Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete - Notability not established. Reviews on softpedia are nice, to be sure- but they review almost everything. No coverage by reliable sources- bloggers, unless very well known, do not count. Who knows, perhaps this might become notable one day. But it isn't now. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JZip

An unnotable suspicious proprietary derivative of the LGPL 7-Zip, released 2 months (according to Comparison of file archivers) (2 weeks as beta, according to the article; right before the article was created) to ago (right after that point, the article was created), having fewer features. Also, the author's nickname “Archiver 53” and contribution list combination with that makes it more suspicious. AVRS 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Delete or Weak Merge into 7-Zip or 7z. --AVRS 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the authenticity of "Archiver 53" is the point and I don't know why you refer to jZip as suspicious. There is a link to it from the 7-Zip websitewhich means that Igor Pavlov thinks it's worthy, I see over 5000 downloads in the last week of this application on download.com, almost 200 references to jzip.com on Google (only 2 of them on www.jzip.com), a 4 star review on Softpediaand the whole notion of the LGPL is that you can build things on top of it. I think that this justifies an article. Duras2000 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Igor Pavlov thinking it's worthy doesn't mean it is or ever will be notable. Most, if not all, of those references are loud advertisement or just plain download links on ad-supported software download sites, and half of the comments for them are criticizing the advertising text, license, or platform requirements. It is suspicious, because it is proprietary (copying (except for 1 backup), distribution and modification strictly prohibited), contains no innovation (except for putting WinZip-like GUI onto 7-Zip instead of its own GUI with a file manager with 2-panel mode support), and with all that, advertising it as one of the best (and free, completely free, that's SO rare!) file archivers -- those 5000+ downloads are probably because of the advertisement and the Wikipedia article. The first version of the article also was like an advertisement. If the program ever becomes notable, an article on it may be created, but now it's nothing like unique. --AVRS 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Microsoft Windows is proprietary and uninnovative too, yet Microsoft advertise it as one of the best. And that's not even free. Shall we delete that article too? :) -- 86.139.86.174 10:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, Microsoft Windows is everywhere. Is JZip any popular yet? :) --AVRS 11:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, Microsoft is not saying it is a completely free alternative to anything, so not being gratis is not a problem for Windows here. --AVRS 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't deal with probable here. Do you have any way to substantiate that the 5000 downloads on Download.com are a result of advertising? Do you have a count of how many people downloaded this becasue of the wiki article? If you claim that 5000 people came from Wikipedia, then how did they get to the article on Wikipedia to begin with? If they decided that they want to know more about jZip and as a result came to Wiki it proves the point that the article should stay. I think we discussed this matter enough. Can we remove the AfD? You clearly don't have the consensus required for deletion Duras2000 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we cannot. --AVRS 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you can always start a dispute resolution processes, as it doesn't look like you'll get consensus for removal. It's your choice. Duras2000 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was opened only a day ago. I think it is a bit premature to say that we can't build a consensus! --Karnesky 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article useful in my search for a free zip software. Jayme 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of merging (moving the useful stuff from this article into 7-Zip or 7z)? --AVRS 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not (yet) notable. --Karnesky 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DCEdwards1966 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to review the definiiton of notability. There is significant coverage and enough sources - softpedia, download.com and plenty of bloggers covered it. The info is reliable - you can verify it yourself. I don't know if the original author is reliable, but at this point in time it doesn't matter. The article is up and so is the software. Has any of you actually tried it? Out of criousity, what got you to look it up on Wiki and decide to participate (I saw it on a blog, downloaded it, like it, and looked it up on Wiki)Duras2000 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge→ 7-Zip — I think this topic sits at the cusp of notability and the article itself does not assert notability for the topic. By the same token, the WinZip article also has some problems. Notability is not a relative property nor is it based on popularity or utility per se. It can be inferred from the WinZip article that this tool was the first GUI adaptation of the DOS command line PKZIP, which itself established notability. We can consider potential points that would establish notability for the jZip topic along these lines. For instance:

is jZip the first Java-based compression tool (very unlikely)
is jZip the first Java-implementation of the PKZIP algorithm (perhaps)
is it the first free compression tool (no; consider FreeZip 2000 from PepSoft)
is it the first packaging of the 7-Zip compression method in a compression application suite (perhaps)
does it have a unique combination of compression formats (perhaps, but that would not be a basis for establishing notability)
has it been incorporated as a core component of an otherwise notable application suite or platform (e.g. Office or Eclipse)
is it a product of a notable company (that would support a merger into the company's article or into a spinoff 'products' article; Discordia is apparently a company with a single product, jZip (it took a bit of filtering through search results to tentatively establish that))

