interpretation of it is OR. It would be OR to use the page to insert a new psychological or social theory of the phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and redirect or just redirect. Dicdef. Already very well covered at Wiktionary. --- RockMFR 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to consider a merge into Furry fandom, or if necessary Sexual practices in the furry fandom. - Francis Tyers · 08:39, 8 February 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 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Magic

edit
Eyes of Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable author, spam, vanity, self-promotion, vandalism in many other Wikipedia languages, sockpuppetry Orang gila 16:49, 1 February 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability, no verification. All I get out of this is that Solomon was a singer who placed 13th in a singing competition. Diez2 16:56, 1 February 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. -Docg 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kohs

edit
Gregory Kohs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) �" (View AfD)

Delete Already deleted once. No assertion of notability (and I highly doubt that one could be made). It appears to be somebody who's just pissed off at Wikipedia and is trying to make a WP:POINT. --Адам12901 Talk 17:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They don't -- and neither does this, which is what they have in common. While I'm sure it meets your strict "Is he or she a carbon-based lifeform?" standard, it doesn't meet that of a real encyclopedia. Enabling a spammer is, I'm sure, only a bonus. --Calton | Talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first item's headline should be a hint: "Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit" -- Kohs is a footnote, not the primary subject. The second item is an AP item piggybacking off of the Microsoft story. The third is brief, 5-graf blurb about Kohs from the website of the Chronicle for Higher Education. Trivial all, and self-referential, to boot. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, he's not a primary subject of the Post one. But he is a primary subject of this, a primary subject of this when translated, and the other articles offer enough to expand upon further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two brief blubs (one of them, as I pointed out and which which you glossed over, piggybacking on the Microsoft story) and some wishful thinking certainly stretches the whole "multiple nontrivial" threshold. --Calton | Talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18,300

Delete? Keep? Let Google decide. 18,300 hits for a name in a quoted search on Google? Without quotes = 28,800. Seems notable! This appears to be an "add to watchlist" subject, fuel the fire sort of thing. Let's move on, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.46.51 (talk • contribs) — 172.147.46.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss School of Nursing

edit
Bliss School of Nursing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Took off of CSD, as may be notable re: University of Belize. No personal opinion at the time of this nomination. May opine later. Avi 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

  • delete Individual schools or departments within a university are not usually notable, though there are exceptions, such as most medical schools.

DGG 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think DGG is wrong in this case, though not in general, because the School appears to have had a substantial independent existence as an important school of nursing in its country ( Bliss died in the 1920s, so the school presumably existed for several decades as a separate and notable institution ). The best comparison I can see is with the Royal School of Mines, which has a separate article despite having now evolved into a component of Imperial College. On balance, Keep, though I would welcome expansion and better references. WMMartin 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no information in the article about the number of professions it educated, and that would go far to establish notability. No specific alumni are mentioned, or distinguished nursing educator connected with the school. In fact, the article has no third party sources of any sort. .DGG 23:48, 4 February 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. - Bobet 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Bahama

edit
Tommy Bahama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

UnSpeedied, but may not be notable. Avi 17:45, 1 February 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 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Hotel Lobby Society

edit
The British Hotel Lobby Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax. No ghits for it, and this article has no references or sources cited. It also appears to be either an advertisement, or a joke article, or something similar. Either way, I'm not certain it has any encyclopedic value. It's also unverifiable too. --SunStar Nettalk 17:51, 1 February 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 g11, g4, reposted advertising, will salt. NawlinWiki 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funkshion

edit
Funkshion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable event. Author removed Speedy deletion tags at least twice. SmartGuy 17:59, 1 February 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 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three flags up

edit
Three flags up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A variation of Three Flies Up which is of local interest only - as the article says, "The game is largely unknown outside the town itself"[67] (referring to the town of Cayucos, CA, where it is played). No sources provided, appears to be unverifiable. (Note: PROD tag removed with explanation that game has been played in Cayucos for decades.) FreplySpang 17:58, 1 February 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. -Docg 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Stewart Wilson

edit
Murray Stewart Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Seems to fail notability Avi 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What is notability? I have edited the article myself with great care and every entry is true and verified. Why can I not contact Avraham? It has been in existance for some months already and I have already had it accepted by other WIKIPEDIA "policemen". Please dont delete this page. Murray Wilson is clearly of great international stature and is a senior manager in the United Nations, he is clearly of greater status and stature than many others in his alumni groups. He was awarded the Iraq medal by the queen for service and bravery. I cannot think of a better person for inclusion in WIKIPEDIA, especially as many other entries are just local sports people who have achieved little in their lives. Please contact me. --Muzzamemphis 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much information about him has had to be restricted due to his signing of the Official Secrets Act. If you can lay out minimum requirements for "notification" I am certain they can be met. --Muzzamemphis 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from notification, which is for clear reasons I have explained, dont you agree that someone of his great stature, selfless devotion to humans in crisis, and humanity is ideally suited for inclusion??--Muzzamemphis 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Avi 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those make him suited for some recognition somewhere. Wikipedia is not that place, unless you can find independent sources which give non-trivial coverage to his work. Thousands of people do service work within foreign countries, and thousands of people are UN bureaucrats. The only claim that comes close to notability is being awarded the Iraq Medal, but per that award's article, "The medal, therefore, continues to be awarded for either thirty days service in Iraq or, in the case of aircrew, for ten sorties flown into Iraq." Anyone killed or injured in that service also gets the medal. I don't see any reason to consider that a major award; thousands of people have already been awarded it, presumably, based on the listed criteria. Delete per WP:BIO unless reliable sources are found which show he's been recognized for individual accomplishments not shared by thousands of others. Barno 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is the case that merely being one of many is the reason for not including him, then why inclde rugby players, of whom there are thousands, or writers, of whom there are again thousands. And few of them have any lead role in society. Wikipedia must not become UK or Eurocentric. it is and must remain an international tome.

    Apart from the Iraq medal, Murray has been arrested and tortured by Saddam Huseins Baath party in 1990, he created the first Conflict Management Unit in the world within the UN system, he negotiated directly with the Khmer Rouge in 1996 to try and recover kidnapped friends. Thousands of people dont do this, almost nobody has given up 20 years of their lives with such dedication and sacrifice. On this point the previous contributer is just wrong. I just dont see how you can say that the bass player from Supertramp, or the pianist who accompanied some famous singers can be included whilst this genuine hero is ignored. He also has signed letters of thanks from Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary Benn and L Paul Bremmer. I would call all of this non-trivial, but as was stated in the discussion, the oficial secrects act and personal security means that for obvious reasons hias name could not be widely acknowledged. He would not have been proposed if he were just one of the aid workers who gives up a few months to prove themselves but he is a true and genuine leader in his field. I would suggest that any decisions in this matter be made by people who understand the sector and the profession. As far as notability is concerned then more references can be found. This processjust seems like a very confrontational and subjective way to expand the base of knowledge, who are these faceless "policemen" anyway? Personal tastes and jealousies should not come into the discussion, how about John Corrie, Tory MP, one pf thousands over the years, has done nothing of note ever, you tell me who deserves to be ibcluded?

    Apologies, I forgot to sign the above--World community 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) — World community (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: Members of Parliament and major-league rugby players get mentioned many times in reliable sources, regardless of whether their activities save lives or show courage or demonstrate leadership. Please see the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is not a judge of importance or value or who "deserves" what; WP is only a reflection of what topics have been considered important enough or valuable enough to be covered elsewhere. Googling without the middle name is tough because it's a common name: hockey player, baseball player, photographer, petroleum exec, father of a Beach Boy, speleologist, et cetera. When I exclude some keywords, I still find nothing relevant (except things like an e-mail forwarding site) on the first four pages of this search. Googling full name gives no reliable sources, mainly just Wikipedia mirrors. Can you show that published sources found the creation of the UN's first CMU to be noteworthy? I'd like to vote "keep" because my heart agrees with Muzzamemphis, but I can't unless some sources acceptable to WP's policies are found. Barno 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to Keith Moffatt - a complete nobody--World community 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication he is more notable that tens of thousands of other war veterans or civilian workers in war zones. Inaadequate independent reliable sources. Edison 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original author's request in article Apparently the author has requested on the article page to delete the article "as there is too much ignorance on all sides". Delete per original author's request. Dugwiki 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Blanked by author. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Dont we usually delete at authors request only if nobody else has edited or been interested in doing so? That is not the case here. I cannot interpret the reasons for her request. He is i y the sort of person who should be included, but that is not the actual point: he himself is notable with adequate sourcing to show it. If there are a thousand others of equal notability, lets source them and add them. DGG 06:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's User:Muzzamemphis, who created the page. There's User:World community, who seems to be a SPA and after calling Keith Moffatt "a complete nobody" a few lines up also added that assertion to his article. There's an IP address that, based on the last couple of edits, seems to belong to User:Muzzamemphis. And there's a categorizing bot, and the AfD tag. I hope you didn't think that all of the links in the article were sources; they were just links to the websites of the organizations mentioned. --Maxamegalon2000 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitely Keep" - I have known Murray Wilson since 2001 through my role as a member of staff at the Department of Peace Studies at The University of Bradford. Murray's contribution to this field has been significant enough to gain attention. Insights he has gained have been shared with hundreds of students within the Department of Peace Studies in guest lectures and informal seminar discussions. Many students have described his work as a real 'inspiration' in their own efforts to make a difference in the world. Such practical insights are what ensure academic debate is grounded in reality. If Wikipedia is to be of value, then people like Murray must be included. His work is not trivial. It is of profound value in a troubled world. It must also be stated that this is not about ego. So much of Murray's work happens behind the scenes and will never be published. This article must not be deleted. It's as simple as that. Michael Fryer. Mpfryer 11:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)— Mpfryer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 and Redirect to Next Fifteen Communications. Avi 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OutCast Communications

edit

Non-notable PR firm. I put a PROD tag on it since there were claims of notability, but the tag was removed by the article's creator, who is creating several related non-notable company articles. Corvus cornix 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully argue that Corvus cornix is mistaken. I am the article's creater, and I have not removed any tag from the article. Furthermore, Corvus cornix later acknowledged on my talk page that his original PROD tag was mistaken.

I believe he has me confused with a newly registered user who created a number of arguably non-notable entries for similar companies yesterday.

At any rate, based on the following published guidelines for notability, I believe that this article should remain published and is both non-promotional and neutral:

Criteria for companies and corporations

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: 

  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
               o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.1
               o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
  2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3
  3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

The company has been the subject of numerous articles (*not* press releases) in its industries' journals of record, satisfying #1, and is ranked annually in ranking indices in those same journals of record, satisfying #2. The sources currently cited in the article satisfy these requirements, but I will add more. Davedonohue 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Davedonohue[reply]

Mr. Donohue is correct in that I keep mixing him up with User:Timdyson, but both are creating articles on the same company and editing each other's articles. I did not say on Davedonohue's Talk page that my prod wasn't valid, but I did change the reason for the prod because of my mixup of the two editors. The reasoning for my prod nomination still stands, as does my reasoning for this nomination for deletion. Corvus cornix 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who seems to have created this problem I'd first like to apologize if I have broken any rules. I would hope that anyone who researches my company will soon learn that the businesses are all notable in their field. Deleting them from wikipedia would be somewhat unfair given there are other similar firms listed and their entries are no more supported. --Timdyson 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corvus cornix did change the prod reason - apologies for not noticing that on my own page. I maintain that this article pertains to a company that meets both criteria #1 and #2 above, thus satisfactorily establishing its notability, and suggest that if the deletion discussion continue, those who disagree should cite why they believe it does NOT meet those criteria.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 20:50, 7 February 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. - brenneman 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedez (porn star)

edit
  • Weak Keep. Needs to be extensively copyedited, it definitely reads like an autobiography. The subject, however, seems to meet WP:PORN BIO by virtue of being miss nude universe in 2003 and being in penthouse in 2000. Mystache 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work, but the subject meets WP:PORNBIO and is also notable outside the field for her appearances on the Porn Valley reality series on one of the American cable networks. 23skidoo 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reference to an official miss nude universe website that indicates the subject was ever miss nude universe in 2003. Penthouse website provides no link to indicate that the subject ever being photographed in 2000. The criteria in WP:PORN BIO is not there for fun. No links to awards, never been a Playboy Playmate, or Penthouse Pet. No single reference to any title in any magazine. No reference for any new trend in pornography. No reference for blockbuster feature by industry standards. No references for any appearance in multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets. No reference for an any original film named after the subject. The page provides three links, all are referring to words claimed to be said by the subject, or the subject web-page. Please, refer also to my earlier discussion. --Tarawneh 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We have a series notability issue here. Who is this lady? Wikipedia is not a directory of all people in the world. IMDB lists anyone and everyone and per nom. Considering the Arabic issues about porn or any subject, the Arabic Wikipedia welcomes articles about Paris Hilton for example but not just anyone. --Meno25 12:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article needs clean-up by other editors. If the person is less notable then a lot of the persons already in, so we have to delete all of the articles, not just particular one. The criteria of WP:PORN BIO is really not for fun. But I think the article should Keep for a while, maybe some other sources should be presented. --MaNeMeBasat 12:48, 4 February 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 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bush

edit
Aaron Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yes, he is mentioned as a co-author of papers on urology in the listed sources, along with a Dr. Bush who is likely his father. The sources do not, however, support all the claims in the article, and I can find no other sources. NawlinWiki 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only way you can submit papers to the American Urologic Association is to be a member which requires you to be a doctor. Aaron Bush is 13 when he started, not leaving him time to attend medical school. Also the last person listed on authors for medical papers is the author, the other people are usually research assistance. Also look up patent number 10/779.354.
On March 21, 2003 Aaron Bush was received an Award of Recogition by The Chicago Medical Society at the 59th Annual Midwest Clinical Conference. For more information contact Dr. Saroja Bharati Chair of the Midwest Clinical Conference or Dr. Richard A. Geline President of the Chicago Medical Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.89.202 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAIMUN V

edit
TAIMUN V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN student group/event, possible COI. TAIMUN I-IV were PRODed without issue. This article was deproded, so I'm AfDing it. Mystache 18:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Not intrinsically notable (just a couple of high schools having some competition or convention), no mention of anything being special about it. No third-party refs reporting on it either. When the event happens, if it becomes notable, then can recreate. DMacks 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned above, a convention or competition between 2 high schools doesn't actually cause the world to stand still. It's not a major event. GoodDay 18:09, 6 February 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. discounting several votes with invalid reasoning, policy is key Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China as an emerging superpower

edit
Also India as an emerging superpower, European Union as an emerging superpower and Emerging superpowers
China as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
India as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Union as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Potential Superpowers—China was nominated for deletion as part of a group nomination, also including Potential Superpowers—India and Potential Superpowers - European Union on 2006-03-10. The result of the discussion was "no consensus", although keeping the articles on China and the EU was supported by several editors. For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India.
People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-25. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower.
China as an emerging superpower was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-31. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower.

Short and simple: these articles are original research, are speculative, and have no clear definition against which their claims can be weighed. I urge deletion.

The first inherent problem with the articles lies in their namespace. Each article discusses the countries in the context of becoming the next "superpower". Superpower is a political science term usually used to talk about the two powers in a bipolar system (USA & USSR in Cold War), or the one power in a unipolar system (USA today). In essence, a superpower is defined by the polarity of the international system--that is, a calculation of relative power--not by the absolute material, political, economic, of cultural factors it possesses. These articles catalog the absolute material etc. factors possessed by these countries, but provide no definition for what constitutes a superpower, or discuss when and how China/India/EU might finally become considered a superpower. Moreover, if the international system does not move from unipolarity to bipolarity, but instead moves from unipolarity to multipolarity (if China, India, and EU all rise concurrently, for example) than no state will be considered a superpower, because the term isn't used for the polar powers in a multipolar system ("great power" is generally used). The namespace, right off the bat, makes a rather large assumption about how the world is going to turn out. It's speculative at best, but really it's simply misleading. Superpowers are not superpowers because of absolute capabilities, but because of relative capabilities. One could write an entire article on why China will be the next superpower based solely on American decline, with no facts about China at all, simply because superpower status is relative.

Furthermore, relative power is defined by political scientists in myriad ways--most academics and politicians define power using different relevant capabilities (e.g. most use military, some include population, some include political system, some include economic, some include manufacturing output, some include urbanization, some include energy use, some include territory size, some include global reach capabilities, some include sway over international opinion, some include cultural influence, etc. etc. etc.). Measuring some of those factors leads one to different conclusions about relative power than measuring other factors. If the articles stick only to military and economic factors, then they are presenting a view biased towards Realist IR theory; the they use economics, political system, and international influence, then they are presenting a view biased toward Liberal IR theory; if they present the view that "superpower" status is a socially constructed term, then they are biased toward Constructivist IR theory, etc. Even if they present research on all the possible factors, they are still advancing original research.

This leads me to the second, and more serious, problem with these articles, is that they are original research. WP:OR specifically states that the following is to be considered original research:

  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

What we see in this collection of articles is not a discussion of various published sources and their views on China/India/EU's potential to become a superpower. Few if any authors are directly mentioned in the text at all. What we see are a number of sections asserting something about China/India/EU -- it's big, wealthy, growing, has social problems, has economic problems, etc. Mostly primary sources are cited. But since there is no standard for what constitutes a superpower other than relative power, there is no way to cite primary sources without the articles becoming an argument-advancing synthesis.

If the articles only cited and discussed secondary sources (i.e. experts discussing their theory or criterion about China/India/EU's rise), the article would still be unencyclopedic. No other Wikipedia article would be allowed to have a {{Template:Speculation}} and {{Template: Future}} on them, knowing full well that the expected event may not come to pass for at least 15-20 years, if not 50 years. Especially an article about social or political issues, which are subject to the most extreme and unpredictable vagaries and vicissitudes of nearly any subject covered by Wikipedia. But these articles, by their very nature, would need such tags, because even the secondary-source authors are engaging in speculation about a future event that may or may not come to pass.

Let's do a thought experiment: if Wikipedia had been invented back in the 1980's, there would have been a strong temptation to write an article on Japan as an emerging superpower. We look back on this as silly now (evidenced clearly by no attempt ever having been made to start one for Japan in the current series of emerging superpower articles). But in the 1980's Japan was kicking the USA's butt--huge growth, special cultural advantages, high technology, etc. There were scads of articles coming out predicting the Japanese century ahead, and Japan as the next superpower competitor for the United States. Fast forward to today--if that article was still around, what would we do with it? Japan clearly hasn't lived up to the predictions from the 1980s. We would most likely delete the article once it became clear that Japan wasn't going to live up to the hype. But what would the criteria for deletion be? We could still have such an article, listing all the demographic, economic, cultural, military advantages that Japan has today, just like the articles we currently have on China/India/EU. Arguably Japan has better qualifications currently than India does, if you measure by certain criteria (economy) and not others (population). There would be no structural difference between a Japan article and the articles we currently have.

This is why the concept of an article on XYZ country as an emerging superpower is inherently flawed. The articles are based on absolute capabilities rather than relative systemic capabilities, they assume a bipolar rather than a multipolar world to come, they synthesize primary sources to build a case not attributed to reputable authors, they will remain speculative and future-predicting for at least 15-20 years, and in light of historical predictions of superpower status they clearly aren't encyclopedic. Wikipedia articles should not be written about predictions of future events, it's that simple, no matter how many primary sources are used to back up one side or the other side of the case.