As it stands, the article does not assert notability on any of these grounds. However, I am willing to allow for the improvement of the article by knowledgeable editors making an assertion of notability. On to the matter of reliable sources. In the software field, in particular the freeware, open-source and shareware fields, coverage by traditional journalistic or literary outlets is more the exception than the norm; blogs and solely-online information outlets play a very important role here, though Wikipedia has a collectively dim view of using blogs as reliable sources, or even sources for verifiability. I'm not too familiar with the sources referenced, so bear with me. Consider Softpedia; the article there has a byline with a real name and an associated title. Further, Softpedia has a published editorial process for software reviews (see http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/); therefore, I would consider this to be a reliable, independent source, even if it has no life on paper. Download.com, on the other hand, has a more directory-style review with software publisher notes and downloader commentary - not a reliable source by my reckoning. By this look the article has a single reliable source ... and really needs more. A search for same by me did not turn up any others - but there might be others out there. Again, I'll give the editors the benefit of the doubt ... for a time. I would expect to see this renominated for deletion or merger within six months if improvements were not made. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not jzip.org the Java GPL ZIP implementation from 2003[1]. Neither it is JZip the OS-independent BSD-licensed John's Z-Code interpreter from 2000[2]. It's a Windows-only proprietary program from 2007. --AVRS 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With as little information as there is in jZip now, I'd agree with “Merge” (as a line in a list of 7-Zip derivatives or in 7z), but calling it “merge“ still feels a bit strange. So, what I'd call “merge” here is basically the same as “delete”. Strangely, there is an article on p7zip, though it's just a port of 7z.exe and 7za.exe from 7-Zip. --AVRS 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging would preserve the current title as a redirect tagged with Template:R from merge in order to preserve the edit history of jZip. Deleting does not preserve the edit history in a publicly viewable form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Ceyockey - keep it for now and get back to this discussion in 6 months on 1 Feb 2008. Duras2000 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Merge/direct it back to LGPL 7-Zip, from whence it came. We can eventually fork it back out later. • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect It might be good to wait until this becomes notable (if it does). I'd personally delete this article and replace it with a two sentence footnote to the 7-Zip article. —User:Sladen 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another archiver. Such articles are typically of low value and nobody maintains them. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't look like any of the writers actually tried the software.. how about we discuss the merits of the software? Any thoughts? Duras2000 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 9 September 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. Carlossuarez46 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Rankin

The creator of this article User:Jeremy.rankin is almost certainly the son of John C. Rankin, the subject article. Jeremy.rankin states on his user page that he was born August 3, 1985 and the bio page for John C. Rankin on the Theological Education Institute website states: "He and his wife Nancy were married in 1977 and have three sons (1978, 1981 and 1985) and one daughter (1990)." We definitely have a case of WP:COI. More importantly, there is no notability asserted for Mr. John C. Rankin. According to my google search, notability cannot be established. This meets CSD A7, as it is an article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not assert the importance of the subject, however my speedy was contested, so I am bringing this here. John C. Rankin seems like a nice man that i would like to meet, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Anarchia 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to establish notability. Maralia 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RS1900 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in light of COI issues, notability should be scrutinized and this person lacks any Corpx 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable bio. Keb25 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability and creator is almost certainly related to the subject. Spawn Man 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was able to find one letter from him in a very respected bioethics journal: "The Fetal Tissue Debate on Complicity" John C. Rankin, Monte Harris Liebman, John A. Robertson The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1990), pp. 50-51 [3] . There is also the sketch at [4] -- a report on his participation in a well known theological debate series. But there does not yet seem enough for notability. I hope there will be, as most of the material he has posted at his site is very rational. DGG (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Dean Wormer 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN--AmerHisBuff 09:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OfficeGirl --Truest blue 17:53, 9 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present Arms (Cast Recording)

Delete nn album, was tagged speedy as advertising, which seemed a stretch, and I declined, but still no assertion of notability here Carlossuarez46 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non notable, POV riddled article. i ^said 00:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, crap article. RS1900 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:29, 9 September 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. --Core desat 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Delooze

Only claim of notability is that he has written 3 books. One of the books is published by a minor niche publisher, "Experiencer eBooks". The other two are self published. I can't find independent reviews of the books. Books do not appear to meet WP:BK, so I don't see how the author does. Mark Chovain 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think this should be a speedy delete. Someone else put the speedy tag on the article, but the tag was removed. Mark Chovain 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's just the Illuminati serpents compelling you to delete this article. Matthew Delooze knows the truth.Merkinsmum 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance you could expand on your reasoning? Remember, this is not "votes for deletion". Mark Chovain 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my comment was a bit flippant, I personally think it would be a shame to remove his article as I read one of his books and found it intensely amusing, I know there's no reason he is noteable though apart from if the novelty of hilarious levels of psychosis was considered noteworthy.Merkinsmum 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be careful messing with the "reptilian humanoid" guys. Delete with caution. MarkBul 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not David Icke, who is most definitely notable. Mark Chovain 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I still don't see an assertion of notability in the article. (For what it's worth, I added the speedy tag, and TigerShark removed it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The lizardmen have removed all the notability of the article from Wikipedia confirming the world wide conspiracy. Shot info 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I for one welcome our new reptilian overlords. There is no evidence given of wider notability to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking coverage for him or his books Corpx 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment oooh he has a new book out, from a slightly more promising sounding press- 'david Icke books', perhaps affiliated to Icke, [5] does that make him a bit more noteable?Merkinsmum 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really affect the notability, as for a book to be considered notable, it should receive multiple independent reviews (with some caveats - see WP:BK). I assume the bar for an author should be around the same place: In general, they are only notable if they have published a notable work (or more? not sure). Furthermore, David Icke books appears to be an online store rather than a publisher. According to Matthew's own storefront, it is self published.[6] Mark Chovain 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Translation in progress from frenchwiki --Morfal 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the prinicpal author of the article, who has made few (if any) edits outside of the article and comments. It should also be noted that the article on the French wiki is also up for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I work a lot on the french wiki! --Morfal 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it doesn't matter how much work you do if your article's subject isn't notable:(:(Merkinsmum 00:25, 8 September 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 dereet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell (Scooby-Doo)