Delete and salvage raw info to relevant articles on China/India/EU demographics, military, economy, culture, etc. —Perceval 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per the longest nomination I've ever read. If any properly-sourced material in these articles is lacking from the parent articles, it would be appropriate to merge it back, but only if the merge avoids the NPOV problem inherent in the term "emerging superpower". Barno 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for position papers, which these are. Whether they are well-written is irrelevant; they are not encyclopedia articles. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those articles read like editors threw a bunch of numbers at the wall to see what would stick. It also seems easier to just put a sentence in the country articles saying that "Country is getting more powerful as times goes blah blah" than have entire articles of rambling text with no coherence. Opinions from other people shouldn't be presented as fact. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment (yet) about the articles here, but I know quite a couple of very prominent researchers back in the 80's who got tenure by doing research claiming that Japan would be the next superpower. Silly now, but under WP:SCI (proposed, I know) it would count as a superceded theory. Unless we argue that IR is not a science. So the point is really, is the idea, as silly as it might be, supported by prominent advocates with a track record of widely cited publications (or a noteworthy public response)? Will comment more after I looked at the articles. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can say that political scientists are working on a "china as a superpower" theory. A theory in political science would be more like liberal international relations theory or democratic peace theory. Talking about China/India/EU's rise is more like conjecture, or prediction based upon application of theory, rather than a distinct theory in itself.—Perceval 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get into a battle over nomenclature here, but that would be a hypothesis. The difference between conjecture and (empirical) theory is mostly the quality of evidence provided in support of the claim. Closer to the matter at hand, this is quite excellent material, but sadly completely out of place on Wikipedia, unless we can find authorities who support the conjecture/theory/whatever. What are the inclusion requirements at Wikisource Wikinews? ~ trialsanderrors 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that a great deal of work went into assembling all the data. That's why I urge merging relevant data in relevant articles (China's economic info into Economy of China, etc). There are certainly authors, both academic and popular, who predict the rise of these countries. Those predictions belong in the articles about those authors and books. Collecting them together under the nomenclature of "emerging superpower" is misleading and original research. But, even if we found those articles and authors, the subject matter would still be unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Classification of a country as a superpower or even as a great power is a holistic, relative, and subjective affair. We have articles about economic miracles--but those are quantifiable and based on objective, absolute measures of material facts. "Superpower" status is not nearly the same--it depends not only on the country in question, but upon all the other major countries in the international system. Like I said above, one could write an article about the rise of China to superpower status written entirely in terms of U.S. decline, with nothing at all about China in the whole article--because superpower status is relative. Moreover, different criteria are relevant to different authors: some are realist, some are liberal, some are constructivist, some are marxist--all pick different factors reflecting international power--thus, the whole project is subjective in a way that Chile's economic miracle is not. The article would remain speculation and predictive of a future event for at least a decade if not several. I know of no other Wikipedia articles given that kind of leeway in discussing speculation. (AFAIK: wikinews deals with breaking events, not long term historical processes).—Perceval 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those predictions belong in the articles about those authors and books. — Not necessarily, if the authors can be linked in some form so discussion of their work in context makes sense. If they are just a bunch of isolated scholars all working on the same problem linkage might be original research, but as soon as you have, say, an edited book or a colloquium "Will China be the next superpower?" there is good reason to discuss the research in one article. Btw, you should also correct your nomination. You can't merge and delete per GFDL. It might actually be that move into project space is the best short-term solution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, there are edited books and colloquiums on all manner of speculative subjects. Cruise the think tanks in DC or academic fora and you'll see meetings discussing nearly anything. This does not mean that Wikipedia ought to have articles on every speculative subject discussed, even if there's an edited volume published about it. The articles themselves do not use secondary sources, do not cite authors and experts, and do not present each author and expert's opinion seperately--it's all merged together, synthesized into one large argument-advancing piece, with no attribution. Just look at the talk pages to see what a honeypot these articles are for nationalists and racists adding completely unfounded material to these articles. There is no way to salvage these namespaces based on verifiable, non-speculative sources that solves the problem of the inherent assumptions made in the namespace alone, much less the article text.—Perceval 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the content of the article. The talk page is really irrelevant, that's not what the public sees. On the issue about whether there is a strong subfield of IR or even IB that discusses those issues, that's really an empirical question (You might want to join us at WT:SCI about those meta-questions). I'm just trying to probe what to do with an article called "Next superpower X" and under which conditions it can be a feasible WP article. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question, but inherently a presupposition. It preassummes that the world will become bipolar instead of multipolar. So it's an article not only on what country is likely to gain relative to all others, such that only it and another country have enough of the relevant capabilities within the international system to be considered superpowers (a subjective standard, as political scientists will admit), but it's also an article that bases its speculation upon another speculation about how the world will turn out (i.e. that the world will change from unipolarity, and that it will go to bipolarity not multipolarity). While articles on speculation are explicitly disallowed (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, point #3), articles on speculation based upon a speculative, unspoken presupposition are clearly out of bounds. That being said, there are numerous articles discussing structure in the international system, by realists, liberals, and marxists alike. They discuss historical structure, current structure, and how structure might change in the future, or whether structure is even a worthwhile way to think about international relations. They further discuss what criteria ought to be used in determining a great power (not surprisingly they almost all disagree), and whether the number of poles really has much of a determinant effect on the behavior of states at all. Because such classifications (great power, superpower) are based heavily on these types of assumptions (relevant criteria, necessary share of capabilities, relevance of structure, IR theory school, etc), it's a very very bad idea to label specific countries unless you are explicit about who exactly is labelling them (e.g. Kenneth Waltz) and why (e.g. Waltz notes that country X had a big army relative to other countries in those years). Trying to compare countries as great powers or potential superpowers is a guaranteed disaster, because you'll be mixing authors, theories, criteria, and there will be no standard upon which you could cross-compare the countries. In sum, it ought to be avoided.—Perceval 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Reset indent) Well, here is a hypothetical example that would be acceptable under our rules:
The question whether China can be the next superpower has attracted significant academic and popular attention. A superpower is defined as ... In his book "China, the Superpower of the 21st Century", Prof. Prefect writes "China has the human and natural resources to become the dominant player in Asia within 100 years, second only to the U.S.A. in global influence". This conjecture is critized by Prof. Hallmonitor who writes: "Despite its size and human capital, China is at least 50 years away from creating the necessary political and social institutions to allow a rise in regional prominence", etc., etc.
That of course has nothing to do with the article right now, but a perfectly acceptable article for Wikipedia, if the sources exist. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting example. More likely it would feature "Prof. Prefect defines a superpower/bipolarity XYZ", "In his book he talks about how current trends relate to the criteria for superpower status: example 1,2,3,4...", "Prof. Beeblebrox defines a superpower/bipolarity ABC", "In her book she talks about these other current trends and how they relate to the criteria for superpower status." One structural problem with such an article is that there are very few books or papers written specifically against such a point, i.e. there are no journal articles with the title "Why China Won't Be a Superpower", even though a number of people do not believe China will be the next superpower. As such, the article would most assuredly be one-sided, and run into potential NPOV problems. Finally, there would need to be some way to resolve the namespace problem, such that it doesn't presuppose a speculative outcome.—Perceval 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. They are excellent articles, it just the use of the words "emerging" and "superpower" that are controversial. Rename to International power of Foo. That way we could potentially have one for every country without have to categorise them as a "superpower" or "middle power", etc. Kevlar67 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles don't strictly discuss international power. They discuss domestic factors, such as economic strength and social issues. Moreover, is there a definition for what factor constitutes international power and what doesn't?—Perceval 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and repurpose articles... maybe? Without having more time to thoroughly review these articles, I have to say they appear at least on the surface to be well written and generally well referenced, at least for purposes of verifying individual facts. I agree with the nominator that the overall theme of whether or not a country will become a "superpower" is original research, though, and quite speculative. While I do think these articles need to be altered to remove the speculative properties, I also suspect there is quite a bit of useful, verifiable information about these countries within these articles. And since the articles are quite large, merging that information directly into the main article on each country might be problematic. I'm guessing that the ideal solution would be to rename and repurpose the articles so that they discuss various significant geopolitical and economic factors about the country, and link it as a subarticle to the country's main article. Also, if possible, locate a few more secondary references that contain similar analysis to whatever original analysis is contained in the articles so that those bits of potential OR can be backed up by published analysis saying similar things.
Worst case, I would suggest deleting the articles but copying and pasting them into user space as draft articles. That way all the text of these articles can be preserved and modified as desired, and hopefully the above issues about OR and author speculation can be properly addressed and a modified set of articles without those problems can be speculated. Dugwiki 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't advise transferring the information to the main article for each country. Each of these articles breaks down evidence into military, economic, political, social spheres. Thus, I think that raw data might be transferred to the Military of China, Economy of China, Politics of China, Demographics of China, Culture of China articles. But the argumentative synthesis of the raw data into "reasons why China might be a superpower someday" must go.—Perceval 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how renamed and repurposed, they are still position papers, and position players don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project space The articles have two problems:
  1. The refactoring into pro and con a conjecture, with no evidence that the conjecture has attracted significant attention in academic or popular discourse. I.e., who are the prominent adherents of the various positions on the issue and what are their positions?
  2. They are functional duplicates of various content forks of the country articles. Functional meaning they're probably not identical (didn't check) but overlap in scope.
So to mine the additional material that's not yet in those content forks the articles here should be moved into project space. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another thing to note is that the articles don't provide why those various factors will help or hinder China's predicted superpower status. The article outright throws a bunch of numbers to readers without any real context. While things like "While China runs a trade deficit with India, it has trade surpluses with other South Asian economies (including Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan)." fit right into forks of China, they don't help me see the relevance of this to being a future superpower. The article is literally a collection of factoids that various editors deem important to future development, but without the glue to hold it together. Good thing, I suppose, since that glue would be original research.' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Tough call in many ways, though. There is something to be written about "China as an emerging superpower" -- i.e., who says it is? who says it isn't? who says (like the nominator) that the concept is too fuzzy to mean anything? what do people say about it? There is a lot of cruft in the articles. But deletion is not a solution to problems one resolves by editing! Please drop me a line on talk if you think I'm missing something. Sdedeo (tips) 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious as to why you strongly favor keeping it when you acknowledge that there are a lot of unclear factors. The problem is not necessarily with content--most of which is cited. The problem is whether such an article can avoid being inherently original research, when based on a speculation about a long-off future event, and with a built-in assumption that the world will become bipolar rather than multipolar (an event that has little or nothing to do with the absolute material capabilities of one country, but is related to the relative capabilities of all countries in the international system). In this sense, the article not only speculates about the future power of one country, but in the namespace alone makes an assumption about the power capabilities of all states 15+ years into the future.—Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've said on my talk page, I think the solution here is to tack an OR tag on and comb out the sludge. There's no question that there can be (and should be!) an article discussing the different answers people have given to whether or not China's going to be a "superpower." As long as we report on speculation, it's fine. If you have a namespace problem, AfD is not the way to go. It's a "strong" keep because these are AfDs on very highly developed articles worked on by many (and I think a fourth nomination for AfD is excessive.) Sdedeo (tips) 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put these articles up for AFD because I didn't think an OR tag would be enough--the articles are defective in their fundamental premise. I appreciate that they are highly developed, and the raw data used can be used elsewhere profitably, but the premise of the article is one that cannot avoid OR and is inherently based on speculative presuppositions. There's a reason why these articles keep getting nominated for AFD.—Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The terms are widely used in mainstream works.Bakaman 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not whether or not the term is used widely. I don't think anyone disputes that there are a number of news stories discussing these countries and their tremendous growth. The problem is whether an article based entirely on speculation of a distant future event ought to be included in Wikipedia. Checking WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, point #3, indicates that articles about distant predicted events are not acceptable, even if they are widely used terms.—Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the exact point you reference: "we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." I think this is the crux here: are there enough essays or credible research on the question of China's superpower status? (I believe the answer is trivially "yes" -- am I mistaken?) Sdedeo (tips) 05:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are essays trying to predict how the structure of the international system will change, certainly. But they are essentially speculation--speculation based on theory and trends, but speculation nonetheless. Point #3 states that extrapolation and speculation are disallowed, and that's what this article is: extrapolating current trends to speculate on China's rise to superpower status. Point #1 states that future events are permissible "only ... if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Certainly, China's rise would be notable, but it is not at all certain to take place. Moreover, that it rises specifically to become a superpower (in a bipolar system) rather than as one of many great powers (in a multipolar system) is even less certain to take place.—Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't get it. P#3 explicitly says that we should have articles covering speculation about future events if the speculation is credible and notable. Period. (?) Sdedeo (tips) 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it does. But the articles are not about credible research. They are mostly primary source material about China's GDP, military size, demographics or China's social problems, etc. I have a valuable discussion above with trialsanderrors regarding what an article based on credible research might look like. However, I still maintain that such an article would be inherently misleading because of the built-in assumptions about systemic polarity (that the world will become bipolar instead of multipolar). Further, they are speculation about an event proposed to happen at the very least a decade into the future. Point #1 says that an article about the "2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The same would apply to China because of the long time span regarding its potential rise.—Perceval 08:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have a bunch of complaints that you have confused. One is that the page as is has lots of OR. Solution: comb out OR or add OR tag. The next is that you think that people who ask if China is going to be a superpower are wrong to do so. Solution: find credible sources that say same and create "criticising the question" section. Finally, you repeat the claim that P#3 does not apply and P#1 does, which we've already discussed. Sdedeo (tips) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Those are not my arguments. I argue that the concept of the page itself leads to OR: all the facts are well cited, but the facts are synthesized (chosen, placed together, justified) to make an original point. The facts are not there to back up a published expert's claim, they are there because the editors chose those particular factors as important. That is original research. You can't comb out OR when the whole concept of the page is OR. Second, I don't think it's wrong to ask if China will be a superpower. What I'm saying is that China becoming a superpower is not dependent on China--superpower status is based on relative not absolute power. So listing a bunch of facts about China is meaningless, no matter how well cited, because China as a superpower is dependent on two things: its power relative to every other powerful state in the international system, and whether the system changes from unipolarity to bipolarity or multipolarity. Neither of these things can be examined by listing the attributes or issues facing China. Finally, point #3 says that we can have articles about credible research that is predictive, but these essays are not about credible research, they are research. Where are there any authors discussed who put forward research on China as a superpower, not simply speculation? Are any china-superpower theorists given a section or even named in the text? No there aren't. The only people named are those cited for specific facts used to support the broader points being made by the editors.—Perceval 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to misunderstand you. I think we agree that an article along the lines of "Summary of discussion of 'China as superpower' from notable sources" is something wikipedia should have? Sdedeo (tips) 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't go so far as to say "should". For instance, articles on books or authors who put forth such theories are certainly viable, as long as those articles describe and summarize the argument rather than finding facts to buttress it. If we eventually amass a collection of such individual articles, I would not be against a survey article that overviews all of the individual articles and provides links back to them. But I don't think we should set out with the object of a "china as a superpower" article.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all merge useful information. I thin that we have a conception of 'superpower' which has different aspects such as economy, military, etc. There is nothing wrong with economy of China citing a reference to China's impending superpower status. The problem is we don't know the final outcome and calling it "emerging superpower" is drawing conclusions about an unfinished game. The United States as an emerging superpower is already an article... we just call it History of the United States (1918–1945). If China/Indian/EU is considered a superpower someday then the time of their emergence will get a history article. Until then we will cover the growth in economic, etc. articles. As a secondary resort I would accept rename all to International power of foo because it at least does not attempt to predict the future. gren グレン 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with rename all is that there is no standard by which to judge "international power". Realists judge military capabilities and economic production, Liberals judge regime type, economic development, weight within international institutions, Marxists judge on a core-periphery analysis of the state and by the character of its economic system, etc. Which capabilities are the relevant ones for international power in that case--do you choose one theory (an bias the article) or choose all theories (and make a bizarre synthesis of all the theories together)? Moreover, which capabilities are international capabilities and which are domestic capabilities? These articles discuss a lot of things that are essentially domestic --internal social instability, national culture, etc. International power of Foo would be just as much original research as these articles. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about USA as emerging superpower == history of the united states (1918–1945). Spot on!—Perceval 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough, but then what do we do with the article superpower when the reader gets to the end of 1991 and suddenly they are supposed to not notice that we don't mention any recent history? Somehow we have to convey the geopolitical history of the last 15 years. Suggestions are welcome. Kevlar67 05:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of the superpower article is OR as well. But, the superpower article should address: what a superpower is, what academic or popular definitions of it are, which states have been superpowers (only two: USA and USSR, post-1991 only the USA). No need to include long-winded speculation about what country the next superpower will be. It would not be out of bounds to mention various states that have been considered possible challengers to the United States, with appropriate citations, but I would stop short of marshalling evidence on behalf of those nations. That would cross the line into OR.—Perceval 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Rename. The worst article out of the lot is the China one, which mentions heaps of things without relating them to the superpower status at all. But can anyone disagree with these things:
  • Wikipedia seeks to provide information
  • These rises are currently very well documented in both media and academia
  • These articles do not predict that a country is going to be a superpower, they are articles on the SPECULATION which is CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE which relates to the countries and their superpower status
  • The articles are very well sources, the problems are only that the sources are used to say they are going to become a superpower when the sources may have nothing to do with it. Leading to Original Research.
  • These articles nevertheless present good information about a subject in a convenient ___location for readers.
  • Thus these articles should stay in Wikipedia.