Delete nn character was tagged speedy, but there seems to be a considerable or vocal number of people who read WP:CSD#A7 to be limited to just those enumerated items and fictional people isn't on the list, so here it goes. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd try WP:CSD#A1, personally. shoy 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this even a real character? It doesn't seem like it to me. At any rate, delete as non notable subject. i ^said 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a hoax to me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, but not a major character. Dell Chillman has appeared in only 2 Scooby movies, the second only briefly.--Sethacus 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "Dell is a fat guy from Scooby Doo." Ooooo! I didn't know that! This article is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what they said. A character that is not even worth mentioning on a list, let alone an article. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Dell is a fat guy from Scooby Doo" Classic! Out of three lines, one is made up of a question asking if he'll appear in the next scooby doo picture. C'mon, do articles like this really need to come through here? NN, OR, Delete. Spawn Man 10:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even notable to Scooby. Dean Wormer 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 and A7. JoshuaZ 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bah

The article doesn't appear to outline notability. With claims like The radio-dj also spoke to The Game right after the rapper shouted "F**k Jay-Z" at his first concert in Amsterdam. and Q-Bah has shared several spliffs and hours with Bob Marley's youngest son Damian Marley I'm not seeing importance. The references are just general links to websites like Maxim which in no way references anything in this article. IrishGuy ^talk 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - recreated article, still not notable. Addhoc 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable and sounds more like an ad than an article. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless adequate sourcing is provided). Article asserts notability (charting singles, national radio personality), so CSD A7 doesn't apply here. Caknuck 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ad, not an article. RS1900 04:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable person. Keb25 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Dean Wormer 04:42, 9 September 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G12. Acalamari 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Gunden

Doesn't read like a wiki article, violates WP:NPOV, doesn't have any cites either. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under db-copyvio of this page. If an article looks like a slab of non-wikified text, good idea is to type a notable sentence into Google surrounded by quotes. Thomjakobsen 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More copyvio of text from Amazon. Thomjakobsen 23:06, 5 September 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. Walton^One 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 2007

Possible copyright violoation - a list has just been copied from a magazine onto Wikipedia. The article may also not meet WP:NN as it does not state any secondary sources. I am also nominating the following articles for the same resaons:Guest9999 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 2006

Sunday Times Rich List 2005

Sunday Times Rich List 2004

Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500)

Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000)

Speedy Delete as copyvio. It's essentially a reformat of the content made available here under a copyright notice (click on "Britain" beneath the boxes), there's no real claim for fair use as the Sunday Times have a commercial interest in publishing it, and it's essentially their content because they're speculating as to the wealth of these people (that info isn't in the public ___domain). Thomjakobsen 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not actually clear without further discussion that there is a copyvio here. Article is not reproducing any of the editorial comment from the magazine, only the facts collected. Copyright on compilations of facts is a non-obvious legal issue.--mervyn 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But they're not facts, they're original estimates. The ST list doesn't collate information which is already publically sourcable, they're producing original information and publishing it with a copyright notice. We'd have the same problem if we reproduced a financial analyst's market predictions. The data is not simply being compiled from public sources, it is being produced from scratch in a way that has commercial value and distributed with a copyright notice to protect that value. It would be a different case if, say, they printed a list of the world's tallest buildings, because compilation alone is trivial and we could recreate it from publically-sourceable data. Thomjakobsen 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notice only works if the claim is valid! But there is a distinction between the author's original contribution and the facts presented; elaborate techniques for discovering facts don't of themselves create an act of authorship. I am not saying the Sunday Times doesn't have a strong case, only that it is not an area where a decision to delete is so obvious that there is no need for a bit of thinking first. However the wholesale reproduction of the lists here goes beyond what could be justified, and I agree about the "original estimates" claim. The articles should be rewritten to be selected abstracts and reports on the contents of the list. --mervyn 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Summaries would be fine, and I'd argue that they would be better off in the main Sunday Times Rich List article. As for the copyright claim, the original lists have a claim of UK copyright, and would be covered under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which covers even lists/databases of non-original information. For example, someone producing a phone directory cannot take this information directly from another directory, they have to track down the information themselves from other sources. That rule would seem to apply even more forcefully in this case, since it is a list of original estimates, so the copyright claim appears to be valid. Thomjakobsen 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more specific law for this is the EU Directive on the legal protection of databases, but whether this is relevant depends on whether it's policy to respect the laws of the country of origin or those of the US (see comment somewhere below) Thomjakobsen 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and anyways Wikipedia is not the place to throw up pages of statistics-only. WP:NOT#INFO.--JForget 01:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Thomjakobsen. RS1900 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary delete the bulk of the tables and merge and redirect to Sunday Times Rich List.Rich Farmbrough, 12:31 6 September 2007 (GMT).
Keep all - it's encyclopaedic background information about the people concerned. And this is just one of many replicated lists on Wikipedia, so why pick on this one? Georgethe23rd 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've got a better idea! Why don't we hold the articles for ransom and then donate the money to the Wikimedia Foundation? ;) Spawn Man 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold - can we just have a think first about whether we can abstract/summarise/reformat some of this info rather than doing a mass delete since these pages are widely linked to. Note: does List of billionaires (2007) - which is a copy of Forbes's rankings - have the same issues? --mervyn 13:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes's list might be okay, because copyright is claimed under US laws and the precedent (based on a phone directory case) is that lists of publically sourceable information are not copyrightable. However, it makes clear that even minimal creativity can lead to a copyright claim, so it depends on the process by which they come up with the estimates. If it's anything like the Times list, it involves creative estimates and so probably fails for that reason. Thomjakobsen 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep en-WP operates under US law, and this material is not necessarily copyright in the US. As I understand it, we can report their list as long as we do not reproduce its format, just as we do with forbes. Their intellectual creativity in devising the list is not copyrightable, only the expression of it is. The present list is only a summary of their web site, not a full representation of it. This should be discussed at the Copyright problems board where the more knowledgeable can discuss it properly. DGG (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP actually operates under the law of the country of the person editing the page. If a user in England uploads copyright material they are breaking the law of England. And if WP hosts copyright material uploaded from England they are in breach of the law of England. That is the law - and any statement by WP or its users that it prefers to operate under a different jurisdiction can't effect that. If this is copyright material, then the Sunday Times in England could sue the American based WP in the English courts. And nothing that WP states in its T&Cs can change that. 87.127.44.154 11:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression as per [7] that policy is to respect the copyright laws of the country of origin, even though it would not technically be illegal to host such material on the US servers. As re-use is an issue, and the UK claims are recognized throughout the EU and possibly elsewhere, it would limit re-use (e.g. on CD versions and mirrors) of this material for a pretty sizeable area. Agreed that we'd need someone more expert to take a look at it. Thomjakobsen 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. There is no evidence that the individual lists have received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 05:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the STRL is widely reported on in other UK media, often as front page stories on the Sunday of publication. See eg "Daily Mail" here: [8].--mervyn 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just checked, and I'm not on it. So delete :-) The Sunday Times Rich List is certainly worthy of an encyclopaedic entry because many news articles about those on the list will make mention of their inclusion - not just when the list is first published but throughout the year. The way this data should be used is by selecting key or significant entries and including them in a much more comprehensive article at Sunday Times Rich List. The mere reproduction of the lists, however, should not be accepted on WP - the main article can link to the lists on the Sunday Times' own website. 87.127.44.154 09:49, 11 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decisional analysis of complex systems