Under those conditions, I don't think it's worth deleting these articles. That's the view carried in past 3 AFDs as well. The first few votes talked a lot about Perceval's nomination. I urge you to read the articles, there are POV problems, but the article is both thorough and extremely well sourced, more than numerous other articles on Wikipedia. It would be a shame to remove the articles...a real shame. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobleeagle, it's not about the articles being sourced. Anyone can see that every fact presented has a source, sometimes multiple. The problem is the inherent assumption contained in the article's premise, and the synthesis of these primary sources which advances an argument. 1) There is no commonly accepted criteria for superpower status - so listing all the material and cultural factors for a country's rise is meaningless, and there is no clear point at which China could be said to be a superpower. 2) Superpower is a label applied to bipolar or unipolar powers, thus it is not a measure of absolute capabilites, but of relative capabilities within the international system. Thus, presenting a list of factors in one country's rise has nothing to do with whether it will or will not become a superpower. What matters is the relative growth and decline of all powers within the international system, and which capabilities/factors are considered relevant to the measure of a country's power. The article does not and cannot provide that relative context, and provides no criteria on what factors are relevant to a state's power (a subject upon which there is wide disagreement within IR theorists, as you should know). 3) WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL does not allow articles speculating on events that might possibly occur in several decades maybe, based on extrapolation of current trends. It's original research, plain and simple. 4) The primary source data can easily be used on the relevant country subpages (Culture in China, Demographics in China, Economy in China, etc), so none of that research will be lost. 5) The articles are not about current theories on China's rise--no authors or their theories are cited by name, no sections are devoted to individual authors and their criteria or definitions. These articles present primary data synthesized to argue one side or the other, and the primary data is assembled not based on published theories but on the editors' whims.—Perceval 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename This article covers a referenced and notable intilectual concept. This article should stay. Perhaps it should be renamed and given a less speculative title. The article is relatively well-referenced and provides the reader with information on China's current world-power status. Signaturebrendel 06:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All These kind of speculative articles are very un-encyclopedic and annoying. Just because they source other people who state their predictions of the future doesn't make this a real topic; an encyclopedia doesn't have a list of oracular speculations by different people. Who goes to an encyclopedia searching for an article on "_____ as an emerging superpower" anyway? Besides, the articles are always at risk of selective referencing that emphasizes a certain view. The POV emphasized is in support of the country becoming a superpower. These articles are like POV forks except that there are no articles for the other POV. They are inherently dedicated to a POV. And honestly, could anyone here get away with an article about China as a Doomed Nation or India as a Failing Failure? Of course, those titles are exaggerating the concept, but my point is that people would find the other half of the POV fork unacceptable, and so this half should also be unacceptable. Even if there were opposing POV articles, the obvious action would be to integrate these into a neutral whole, assuming that the "oracle" problem is resolved. In sum, these speculative compendiums of carefully selected trends and quotes have no place in an encyclopedia that aims to be a neutral repository of verifiable facts taken from reliable sources. They are antithetical to the encyclopedia's goals. The Behnam 07:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, and there's no bright line, preventing anyone from writing an article about any country. Search for Iran as an emerging superpower and you get results. Brazil too. Someone, somewhere is willing to write about it--and then we'll have a multiplication of these articles on nearly every big country, because every nationalist wants to have their country represented in Wikipedia as the next emerging superpower. They'll fill it up with all the primary source information on GDP growth and military power that the current articles on China/India/EU have. But there remains no standard upon which we can say yes to India but no to Brazil. Moreover, where does it stop? Next we'll have Uzbekistan as an emerging regional power, Argentina as an emerging regional power, Indonesia as an emerging regional power, and on. This is the problem with speculative articles--there's no way to say no once you've opened up the floodgates to articles about what might possibly happen decades from now maybe.—Perceval 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forgot Wikipedia as emerging superpower. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In all it's deletion debates, the same point has been raised. Where does it stop, note that in a year of this article being present, the others are not. The issue is of notability, while China and India have notable speculation on its rise. Iran does not. If you search Iran as an emerging superpower, you get results, out of which the first result is about Iran, and the rest are about China and India as emerging superpowers. So those google results are misleading. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you look beyond only three results, there are plenty about Iran, so the results are not misleading. The 1st one is definitely about Iran, the second and third link to the Wikipedia articles up for deletion for China and India as emerging superpowers. Obviously, it is not the way that the phrase is usually used in the sources, which of course questions the naming again. But do not mislead others by saying that the results are misleading; plenty of those after the 1st three address Iran power. The Behnam 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Nobleeagle and BrendelSignature, except that I do not support renaming the articles. The article names are good, and most of the suggestions thus far have not been. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - possible canvassing by User:Nobleeagle; see [71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77]. Some of these users appear to be people that may be expected to give a "keep" response based upon their views regarding power in international relations, or because of the specific countries involved. I cannot help but notice that these a few of these users did indeed show up and give "keep" votes. The Behnam 22:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are users that have worked with the articles, I don't at all support Perceval's deletion of pages without informing the main editors to the pages. They are also members of WikiProject Power in international relations. To not one user did I tell them what to vote, I told them that it was up for deletion, to inform them. Indeed, one user I contacted told me on my talk page that "something has to be done with the articles, because at the moment they are like essays". I'm sorry if you take my actions wrongly, but I feel I have done nothing wrong by telling involved users about the article. I thought it was general Wikiquette to tell the largest contributors that the article they have spent time on is up for deletion. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors contacted, I must state that I think the accusation of canvassing is unfair. These users are simply the interested parties, and no advice was given (at least not to me—and I've heard no mention of any such advice). CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If those are significant contributors, it's in fact considered good etiquette to informa them neutrally about the discussion. The same can be done with prior AfD participants. See WP:AFD, WP:CANVASS and the talk page discussion there. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to raise the possibility for comment, not actually accuse Nobleeagle in any "for sure" way. The wording of all of the notifications was neutral of course, but it can still be votestacking if it is clear that a certain user will vote a certain way just upon any notification of the debate. I don't think all of the cases were this clear, but some of them are arguable, such as those users who were active in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Power_in_international_relations. The most blatant example is of that Rumpelstiltskin character; his strong pro-Indian and pro-Hindu POV warring on a variety of articles leaves no doubt that he would vote "keep" here. In any case, its good that I received some feedback on the plausibility of the "canvassing" idea, but no, I didn't mean to actually accuse you at this point. Sorry if it seemed that way. The Behnam 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This material should be merged into relevant super topics like "Economy of China", "Foreign Relations of China" et al, sans the original research, which a lot of the article currently consists of. I was originally going to say weak keep or rename, but after reading the article a bit more carefully and really thinking about it, I changed my mind. My basic problem is this...an encyclopedia is a catalog of "things that exist". "Things" can be concepts, ideas, phyiscal objects...blah blah. Wikipedia is the same, except the medium allows it to track changes in those "things". That's where it get dangerous. Some things do not change over a relevant time scale, like the size and composition of a planet, and on the other side, some things change rapidly. The very title of the article, and most notably, the word "emerging", suggests the latter. Look at it this way, if this were the title of a book or an article, its corresponding encyclopedia entry would be to describe the book, not to present the underlying material to the reader that is engineered to advance that books argument. That is what this article represents...a thinly veiled attempt to advance an argument based on a vast collection of sources taken together. Sounds like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Most of the content here is well organized, and possibly useful. However taken together, with the title, and the content, and the way that it is presented, it is clearly original research by synthesis.--IRelayer 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not deny that the articles need changes and possible chopping down, they use primary sources too often and would be better if every source referred to the nation's actual superpower emergence. but I would like to draw an analogy. There is an article called Effects of global warming, which details future effects that may or may not occur relating to global warming. Much of the article is well written and is attibuted to particular people, which is what this article needs. However, the concept is the same: Effects of global warming is speculation over a future event that may or may not occur, but the speculation itself is a very current event. Similarly, emerging superpower hypotheses are speculation over a future event, but the speculation itself is a very current event. The articles tend not to say that "The Chinese military will become better than the United States by 21 May 2014", it says stuff about the recent military rise that is currently troubling the United States. Both articles are well sourced, both possess the same premise. The emerging superpower concept is similar to the future global warming impacts concept, if the latter belongs to Wikipedia, so does the former. Thus the concerns don't relate to the concept and their validity (unless Perceval wishes to nominate Effects of global warming for deletion), the concerns relate to the OR and Primary Source use which is presented in the article. To fix these things, you use a TALK PAGE, not an AFD, Perceval hasn't even bothered touching the talk page and telling everyone his concerns so that the articles can be helped. If you say delete because of the concept of the emerging superpower doesn't belong to Wikipedia, then what are your views on the global warming hypotheses on Wikipedia, if you say delete because the article is OR, then that's not the way to go, you instead should tag the article and place messages on talk pages. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobleeagle, I respect your opinion on this and other deletion candidates, but I don't believe your comparison to Effects of global warming is valid. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that mainly concern future events. Video games and movies with an impending future release dates are good examples, but some of the more prominent ones are: Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth, Eschatology, and Ultimate fate of the universe. These articles have one thing in common in terms of structure: they are all primarily summaries of documented, sourced theories relating to a number of topics. The difference between these (and the global warming article) and the article under discussion is that the latter is a collection of facts (figures, statistics...primary sources) combined in such a way to present a unified theory OF ITS OWN that does not appear anywhere in the source material. In other words, the articles I mentioned all present documented theoretical information relating to a central topic whereas this article presents a collection of seperate facts as one theory, the theory that China is "emerging" as a superpower. If the article instead presented theories from political scientists, historians, and such, it would be acceptable, but as it stands, it is problematic and original research.--IRelayer 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, on my talk page Nobleeagle and I discussed the comparison and my position was as follows: ":Effects of global warming is not a perfect article, and it's not free from original research. However, it is leagues better than the emerging superpowers series. #1, it is not inherently predicated upon an assumption: the superpowers series assumes that polarity will shift from unipolarity to bipolarity, while it is just as plausible that polarity will shift from unipolarity to multipolarity (in which case there would be no superpowers, but simply a set of great powers). #2, it discusses individual authors' theories one by one and attributes those theories directly in the text. Take a look at the first major section: Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather. Each paragraph begins with the particular theorist/paper/book/etc and discusses their particular contention. The article, for the most part, does not marshal primary source data chosen by wikipedians and assembled by wikipedians as evidence, unlike the superpower articles. #3, the relevant indicators chosen by scientists are scientific, and thus not nearly as arbitrary. Indicators chosen in political science are far more arbitrary, and rely principally upon the author's theoretical school (realism, liberalism, marxism, constructivism). While there is an objective measurement of global temperature and climate change, there is no objective measurement of what constitutes a superpower much less what constitutes state power within the international system."—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible New Format - I have experimented with a possible new format to the articles which is here for India and here for China. I'm not sure about the EU article, because I'm not one that considers the EU to be a functioning state to the capacity in which it can be branded with such titles. But please don't vote delete simply because the EU one is a dodgy concept in itself. If the article survives deletion I urge everyone to help me make them more encylopaedic by expanding the articles with a new format which is not so dogged by OR. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all--68.196.36.226 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote was by an IP address with two edits.--IRelayer 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, it could simply be the ISP uses dynamic IPs, like mine does 88.104.185.62 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the first edit, you will see that it is actually the IP address of User:Dangerous-Boy, who has said "keep all" below so I suggest this "vote" be removed. Then again the admin closing this debate can realise that the the "keep all" (without further comments) adds absolutely nothing to the discussion because Wikipedia is not a democracy, where voting decides. GizzaChat © 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename--The information in this page is highly usefull and should not be deleted or salvaged since this article gathers all relevant information into one place ergo salvaging it would merely make it harder to access. Renaming seems to be the best solution since it would seem to be a perfect compromise between keeping the information and taking in the views of the deleteists (is that term correct?).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antonine (talk • contribs).
Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, keep, keep (strong, speedy keep) - Sourced by a billion and one news articles, books etc; BBC news is forever running "in-depth" sections of its site to China as an emerging superpower, on BBC News 24, it ran precicely this article for a whole WEEK of programmes Michael Howard came out about an EU superpower during an election campaign, for gawds sake! How one can argue with such compelling media support is beyond me. Plus, this is the fourth time the articles has been attempted to be deleted. Granted, they are controversial, but what isn't on Wikipedia.... I mean I suggest you look RIGHT NOW at the BBC site:

Number one most emailed story on the BBC News website:

Will India make the breakthrough [as a Superpower]? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6280027.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/map.stm

They're running a whole WEEK of special reports on it and we're thinking of deleting it! I mean, come on! Get a grip people...

Oh yeah, while you're there, look at their "in depth" special reports on:

India Rising http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2007/india_rising/default.stm Emerging Giants http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2006/emerging_giants/default.stm and various bits and bobs in Inside Europe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2003/inside_europe/default.stm

We would understand if you haven't seen these articles and want to change your vote now; but you're embarassing yourself if you continue to suggest you're right and mass media is wrong. 88.104.185.62 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah and Wikipedia articles should not be written about predictions of future events, it's that simple, no matter how many primary sources are used to back up one side or the other side of the case? Will you be nominating the Global Warming article for deletion? Or the 2008 Presidential race article? Or the Death article? Or the First Contact article. Verifiable speculation on future events does have a place in an encyclopaedia. 88.104.185.62 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles is a position paper (except possibly for global warming); these are. --Nlu (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to try deleting "Global Warming", since it is essentially a position paper backed up by a bunch of scientists. Perhaps the science allegedly involved prevents the deletion from happening. Science tends to be whatever description of reality that is agreed upon by considering the known information, and is usually the conclusion that every logical scientist will reach if they look at the evidence. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of "emerging superpower" opinion pieces. People usually have to put this forward, and then select specific evidence to back it up. It is a POV; others could select different evidence to show that the country is going down the tubes. There isn't a 'scientific' way to make these assertions. And while I could perhaps make, as previously mentioned, an India as a Failing Failure article, or have certain Pakistani people make it for me, this wouldn't be tolerated because it would attempt to defame and insult that country, and imply that the country is headed nowhere. And yet there is the opposite article, that serves to puff up a country based on a few editorials on the internet! Hopefully, these halves-of-a-POV fork will be deleted to stop this unscientific silliness. The Behnam 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, clearly your "half of a POV" statement crumbles under the fact great pains have been taken to include opposing opinions - both POV's are clearly present and no conclusion is reached, to the fury of the nationalists and the detractors alike (apart from in, possibly, the title. Gramatically it does not invite a conclusion but describes an argument. Practically, it seems to. Perhaps it should argued for it to be changed to perhaps "Probablity of China pertaining superpower status" or something similarly long-winded, but that does not require an AfD). The reader is, throughout, invited to make their own judgements on the basis of the facts and the opinions of the media, but only the information is provided; a la an encylopaedia. 88.104.185.62 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the token criticism added is editorial. It communicates that the country will be a superpower once it addresses a few certain problems. Besides, the "emerging" idea is favored here; the criticisms added simply signify why the country is not yet a superpower. These types of articles are unworkable, un-encyclopedia opionion pieces. The Behnam 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. So pointing out the problems the country faces in becoming a superpower is supporting the view that it will become one? The problems signified are the hurdles that must be overcome. I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Criticising China's human rights record, India's troubles with Pakistan and the EU's fractured nature is certainly not something I'd have in the article if I was trying to make it one sided!! 88.104.185.62 00:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you didn't really convince me that it didn't make sense. GOTO my original argument. The Behnam 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a problem of POV, it's a problem of OR. It could be perfectly NPOV to a fault, but it doesn't matter if it's OR.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rubbish. Clearly the BBC think otherwise. 88.104.185.62 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's sad for Wikipedia that it's been allowed to go this far, and be defeated, four times. There should be a limit on the amount of times things are allowed to be put up for deletion. 88.104.185.62 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88.104.185.62, the article clearly violates WP:OR as written and presented. All of your points, while valid for general information purposes, are irrelevant to Wikipedia. To address your points specifically, the fact that the BBC thinks the concept of "China as an emerging superpower" is important does not necessarily mean that the concept as written and presented is worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. The BBC is a news agency, not an encyclopedia, and more importantly, BBC reporters are allowed to editorialize and provide opinions, whereas Wikipedia articles are supposed to satisfy WP:NPOV, among other criteria for inclusion. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, if you have not already done so, as you seem to be a new user and all of your edits thus far relate to this topic and you are not using an account.--IRelayer 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As the nominator says, these articles are original research. Of course, Wikipedia could (and should) cite secondary sources that say that China, India, et al. are emerging superpowers (e.g., "according to the political scientist John Q. Public, China's rapidly growing economy and military power place it among the ranks of emerging superpowers...") but it would be more effective to do so in articles such as History of the People's Republic of China rather than articles of the type "X as an emerging superpower" which are almost inherently going to be OR. It seems like there's an NPOV problem here as well, in that these articles seem to be written to prove that country X, Y, or Z is an emerging superpower, rather than reporting the range of opinion found in reliable secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Akhilleus. Rama's arrow 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I was observing the discussion for awhile and refrained for commenting since I hadn't made my mind up. But IRelayer and Akhilleus have nailed the problem with these articles so I have changed my stance from the last nomination. The information isn't necessarily bad, it is just not in the right place. GizzaChat © 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The articles were the original brainwave of filibustering horoscope-toting narcissists. They read like a kindergarten wishlist. However Keep China as an emerging superpower and European Union as an emerging superpower as the evidence from international sources is multiplying year on year. Anwar 12:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So wouldn't it be better to term your vote as Keep EU and China only. Also note that the European Union as an emerging superpower was set to be renamed by some because if one were to count the European Union as a fully functioning unit, then it is not emerging and some analysts actually refer to it as a superpower, while others don't believe it is united. The EU's case as an emerging superpower isn't so and isn't multiplying year on year, basically it needs to fully integrate and unite and then it would be as strong as the US. I won't comment further on your vote but it came as no surprise, you're back to the voting stage :). — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator makes a very strong case for deletion, but the articles speak for themselves. They are well-organized, well-sourced, adorned with photos - and their neutrality is preserved by the section "Factors against X becoming a superpower." Others have made arguments as to why these articles are not original research. I just can't see deleting such wonderful work: I learned many things from reading the articles while evaluating this case. YechielMan 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same praises can be given to, for example, Hillary Clinton's autobiography. That would not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Nlu, and keep in mind that the debate is not over the number of pictures, the quality of the prose, the number of sources, the organization, or even the neutrality. It's over original research and presupposed futures and speculation. It may be wonderful OR but it's still OR.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both votes above discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as original research. These aren't articles on speculation, they are articles composed of speculation. They don't recount actual academic research on the subject; rather, they recount economic statistics, military information, etc. taken from sources having nothing to do with the country as a superpower, and assimilate them into an argument. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. Each of these should be dealt with in individual AfD nominations. --Hemlock Martinis 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are all three based on the same implicit assumptions, premises, and each structurally advances an original thesis. Since the articles are all clearly related, and all deal with the same type of premise, it is appropriate to deal with them in one go.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, POV forking (in some of the cases), OR mix-ups, 'super power' very difficult to define in current context (many different definitions in common usage, no consensus), but most of all wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Soman 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoever keeps on wiping the "nominated for deletion tag" off the China page is clearly trying to influence the results and needs to stop88.104.145.174 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and keep all These are obvious signs that are already changing, not just predictions. China's rapidly increasing GDP is not a prediction. This is also true with their technology as well. Factors that keep China from becoming a superpower are agreeable too. Its political troubles with Taiwan and human rights accusations, etc etc are all true. This article has been nicely written with a lot of data and much effort put into it, as well as the other articles. I think a change in the title is fine. This article is overall very informative for anyone who wishes to learn about China becoming a superpower. Good friend100 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody claims that the economic data can't be added to the economy of China article, or that military advances cannot be added to the military of China article, same for Taiwan, etc... But the page, even when renamed, still violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sijo Ripa 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you work that one out? As I've said, it's not original research because it's well sourced in the media and it has a neutral point of view because both sides of the argument are presented. Every other sentence doubles back on itself, for god's sake! 88.104.240.179 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88.104.240.179, please create an account. It would make things a lot easier. Your insistence on using your IP address(es) over a relatively long period of time, and the fact that this use focuses only on this debate, casts doubt on your intentions. I say this for your benefit...per the AFD page, opinions from unregistered users like yourself may be discounted or weighed less heavily. The article does not deserve to stand JUST BECAUSE it satisfies WP:NPOV. I can write an unbiased, balanced paper on the advantages and disadvantages of birth control methods, but this would consititute OR by synthesis. It is original, and thus does not belong on an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with IRelayer on this score: while it is admirable that the articles are so well cited and do a good job at maintaining NPOV, that does not change the fact that they are OR. They do not present the theses of other authors but present their own raw data organized and presented as designed by the editors of the article, not published experts.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered users are just as welcome to vote on AfD... and if I created an account with no edits, it would simply move onto being accused of sockpuppetry. WP:Assume good faith I agree with you, but it's pointless creating an account just to vote because it invites controversy. 88.104.235.255 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and aswell it doesn't matter that my IP's are all different and dynamic, because we've not had a large amount of IP's voting "keep". And even if that did happen, you'll see my account is a Tiscali account using WHOIS, and a quick bit of research will discover Tiscali uses dynamic IP's, therby proving me innocent. We are unlikely to have a problem unless a rush of Tiscali users without accounts come to vote "keep" !! Haha 88.104.235.255 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if this page is deleted, won't it simply be easily overturned because it was deleted out of process? Some Delete voters have clearly said they would like to see the EU and China articles kept... the articles can't be lumped together and the nominator should be kicking themselves if they want rid of any of the articles for good. 88.104.240.179 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just take a look to see if any individual article has consensus for 'keep' based on this page. Despite the few who have said that they want certain ones to be kept, the overall picture points towards deleting all of them. The Behnam 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, someone clearly can't add? 18 are in favour of deleting the articles, 21 are in favour of keeping them in some form or another. 88.104.235.255 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are not a vote, they're an attempt to forge a rough consensus.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, but one could write an article on the discussion of countries becoming superpowers, surely? Computerjoe's talk 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A country becoming a superpower is a prediction or presupposition of the structure of the international system. Superpower is a term indicating relative not absolute power. That means that China could become a superpower without growing at all--all that would be required would be the decline of its rivals (the U.S., Europe, Japan, Russia, India, etc). Writing a story about China becoming a superpower filled with facts about the country's material advancement is inherently confused and misleading, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of relative power vs. absolute power. Moreover, suppose all potential challengers to the U.S. grew quickly, not just one. Then the world would not move to a bipolar system (with two superpowers), but to a multipolar system (in which the term superpower is not used, but "great power" usually is). Thus an article about China becoming a superpower also presupposes that no other countries will grow quickly enough to become a challenger. You can see why writing an article about a country becoming a superpower is therefore inherently problematic: it misunderstands the concept of a superpower on two levels (relative power vs absolute power, and bipolarity vs multipolarity). Wikipedia articles should not be premised on an erroneous speculative prediction.—Perceval 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is not very clear, it seems to have a general difficulty with the term "emerging superpower". But we hear the term and these topics practically everyday on radio nowadays. The articles are well cited, many references directly discuss the emergence of these entities as superpower. Reading the China article, I find it well-written, accurate, and balanced. I don't see an "advance of position" because both sides are equally presented. I will however consider changing my vote if someone could point out specific examples of significant factual errors or original speculations in these articles. --Vsion 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, good articles, notable subjects. Everyking 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 7 February 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. - brenneman 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Saxon

edit

This article appears to be claiming its subject is notable in the UK entertainment industry, but the only available sources are geocities sites which may have even been written by the subject himself. It may not be possible to have an article about this subject which is compliant with the verifiability and NPOV policies, or the WP:BIO guidelines. -- zzuuzz(talk) 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article states subject directed plays, but fails to say where and with whom. The only reputable reference sources cited don't have dates or article names. The article gives the impression that he performed for Madonna, but a closer inspection indicates that he performed in a private suite at the stadium where Madonna was singing. Nothing there satisfies WP:BIO or WP:V. Caknuck 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a substantial rewrite, nonetheless. This is an article with potential, but needs a cleanup and removal of weasel words and NPOV statements. The article does have a number of sources that I believe could be better utilized to provide a more balanced and factual encyclopedia entry. --Xnuala 11:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can verify notability using reliable sources. The links presently in the article still don't do this. I used the "search" function on the The Stage's web site and came up with nothing. A Google search on "Robert Saxon" + Phoenix turned up nothing from a reliable source to verify notability. Perhaps this person will be eligible for a Wikipedia article in the future as his career advances. --A. B. (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just checked on LexisNexis for any mentions of Robert Saxon in the UK national or regional papers during the last 20 years: nothing, not one mention (unless he is also a sex offender from Preston now aged either 38 or 39 - see the Lancashire Evening Post, September 2, 2004). TestBed
  • Delete for the same reasons above - NN. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a bit effusive (nothing that an experienced editor can't cure) but the subject is notable. All it needs is a cleanup and more specific references will improve the verifiability. LittleOldMe 11:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on the notability part of your comment? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 13:09, 7 February 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 keep. Given that Pizzazz's only contributions ever to Wikipedia have been to repeatedly nominate this article for deletion, this is clearly an attempt to disrupt, rather than to discuss the deletion of an article. Uncle G 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

edit
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted. A POVish "unencyclopedia" list. Little or no references to support inclusion. Speedy Delete and salt the Earth. [78] Pizzazz 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)— Pizzazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What? Again? Speedy Keep as another bad faith nom by a single purpose account. Can the closing admin give a warning for this? -- Kesh 17:29, 1 February 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. - Bobet 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade T. Wilson

edit
Wade T. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User created this article about himself and lacks notability. Calltech 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hardly any ghits for subject's books The Computer Nomad: Use the Internet to Live, Love and Prosper Anywhere in the World and The Bouncer of Blueball. Most recent book appears to be a self-published e-book. Nothing to assert notability. Caknuck 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bouncer of Blueball has been published by ebooksonthe.net. It is available as an ebook right now, and later in the year will come out in print. Fantasy Islands was published by Roam Publishing, available through several national distributors and Amazon.com (ISBN 0966536800). It is out of print but now available from several ebook dealers including Mobipocket.com. The Computer Nomad has a web site at computernomad.com and has not yet been published. Roamp 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletevanity publishers on web or paper do not count for much.DGG 06:34, 2 February 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. Jaranda wat's sup 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concord west train disaster

edit
Concord west train disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a restatement of information already contained in Railway accidents in New South Wales. The incident has already been covered in better depth and does not need a seperate entry. Magichands 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no proof of notability (and I doubt that such proof--mention in multiple non-trivial publications--exists) and, more importantly, the information already exists in another article (with more detail and a source). Black Falcon 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really didn't give much info, only saying that there was a train crash, ___location, and two people was hurt which isn't a disaster, also an unlikely search term so no worth the redirecting, valid A1, Speedy Deleted Jaranda wat's sup 07:44, 3 February 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 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4-IZE