This bizarrely vague (cf WP:BOLLOCKS) article references only papers by one author and fails WP:RS. It may also be redundant to decision analysis. Alksub 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as db-copyvio, as it is a direct cut-and-paste from this page. Thomjakobsen 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious copyvio. So tagged. --Boricu æ ddie 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:26, 6 September 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. Carlossuarez46 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build Zion in Britain

Subject of the article is purported to be a catchphrase important to the Mormon/LDS Church in Britain, but I could not find it used anywhere-- not even on LDS sites. No references cited to any source at all. Unverifiable. Though the concept of "Zion" in the Mormon/LDS religion is notable and David O. McKay (the Church leader to whom this catchphrase is attributed) is notable, notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED). It has been suggested that this article be merged with Zion (Latter Day Saints) or David O. McKay) However, since we cannot verify that this catchphrase ever even existed, there is nothing that we can merge there. The text of the article is written in language that would be used by a Mormon/LDS document that is addressed to Church members already initiated to their terminology and lingo. Possible copyvio from a Mormon/LDS publication somewhere. OfficeGirl 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find one mention here but it's dropped naturally into the sentence, suggesting its part of LDS lingo rather than a notable phrase in itself. If it were a notable concept, you'd expect an LDS academic paper to capitalize or use quotemarks around it. Thomjakobsen 22:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the exact same page, and observed the same things you mention here. That was what persuaded me that an AfD was in order. OfficeGirl 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of other sources using this phrase/providing coverage Corpx 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We'll shout and go round the walls of Zion before we cover cruft of this level of triviality. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . IP198 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified trivia. Dean Wormer 04:45, 9 September 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. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2

Wikipedia is not an indscriminate collection of information. This also falls under game guide content, as it says all the animals in the game. RobJ1981 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Alksub 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge This could possibly be merged into the verious Zoo Tycoon articles, but if not simply delete. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this is entirely cruft. WP:NOT#GUDIE. i ^said 00:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, gameguide. Artw 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not game guide Corpx 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Indiscriminate collection of items. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I am transwiking the page to the Encyclopedia Gamia it can be found here. So delet it and if anyone wants to use the page for reference they can check there --Cs california 04:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly transwiki. Someone spent a long time making that table, would be a shame to lose it. User:Krator (t c) 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any revelant material into the main Zoo Tycoon 2 article. Spawn Man 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft game guide info - X201 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is turning into a candidate for WP:SNOWBALL

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (emo)

Delete belatedly contested prod, restored to bring it here. No sources, little context, not notable. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable teenage slang. Urban Dictionary doesn't count as a source. Thomjakobsen 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Hal peridol 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for something that some kids with bad haircuts made up in school one day. OfficeGirl 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. And what on earth is an emo! Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than an unsourced neo dict entry. Could just as easily go in Emo (slang). Mark Chovain 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, WP:NOT a dictionary. — mark ✎ 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and OR. Do we really have to pander to every "I wanna kill myself" thought of these Elmo things? I mean emo things? ;) I'm not even sure the main article of Emo hair is notable, let alone its offspring... Do we really need an article for a tuft of hair belonging to a teenage fad? Spawn Man 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Dean Wormer 04:49, 9 September 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. Carlossuarez46 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E2E Technologies Ltd

Written mainly as an ad for the company, biased, and offers little relevance as to why this company is notable and worthy of an article on wikipedia. Hasn't been improved in these aspects in months since creation. The article is also uncited as to where this information comes from. TheHYPO 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant corporate promo page. Other than the existence of the company and its products, none of the rest of the article would appear sourcable. Thomjakobsen 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non notable company. i ^said 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, no external coverage cited, almost a G11 speedy. Sandstein 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Lipsticked Pig 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. Advertisement. Dean Wormer 05:00, 9 September 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. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Lynn

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability within article. Tabercil 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominated for "best group sex scene" at 2004 AVN (Google cache of PDF). To me, one AVN nomination is enough, unlike some of the other minor awards Corpx 06:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was in a film that was nominated, she wasn't nominated personally (and the film didn't win). I don't see anything here that satisfied any of the WP:PORNBIO criteria — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 other scenes in the video (Scene Index). Only her scene was nominated, not the whole movie Corpx 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AVN nomination qualifies under WP:PORNBIO. Dean Wormer 04:59, 9 September 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. --Core desat 04:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Kulpati

Fails criteria for inclusion of creative professionals as stated by WP:BIO New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clears fails WP:BIO and WP:N every Tv professional cannot have separate article. Harlowraman 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to get enough independent coverage to sail through WP:BIO ([9] [10] [11] for example), and while they're obviously not reliable sources, the huge number of fan sites a search on Indian Google throws up satisfies me that she genuinely is a significant figure — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she gets only 49 Ghits in Indian Google. Sadly 1/3 of them from Indian porno sites. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Keb25 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bio is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the links provided above give significant coverage Corpx 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:36, 9 September 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 Rasaq. Walton^One 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grass Green Over Here Manye!

Non-notable mixtape that's not covered by in depth sources. The only sources are trivial ones such as a track listing. Spellcast 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; what you're saying can also be aplicable to any stub-album. That's not a reason to delete an album or mixtape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtapes are much less notable than albums. With an album, you have background, production, sales, certifications, reviews from music critics etc. But most mixtapes can never have this info. If this mixtape is notable, there should be multiple, reliable sources that discuss this (not just a track listing). Spellcast 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are albums with no sales, charts positions, personnel, etc. And still don't need to be deleted.--Tasco 0 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Rasaq. Unless this is independantly notable, it should not have its own article. i ^said 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable, no sources. NawlinWiki 14:05, 11 September 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. --Core desat 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrocrunk

This isn't a legitimate genre. It was created by one person, Shane Fontane (who appears to be an unsigned non-notable musician), and it practised by exactly one musician...Shane Fontane. IrishGuy ^talk 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although the current article contains no information contradicting Irishguy's statement, "electrocrunk" does seem to be used by other groups to describe an electronic music genre, see e.g. Paquin Entertainment bio for Thunderheist, and the term receives mention in several hundred Google hits (mostly blogs). Hal peridol 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have inclusions criteria for music genres? Don't think so. Until then, we go by the blanket notability guideline, which this fails. i ^said 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable, if small, out-of-mainstream, genre, per analogy to WP:MUSIC. I will see if I can add cites. Bearian 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this. It appears to be getting some notice - only 40 Ghits for Electrocrunk + review, but 548 for "Electro crunk" + review: [12]. It seems to be a real phenomenon. And it has a good beat. Bearian 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more research, and it seems to be notable, but may be a neologism. I'm still working on it. Bearian 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, I'm done for now.... I hope this is good enough to keep. 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst crunk is a legitimate genre, electrocrunk is NN and sounds as if its the NN artist Shane Fontane's last ditch attempt at fame. This serves only as a self serving promotional article for the artist. Delete - Spawn Man 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Another brand new single purpose account added nothing but promotional material about Shane Fontane to the article. IrishGuy ^talk 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearian's throwing of links into unrelated artists pages isn't going to help create this nonexistent microgenre. Eli lilly 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've never heard of this genre before. Peecee1978 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:28, 9 September 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. DS 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Bhattarai

Non-notable professor, president of a company already listed at AfD which only has Wikipedia and its own website for Google hits. Other than being the head of this ~~non-notable~~ apparently non-existent company, nothing in the article to indicate what makes him notable. Corvus cornix 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Keshav Bhattarai has co-authored a historical dictionary of Nepal, which is in the collections of a few university libraries outside his own and has been cited in multiple publications. Not sure if it's used in classrooms, though.--Sethacus 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability according to WP:PROF not established. --Crusio 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting mentioned to get past WP:PROF Corpx 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Eusebeus 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't assert notability. Spawn Man 10:54, 7 September 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. --Core desat 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Campbell

Utterly un-notable freelance director, reads like self-advertising. If this guy gets an article, everybody in the world who's got a job would have to be on WP. Camillus (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some claims to notability through winning awards internationally but there is not attestation of notability to independent sources. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not clear that he passes WP:BIO, RS issues aside. He directs commercials. Eusebeus 19:57, 6 September 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Athletic Union

Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —KTC 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no vote for the time being. I'd consider the statement that DUAU was "ranked 5th across all sports in 2005's BUSA rankings" to be an assertion of notability. I also note that they are 6th this year (out of 148) [13] (I've updated the article thusly). It may not be clear from the article, but DUAU has the legal status of a students' union, and there was some discussion a while back about notability criteria for students' unions. I've left a message for User:Timrollpickering to see if any consensus was achieved, because I can't remember. DWaterson 00:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of Timrollpickering and DGG's comments below, Keep for the time being, pending clarification of notability guidelines for student unions. DWaterson 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote for now. Students' unions and independent athletic unions need a clear guideline on inherent notability (particularly many of the articles have been created by those less well versed with the requirements on sources et al, and when the first they realise this is an AFD already accumulating delete votes if not already passed it discourages attempts to get the sources in; also any of the potential local sources about them, such as local newspaper coverage, are often not very well archived online), and there seems to be different understandings of what the organisations are in different countries (although I don't deny there are people with both keep and delete views in many of them). Individual AFDs are not a good way to establish precedence on this (especially when terms like "student organisation" get thrown around - that currently redirects to student society and the opening paragraph says to me that a students' union does not fall under that description - it is not a mere student society but a legally constituted entity). Yes there's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that is meant to be "some other non-notable article so far existing doesn't mean this one should" and not a rejoinder to the case that individual AFDs often just punch holes in a collection of articles covering subjects of very similar notability or non-notability and overall make the encyclopedia worse for having an inconsistent set than for if it has all, none, or just a select few. Timrollpickering 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is indeed the main athletic organisation for the university. In the US where the athletics is mainly organised by the university, no the students, there is a separate article for the athletic endeavors of each important school--and sometimes for the individual teams. I think this would correspond--it's essentially at article on durham University Athletics, and I think such a separate article would be justified wherever the school is important enough. The UK people would have to tell us whether Durham is, but it would seem likely. DGG (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is indeed the main athletic organisation for the university (which incidentally means all types of sport, not just track and field athletics). The university builds and operates some of the sporting facilities directly, but DUAU is in overall charge of all sporting activities and teams (including both the Varsity teams and, to a certain extent, smaller intramural games). DWaterson 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it should be noted that, in contrast to the US where university sports are widely followed by the public, in the UK, with exceptions such as the Boat Race and Oxford/Cambridge/Durham cricket, the interest is negligible (oh, and I played sports for Durham in the past!). TerriersFan 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing showing that this has notability asserting coverage by third parties. i ^said 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking coverage from independent sources. We should not keep student orgs lacking independent coverage Corpx 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual for student clubs. All universities have an athletic union, few if any are independently notable. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as this is a wider matter that needs clear guidelines (especially as the terms "student orgs" and "student clubes" are getting thrown about without clarity as to whether this is one) and a lot of these articles have not had the absence of verifiable sources flagged before the AFD crowd move in. A quick search on LexisNexis yields well over 130 results so there may well be sources. Note to closing admin if the consensus is to delete please can you make this a redirect to Durham University rather than deleting the page history; per the deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barts and The London Students' Association. Timrollpickering 11:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barts was an arguably sub-university Union--this is the main one for the University--that is a distinction that justifies keeping this even if we agreed with the deletion of Barts.DGG (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 16:13, 7 September 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. --Core desat 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Dennehy, Robbie Weir

two nn soccer players who haven't played a first team game yet, fails WP:BIO. Delete both Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - No verifiable asserition of notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:BIO requires that athletes should have played in a fully professional league (the amateur criteria is not relevant here). Neither of these two have done so. However, should they at some time in the future do so, then do bring the articles back. --Malcolmxl5 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No verifiable asserition of notability. these fit the same criteria Michael Kay (footballer)Gavin Donoghue, I have requested speedy. --Hu12 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were declined, adding them Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 20:44, 6 September 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.

It's obvious that any attempt to engage in a substantive discussion (instead of simply casting "delete" votes because x page says y) is futile. Rather than wasting more of our time, I've gone ahead and deleted the article. —David Levy 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Moschella

I see nothing here to justify a separate page for this guy. He wrote some software, which information could go on that page, but other than that he owns a website (big deal) and produces a Tv programme, neither of which make him notable. The rest is just useless trivia. There is some discussion on the talk page, the thrust of which seems to be that he deserves an article because he might become famous. I think not. Chris 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NN, Wikipedia already has more than enough spam from pathetic internet geeks. --Hornet35 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief mention of his TV work into GIMPshop, his claim to (near-) fame. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who regularly appears on an internationally televised TV program (in this case, Attack of the Show!) is notable. —David Levy 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his position was important enough, significant coverage would've been provided by 3rd party sources Corpx 04:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris --Truest blue 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone please explain how having a regular acting role in an internationally televised television program doesn't render this individual notable? No one else is addressing this. —David Levy 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: From the man's own blog: "Scott Moschella is a proud TechTV alumnus and is currently a segment producer on a television show called G4's Attack of the Show." As I said before, he's a producer - of a segment - and I don't think he plays a major part in this show (though I could be wrong). I had a look at the show's website and could find no mention of him at all. It doesn't seem to be verifiable. Chris 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted in the article, Scott Moschella regularly appeared as a fictional character called "Jimmy the Geek" (the acting role to which I'm referring). How can someone with a regular acting role in an internationally televised TV program be non-notable? —David Levy 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO requirements. --Gavin Collins 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite frustrating when people attempt to justify deletion by citing a guideline instead of explaining how its application makes sense in a particular instance. I'd really like to know how someone with a regular acting role in an internationally televised TV program is non-notable. —David Levy 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO due to a complete and utter lack of multiple, non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 22:58, 10 September 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 blatant advertising. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theological Education Institute

Probable conflict of interest by primary author Jeremy.rankin (talk · contribs). The article advertises a Christian school and gives external links, but does not assert notability and does not address the topic from a neutral point of view. Shalom ^Hello 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name makes it appear to be an educational institution, but the website suggests that it's really a nonnotable one-man Christian ministry.--orlady 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -User:Jeremy.rankin is almost certainly the son of John C. Rankin, the man who runs the subject entity. He states on his user page that he was born August 3, 1985 and the bio page for John C. Rankin on the subject entity's website states: "He and his wife Nancy were married in 1977 and have three sons (1978, 1981 and 1985) and one daughter (1990)." We definitely have a case of WP:COI. More importantly, there is no notability asserted for the subject entity or for Mr. Rankin. According to my google search, notability cannot be established. This meets CSD A7, as it is an article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not assert the importance of the subject.OfficeGirl 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. We need better articles. Non-notable, crap, spam....delete as soon as possible. RS1900 05:07, 6 September 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. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight To The Point