edit
4-IZE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was started by a user of the same name and appears not to meet criterion on WP:BIO. Fundamentaldan 20:21, 1 February 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. - brenneman 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of taco fillings

edit

trivial, non-encyclopedaic, not notable; downright ridiculous and hoax-like, really. AFDed by a IP address, I'm completing the nom. Brianyoumans 20:26, 1 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administratium

edit
Administratium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An alleged notable joke in scientific circles, but unsupported by citations. But even if supported by citations, still unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:05, 1 February 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 and cleanup, and renominate in suitable amount of time if article not expanded beyond current stub.. Avi 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Balaskas (2nd nomination)

edit
Janet Balaskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Author and active birth advocate. A prior AfD was overturned on review, with the directive that the sources should get more consideration. See the prior discussions for those sources. Proc nom, no op. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 19:03, 7 February 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 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knose

edit
Knose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

vanity page by "inventor" of non-notable instrument. Has this instrument received media notice? I didn't see any, but I only looked so far... Just plain Bill 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the author should be notified of this propposal debate also on his talk page. Tikiwont 17:14, 2 February 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. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrokinesis in fiction (recreation)

edit
Electrokinesis in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete recreation of Electrokinesis in fiction. See previous discussion.[80] Doczilla 21:59, 1 February 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. Avi 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honor of the Damned

edit
Honor of the Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Katharsis: A Fact-Based Account of Alternate History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two non-notable comics. I can't find any third-party source that would allow one to build articles that are anything other than plot summaries. Moreover, the articles were created by Americanime (talk · contribs) whose sole edits to Wikipedia (back in March last year) all concern Americanime Productions and books that they publish. In fact this diff shows that there's a clear conflict of interest issue concerning these edits. Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Avi 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by children

edit
List of Philippine Presidents by children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is no reason for this list. Listing heads of state by the number or names of children is trivia. The information belongs in the individual articles for the individual presidents. It appears to already be in each of the individual articles, so no need to merge. Otto4711 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course, a nickname is trivia, but a list of children of world leaders is not. Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of these leaders. They play an important part in the life of the leader. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and "who's that girl?" Being a child of a world leader is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Potential" political importance does not translate to actual importance. When they do something notable, then they get articles. Not before. We don't keep articles on WP on people just on the off-chance that that person "might" do something notable. Shrumster 14:23, 6 February 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 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by parentage

edit
List of Philippine Presidents by parentage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - just as with the List of Philippine Presidents by children heads of states' parents belong in the individual articles, not as a separate list. The information appears to be in the various articles, so delete. Otto4711 22:42, 1 February 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 merged. W.marsh 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Cartoon Studios

edit
Universal Cartoon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uni. Cartoon Studios is the same as Universal Animation Studios, the name was just changed when it was merged into NBC Universal. Someone keeps removing the merge proposal so I'm going the AfD route. Static Universe talk|edits 22:44, 1 February 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 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Presidents by previous occupation

edit
List of Philippine Presidents by previous occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - another in a series of arbitrarily broken-out biographical lists relating to the Philippine presidency. This information should be in the individual articles, not broken out as a list. Otto4711 22:47, 1 February 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 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changer

edit
Changer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no assertion or evidence of notability and there are no references. The article has already been deleted twice, by {{prod}} and {{db-nocontext}}, and I think it makes sense to establish whether it should stay deleted. —xyzzyn 22:44, 1 February 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 Anti-Irish racism. I don't see anything worth merging at this point since none of the article is backed with reliable sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernophobe

edit
Hibernophobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no question that Irish people suffered prejudice and racism in America and elsewhere, but the term "hibernophobe" is a neologism. It gets only 70 google hits, of which only 36 are unique[81], one google scholar hit [82] and three google books hits [83]. It is unfortunate that wikipedia does not have an article that addresses prejudice against the Irish seriously. This article has almost no content which is not available in other articles such as Irish-American. GabrielF 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded hibernophile GabrielF 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't appear to be a very commonly used word. The top hits are for Wikipedia mirrors. I couldn't find any sources to offer substantial support for the use of this word. Leebo86 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • expand into such an article as Gabriel proposes-"anti-Irish bias" or prejudice or sentiment or something. There is certainly a lot of source material for the UK, US and ANZAC, but for the untrained (I figured out what this was when I saw it), one could think it fear of bears or of winter, both noble and wise phobias. ;) Chris 03:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - This article: Anti-Irishism is also in need of sourcing, but at least has a bit more going for it than this one. I'm not sure the title is an improvement, really, but perhaps if we cobble together these stubs, and then work on expansion and sourcing, one worthy article (with a better name) can result. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - While we're all here ;-) I'd appreciate it if people could weigh in a better name for the "Anti-Irishism" article, whether here in this discussion or on that talk page. The article was originally titled, "Anti-Irish sentiment", which would be an improvement. Though I'd prefer "Anti-Irish prejudice". Thoughts? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, wikipedians have gotten in the habit of inventing terms for ethnic prejudice - see Anti-Iranianism which was just cut down from 90k to 35k after barely surviving an AfD for example. The problem with all of these -isms is that the terms don't exist outside of wikipedia and because the writer of the article is defining the terms there is a serious possibility of abuse. For example, anti-Iranianism listed as racism all sorts of actions the US and other countries had taken against Iran that were (even according to the article) motivated by political strategy and economics. The best thing to do to avoid these kinds of problems is to use the terms that scholars use. Searching Google scholar, I found over 100 citations, including a few books for either "anti-Irish racism" or anti-Irish prejudice", with significantly fewer for "anti-Irish sentiment" or "anti-Irishism". My preference would be to choose either "anti-Irish prejudice" or "anti-Irish racism". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 February 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 History of Joachim split between Joachim (Saint) and Joachim (Star Trek), Jochim itself links to disamb page, and the redirects are like tangled spaghetti, but between all of us maybe we can fix it. Place Joachim (Star Trek) on AfD on its own, this will be closed with everything kept.. Avi 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim

edit
Joachim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character EEMeltonIV 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article can use clean-up, but the character is not non-notable by any means. He has a major role in the movie - and certainly not an article for deletion. By using your criteria, half of the Star Trek entries would be deleted.

Besides, you should discuss it in the Talk pages before arbitrarily deciding by yourself something should be deleted.

TenaciousT 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have obviously never even seen Wrath of Khan, or even read the article.
Please note:
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
Abuse of tags
Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria.Drearwig 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at my edit history and you can pretty well extrapolate that I've seen STII. Additionally, you have yet to make an argument in favor of keeping this article. Perhaps rather than assuming bad faith on my part, you explain why this character warrants an article when more-significant characters like Dimitri Valtane, Michael Eddington, William Ross, and most of the other characters here don't. --EEMeltonIV 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an additional point for anyone interested in discussing the merits of whether this article should exist, Memory Alpha's article on Joachim is quite sparse. --EEMeltonIV 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just happened to see the film the other day and now come across this Afd (however it was raised) and the character is not notable enough. If it was kept, it should still be moved to Joachim (Star trek) or the like, to make space for a DAB page. Such a DAB page should be created in any case since there are mentioned a few other Joachims already on the saints page. The dab page should not only link to the saint's page (whose current name is in line with that of many other saints inluding his own wife) but also to the Star Trek film in case the character Joachim remains with out own article (which is what I am voting for) Tikiwont 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE - The last thing I wish to do is spoil a surprise, but the character Joachim plays a very large role in the upcoming movie. I propose we keep the site as is, and discuss this issue again after the buzz from the new Star Trek movie dies down. Drearwig 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE - I vote to save, for the following reasons:
  • The character has a significant role in the TOS episode "Space Seed," which was the foundation for TWOK.
  • Many film scholars have stated that TWOK is an allegory for Moby Dick, with Khan being Ahab. This being the case, Joachim is very much Khan's Starbuck; loyal, but questioning Khan's actins and motives. He is more than a mere "button-pusher." He is Khan's right-hand man.
  • In non-canon Star Trek books, Joachim is a major character, especially in the Eugenics Wars and books about life on Ceti Alpha V. Yes, it's non-canon but many readers of these Star Trek books would come to this Wikipedia page to read a biography of the character.
  • The point was made that if Michael Eddington doesn't have his own page, Joachim shouldn't either. Well, I think Eddington should have his own page! He deserves it just as much as Joachim.
  • Yes, I have heard the rumors as well that Joachim plays a major role in Star Trek XI. As time goes on, people will want to know who this guy is and this article will help refresh their memories.

TenaciousT 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, many film villains have a right hand and most of the other points above do not really result from the article itself, not to talk about sources. Tikiwont 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing that will require an administrators intervention who would (1) move the current article (if kept) to e.g. Joachim (Stra Trek) with the latest history, recreate (2) Saint John on the basis fo the above version and now (3) move back the new dab page here, all of which could have been avoided. Tikiwont 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No multiple, independent sources provided. I'm happy to change my vote to "keep" if someone can show me a couple published articles focussing on this character. —Psychonaut 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I move strongly to undue TenaciousT's edits. The original page (dealing with the deuterocanonical father of Mary) was at Joachim, but this editor, without discussion and without the use of the move tab, made some sloppy copy and paste moves. The biblical figure was not referred to as "Saint" in the primary sources. That is only a POV of the Catholic/Orthodox. This article, if it isn't deleted, should be moved to Joachim (Star Trek). Saint Joachim should be moved back to Joachim and discussion should take place through the appropriate proposed move channels. --Andrew c 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Restore religious content/Delete Star Trek content -- I didn't realize there was a previous, totally un-related Joachim article. For the reasons Andrew c outlined, Joachim should be restored/reverted to its previous content as it relates to the religious figure, and the Star Trek-related content axed. The copy-and-pasted Saint Joachim should redirect to Joachim. (I know AfD isn't a vote, but for whomever's keeping track, I'm the original nominator; don't "count" me twice.) --EEMeltonIV 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - We're not completely finished. As already said, the edits cannot be undone completely without admin. While we now have a satisfactory structere ( I did not want to imlpy that Joachim should be moved to Saint Joachim), the current Joachim article contains now inside its history also the Star Trek character, and Joachim (Star Trek) is without ist early editing history. The latter may not be a problem, but Joachim needs to be effectively restored to this version. Tikiwont 09:08, 3 February 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. AfD not needed to merge, but consensus for a merge not evident here either. W.marsh 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

edit
Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

This article does not assert the notability of the jargon. The discussion of the terms themselves is all original research. Only a couple of the terms are sourced, leaving it unverifiable. Nor is it likely that we'd be able to source either the terms or their meaning. Wikipedia is not a collection of words or definitions. Since the article appears to irreparably violate WP:NOR and WP:V, I propose that we delete it. -Will Beback · † · 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per results of previous AfD. Nom is based mainly upon WP:NOR and WP:V, both of which were refuted in the last AfD. Wooyi's argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy. dhett (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that? I expected the article to mostly feature well-known terms ("dittohead", "feminazi", "al-[media]") sometimes cited in newspaper articles on the program, but I think a lot of this stuff could have no reliable third-party source and easily qualifies as Rushcruft. Some of it seems to be article humour too. See the entry for "Long-haired, maggot-infested, phony-baloney, plastic-banana, good time rock and roll, FM types". That said, keep for the notability of those terms that are actually notable. Cool Hand Luke 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dittohead", "Feminazi", and other notable terms already have articles of their own. We also have List of political epithets that includes some more notable terms. I assume the only way to establish notability is the availability of 3rd-party references that mention the terms. How many of them on the article meet that test? Few to none, as far as I can tell. If we cut it down to the outside-sourced material well have about two entries, both for terms he calls himself. -Will Beback · † · 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think it would be better to merge those terms here. There should be a much tighter list, but they'll be independantly verified with more explaination than the current pseudo-dictionary. Cool Hand Luke 03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An argument may be made that the article uses neologisms, but the very source themselves can be found in transcripts to the show and, as such, can be linked directly to the show website itself, albeit much of it requiring a 24/7 membership. Further, merging would only create an extremely long show article. Beyond that, each entry is used (or was used, in case of some obsolete items) multiple times on the show, thus adding to their notoriety. Fwgoebel 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Merge. Not just this article, but ALL articles linked to the Rush show that concern jargon ("Dittohead"), types of speech, the show's self-referential terms, etc. -- I think TWO articles on Mr. Limbaugh is enough given their size, and redirects to appropriate retained headings would suffice. Scattering bits and pieces makes the subject matter unwieldy. The subject has deserved notoriety in popular culture, but Wiki cannot be "all things to all readers". Suggested topic heading : "Jargon and terminology of Rush Limbaugh" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfoofnik (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sarfati

edit
Jonathan Sarfati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sarfati is not sufficiently notable as either a creationist or as a chess player. Sarfati fails WP:BIO. In the previous AfD of this article(which ended with no consensus) I argued for keeping the article since additional sources had been provided by David D and because Sarfati was frequently mentioned at scienceblogs.com (which is a reliable source for most purposes). However, none of these sources mention him in a non-trivial fashion or were discussions in the comments section which are for obvious reasons, not reliabe. Even the most non-trivial of the sources simply argue against arguments he has made. A list of newspaper articles were also given in the last AfD. However, most of those are op-eds which mention Sarfati in passing or other articles which have a short blurb from him.

The claim that he is notable as a chess player is also not credible — there are no non-trivial sources about him as a chess player, and one could even argue that the current chess section constitutes a synthesis that just barely survives Wikipedia's no original research policy. Even if you google for "Jonathan Sarfati" + chess the first two pages of hits have three chess pages that mention him; the rest are creationism related sites, evolution related sites, or Wikipedia and its mirrors. The closest to anything notable about chess that I can find is that his chess standings in some tournaments have been mentioned in newspaper chess columns. See for example [84]. Some of the chess hits are just his reviews of chess books on Amazon.com such as [85]. It took me a long time to acknowledge/realize this since creationism is an issue I'm very interested in, but the conclusion is unmistakable: Sarfati is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. JoshuaZ 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "No consensus" is highly disingenuous — it was about 2-1 for keeping! Looks like his detractors will keep trying in the hope of succeeding.58.162.2.122 09:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep Found one mainstream city newspaper article which supports claim that the creationist Jonathan Sarfati was a national chess champion for NZ ("EX-WGTN MAN'S BOOK ON EVOLUTION POPULAR", Bob Shaw, 291 words, 5 February 2001, The Evening Post (NZ) via Factiva - this article also suggestst that Sarfati was quite successful as a creationist author in NZ and the US, although the journalist writes that 250,000 of his main book are "in print" rather than actually sold - this sounds like misleading inflation of a subject). A Jonathan Sarfati is listed as a national champion on a website which seems to be the official NZ chess association site (though its a bit of amateurish website)[86][87]. There's almost enough proof here for a solidly referenced claim that he is a national chess champion. No opinion on the creationist stuff - didn't look into it once the chess angle seemed to be checking out. I agree that the article should be pruned to avoid the impression of puffery / resume abuse of wikipedia. I'm also certainly open to counterarguments showing that Sarfati's claims to chess championship are dubious. Bwithh 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are still in doubt, see the official NZ chess site, the Chessgames list (which includes championship games), and most importantly, the Olimpbase list from FIDE. Furthermore, the official FIDE website confirms conclusively that it is the same person. 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment But none of this helps much in regard to him actually meeting WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since WP:BIO states 'Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport ... or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable', it does help in regard to him actually meeting that guideline. Also, a 2006 Australian Chess Federation newsletter, as pointed out previously in this article's discussion page, stated that he was a champion chess player of New Zealand ('Simultaneous Blindfold Chess Exhibition: Former New Zealand Champion FM Dr Jonathan Sarfati will play a simultaneous blindfold exhibition at Croydon Chess on Saturday, 11 February 2006 at 4pm. If time permits this will be followed by a regular simul') who is still actively recognised in the chess community. 58.162.2.122 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has written a number of books and was a member of AiG, which is definitely notable. The Chess stuff, on the other hand is not notable, and I suspect added by himself or his wife, using a pseudonym. The Chess info deserves a single sentence. Ashmoo 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that multiple book authorship and/or membership of AiG]] are sufficient as proof of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarfati works for Creation Ministries International not AiG.60.242.13.87 01:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member of AIG is not by itself notable (there are many people who work for AIG who are not notable). Writing books also by itself does not confer notability. Again, the primary criterion is whether there exist non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. I am unable to find any and all that we have above are a few mentions. JoshuaZ 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "reliable", Joshua means "non-Christian".60.242.13.87 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elenagirl and Moreschi in the previous deletion debate at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Sarfati]. This link should have been provided in the nomination. Edison 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided If the facts in the article are as stated I think he is might be notable enough. If he was really chess champion of New Zealand that should be good enough by itself, many much less accomplished sports figures have articles here. If he wrote three books which were published, not self published, that should be good enough too. I don't think that membership in an organization by itself makes a person notable however. Steve Dufour 06:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep on balance. This is tricky, because there are several partial claims. I think the real reason the articles was intended was for him as a creationist who happens to have done a small amount of published scientific work in an unrelated field. The NZ chess championship should be very easy to confirm, and is enough by itself as for any other sport. Three published books is not, unless they have some success, but these just might have done so. DGG 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as I have a conflict of interest. However, I was given to understand that Safarti was notable within the Creation/Evolution debate, and that the current "hot topic" nature of that debate would suffice for WP:NOT guidelines. Justin Eiler 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am president of one of the chess clubs (www.croydonchess.com) which has hosted Jonathan Sarfati for a blindfold simul and can confirm the other chess references above as regards his chess history (e.g. chessgames.com). I frankly suspect the Sarfati article is being targeted for deletion because of his creationist position. Shall we now go on a witch hunt and target, for example, PZ Myers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers) whose claim to fame appears to be threefold: he is a professor, he is a trenchant critic of creationists, he runs a blog. Doesn't appear to have anything like the bibliography attributed to Sarfati. Frosty 02:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't have anything to do with Sarfati being a creationist. If you noticed, the last time this article was nominated for deletion the current nominator (me) argued for keeping the article. In any event refferences to PZ Myers are at best an argument of the form WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and not terribly useful. In general, Wikipedians are not inclined to listen to arguments claiming that deletions are occuring out of bias. While the chess success may be an indication of notability, we still don't have multiple, non-trivia, independent reliable sources about Sarfati which as discussed in Wikipedia's biography policy is the most fundamental issue. JoshuaZ 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is disingenuous. JoshuaZ has a history of antagonism towards creationists, including abusing his power by banning some of them for trying to inject some fairness e.g. by removing unsourced claims as per Wiki's verification policy, while deleting sourced criticism of antitheists in their article pages. As an admin with such blatant bias, he should recuse himself from editing such articles.
      • Philip J. Rayment rightly pointed out during the last deletion attempt: 'I struggle to find an evolutionist on Wikipedia with a section titled "criticisms" or similar, but on Wikipedia it's considered POV to simply describe a creationist's beliefs. And some of the criticisms are presented as truth, such as "those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith". The only POV in this article is an anti-creationist one.'
      • In any case, JoshuaZ has produced nothing at all that wasn't discussed previously, when the attempt to delete was rejected 2-1. It is highly improper to keep trying so soon after. Nothing has changed since he wrote: "Keep per sources from David D. Also if it counts at all he has been frequently rebutted at Scienceblogs which has in the past been considered to meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)" And as shown, winning the chess championship of his country is sufficient by itself for an article entry.60.242.13.87 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarfati is not only mentioned in a nontrivial capacity, his work has been the subject of several rebuttals on TalkOrigins. The detractors can't have it both ways, and need to decide whether TalkOrigins is a reliable source, as they have previously stated, or it isn't and therefore should not be allowed to be cited as a WP:RS for any article on Wikipedia because WP:RS cannot be cherry-picked to suit an editor's whim. As only one example of many WP:RS (NAiG, ChristianAnswers.net, Tekton Apologetics Ministries, Scott E.C. and Branch G. (2003), etc.) that have either featured, written about, or rebutted Sarfati. 58.162.2.122 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -gadfium 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the chess record alone. It seems clear from websearching that he's been the NZ champion once and represented the country at the chess olympiad more than once. Although he does not seem to have played ranked chess for the last 7+ years there will certainly be enough material to write about his chess career in a NPOV and verified way. Has played a sport at the highest level in his country and clearly meets WP:BIO. Deserves a lot of cleaning up rather than deleting - Peripitus (Talk) 06:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My sources tell me that his picture has been on the front cover of New Zealand Chess, the official publication of the NZ Chess Federation, quite a number of times, e.g. when he won the title of NZ Champion. JoshuaZ's searches are likely biased towards American ones, and against publications from pre-Internet days (e.g. Sarfati's title was in 1988), so would not pick up on these. An international encyclopedia should be neither Americocentric nor ageist.60.242.13.87 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very emphatic keep - there ought to be a policy of banning users who repeatedly RE-nominate for deletion that have survived such votes in the recent past. At a minimum, there should be a period of 12 months between votes for deletion on a single article. Now, to the point. This guy was New Zealand's chess champion. Isn't that notable? David Cannon 10:31, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_1&oldid=1081099140"