No assertion of notability. Article is merely a tracklisting. LaMenta3 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Tracklisting articles are common, and it might be a good idea to discuss whether they should or should not exist on Wikipedia. As it stands they are allowed, but it would do no harm to merge the contents into Atlantic Starr. Shalom ^Hello 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albums by notable artists are generally notable enough for their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm not against keeping the information, we must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. I would be in favor of this and similar articles being merged either into the article about the band or into an article "Albums by..." and have all of the titles redirect there. It seems superfluous to have all of these articles floating around that are just tracklistings. If the album by itself is highly notable (it set sales records, launched a band's career, started a movement, etc.) then I would say it could warrant its own article, but other than that, a little information condensing might be beneficial. LaMenta3 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:MUSIC: "

If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." MarkBul 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 6 September 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. Carlossuarez46 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Muzik

Album is crystal ballery. The artist is not notable, he only has 25 "friends" on his MySpace, although not a reliable source it does at least show that not lots of people know him. "A-TRAX MUZIK" or "The Sound of Muzik" bring up no hits related to the album and no hits that aren't MySpace related to the record label. T Rex | talk 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe if the album comes out and is popular, but not now.--Danaman5 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non notable album by an unotable artist.Sasha Callahan 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, crap ........delete as soon as possible. RS1900 05:09, 6 September 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. --Core desat 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Mainhart

Notability not asserted Spryde 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spryde, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "hang a tag." Is that HTML talk? If yes, I've looked at the help guide and tried to add what you said but I must be doing it incorrectly. Can you offer any help?

Vpc123```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpc123 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vpc123, the tag {{hangon}} is used when a speedy deletion template (tag) has been placed on the article. In this case, Spryde said on your Talk page that a proposed deletion was going to be the next step, but instead came to articles for deletion, a different process. Please read the guide to deletion as the article creator. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't quite pass WP:MUSIC,yet.--Sethacus 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non notable, needs wikification, no references Jonjonbt's name is now Jonathan. 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as it assert notability per WP:MUSIC in having music on a TV show, but lacks any WP:RS or WP:V cites. Needs too much work for me to bother. Can someone else be WP:BOLD? Bearian 18:32, 6 September 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 per WP:SNOW. AFD template removed by IP editor, but result obvious, with only two delete !votes, one an SPA and the other an intermittent editor. Non-admin close. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod touch

This product is non-notable, doesn't exist per WP:CRYSTAL and should be at least merged with the regular iPod article. Theklavern 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why has this article been nominated for deletion? The product has just been announced! Max Naylor 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No rationale or reason for deletion. We have articles for all other iPod models why should this be different. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's your reason for deletion? You haven't given one! Mahanga^Talk 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does exist, was just announced an hour ago. Peter S. 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this just be speedy kept? This is this user's first post and he obviously hasn't read the news. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA!

No. Theklavern 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't asking you. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The product has not been released and it doesn't deserve its own article. Theklavern 18:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the website: [14]. Max Naylor 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be speedy kept. This is ridiculous. Nothing in WP:Crystal says this should be deleted. Mahanga^Talk 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. It is out, you can buy it right now. Plus we have a precedent of new iPods getting articles to consider. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's far to early to have an article for it when it was announced less than two hours ago. Fishmech 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Too early”? The product goes on sale this evening. Max Naylor 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles minutes/hours after a major current event all the time. Mahanga^Talk 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Product goes on sale this weekend, add a "future product" template to it

For the record, Theklavern is a new user with his only posts belonging to this AFD. Mahanga^Talk 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It most certainly does exist, there was an announcement today by Apple/Steve Jobs. ArsTechnica coverage -- MacAddct1984 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No crystal balling at all since product has been announced and released. Wl219 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a new product in the iPod line, similar to the iPod nano or iPod shuffle. I don't see why it'd be wrong to start an article now... they've announced it. It exists. Pele Merengue 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Can we just close the discussion now? The majority of votes say keep, and this is a real and verifiable product. There’s nothing left to argue here. Max Naylor 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, speedy keep. This has obviously been a misunderstanding on Theklavern's part (at the very least). --The Wild Falcon 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep This product has been official announced by Apple. The nominator did not decide to do his homework. Very bad move. --SkyWalker 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this non-notable? It's a major, major, major change to the highest selling portable electronic device on the planet. And how is it crystal balling if the product is being released today? Smashville 18:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please close the discussion and remove the AFD template. Mahanga^Talk 19:02, 5 September 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. --Core desat 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil sandbox

Seems to be totally O.R. "Civil sandbox" yields 3 results on google which seem to be unrelated. Needs to be deleted per notability and OR. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The page was created today. It's got a big "under construction" box on it. How do we know the author isn't about to give a bunch of reliable references to printed sources that haven't made it onto pages indexed by Google yet? At least give them the chance to say where the term comes from. Thomjakobsen 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that box before I searched for the notability of the subject. I find it highly unlikely that there could be highly reliable printed sources that don't exist on any search engines on the internet. Even if that were the case, I doubt it would ever meet notability guidelines. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had been there a week, I'd probably agree. But it was created today, is clearly a stub, and we should assume the author is going to make some attempt to explain where this term is from and why it's notable. Put a notability tag on it, ask for some reliable sources, give it a few days, then if nothing changes it would be eligible for a speedy delete. But to squash it on the day of creation when it's not clear vandalism or spam is far too hasty. Thomjakobsen 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Earlier decision was probably based on the "under construction" box. Wouldn't want to waste anyone's time thinking the article has any supporters... Thomjakobsen 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From WP:STUB: When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. There is no context - no Google hits suggest OR. If only the original poster can expand on it, then it's not Wikipedia material. MarkBul 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas in the hope they will become widespread. We must have independent, credible secondary sources that have written about a topic. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, hopeless stub with no context. Possibly an A1 for no context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Let us give the creator of the article a chance. If he can be improved the article, then keep it. However, if this article is not improved, delete the article. RS1900 05:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with RS1900. Give this AfD the full time allowed. Bearian 19:23, 6 September 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. Unfortunately, the resulting page is not a valid disambiguation because none of the linked articles mention the term in any context. --Core desat 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skirling

not an article RepriseRubric 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a dictionary and I can't imagine what more could be said about this term than dictionary-stuff. DMacks 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DMacks. --Djsasso 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's a synonym. Thomjakobsen 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Not sure even belongs at wikitionary since this term seems like slang. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP isn't a dictionary. Thats what wiktionary is for. Sasha Callahan 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dicdef. --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. RS1900 05:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've moved the definitions to wikt:skirling; its now a valid dab page. John Vandenberg 07:42, 6 September 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. --Core desat 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euan G. Cameron

hoax RepriseRubric 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No such person listed at that institution. And even if so, no asserted notability. DMacks 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a real author named Euan Cameron out there who is somewhat notable, but there is no verification to link the real one to this. Wl219 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article doesn't assert that subject currently works at said institution, most institutions don't list former faculty. Also this seems to show authorship. Smashville 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville's link. This user has nominated a number of non-hoaxes recently. --Djsasso 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Amazon link provided by Smashville above shows he is a writer of more than a few books. This is clearly not a WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 17:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep, per Evb-wiki et al. Need to figure out more details about this person's affiliation, but academic details other than that do point to a real person who sounds WP:N. DMacks 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously not a very good article, but there was no reason to treat as hoax. In general I'd say that the authors of volumes in a major widely used advanced textbook series are selected on their basis of being recognized authorities. DGG (talk) 02:02, 9 September 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. @pple complain 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Morrison

hoax RepriseRubric 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another physicist at Philip Morrison but I cannot verify that PM and PJM are the same people. Wl219 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this a suspected hoax? See this. --Evb-wiki 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~In addition, see this~~. Smashville 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the wrong Philip Morrison. But why exactly is this believed to be a hoax? Smashville 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't appear to be a hoax based on the external link. May not be notable enough for an article, however. DCEdwards1966 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not appear to be a hoax. Nom is a user with few edits who has nominated other non-hoaxes in this manner. --Djsasso 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dekete - Certainly not a hoax, but nonetheless he fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't necessarily fail WP:BIO...there are probably parts not sourced here. I know notability in academia is a little different... Smashville 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notable or not, this is a serious disambiguation issue. I found a couple of websites where the famous physicist named Philip Morrison (who apparently did not use a middle name or initial) was called "Philip J Morrison." Since these two men were contemporary American physicists, I bet they got mail for each other, etc., pretty often. I have copied some information from the article onto Phil Morrison, which is a disambiguation page, and I created Philip Morrison (disambiguation) as a redirect to that page. --orlady 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we have no clue who this page is really about, Delete per lack of context (same rationale as speedy for little or no context (CSD A1)). If someone wants to write about one specific/definite person with this name, no reason such an article wouldn't be permissible. DMacks 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummmm. Did ya read the article? --Evb-wiki 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence the "if" in my statement. The above comments discuss some concern about who this actual article is about so if it's not known, the article's presence adds entropy to Wikipedia. If it's known, then a concern prefaced by "if it's not known" isn't relevant. The utexas page that's linked doesn't make any mention of the person being dead (and the phone number listed on that page is still active and goes to voice-mail for someone of this name), yet the article says he died in 2006. DMacks 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gotcha. And as evidenced by those issues, there is a question of verifiability (at least as to WP:BLP or not) and notability. Thus, I still haven't made up my mind with this one. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops! His death does seem to be a hoax. Ouch. --orlady 01:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. Not only is there a need to disambiguate from the other Philip Morrison who was a physicist, but he seems to be an important (i.e., notable) person in the interrelated fields of hydrodynamics, plasma physics, and fusion. Philip J. Morrison (that is, the plasma physicist) is a fellow of the American Physical Society (see this list) ~~and appears to have written a regular column in Scientific American magazine (see this article)~~. He also has many technical publications in multiple decades and has supervised many graduate students.--orlady 01:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the Scientific American info because I have determined that the columnist was the other Philip Morrison.--orlady 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay. This may be a relatively close call on WP:PROF; however, in the spirit of caveat #2, "this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." --Evb-wiki 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing technical publications and supervising graduate students is what is expected of any academic and does not in intself establish notability as per WP:PROF. There is no evidence either that this person is relatively more succesful than others in the same field. --Crusio 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. By my count from a Google scholar search (counting only the results that were obviously physics) he has an h-index of 23 and 169 citations for his most cited paper, which is by him alone, both respectable if a bit bean-countery in the absence of more qualitative measures of notability. But what convinces me about this case is the name confusion: having an article about him serves an encyclopedic purpose in helping people who look up one or the other Morrison from getting him confused with the other one. —David Eppstein 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that he is apparently a full professor at a major research university, he is very much more successful than other people in the same field. Very few physicists reach such a rank--possibly the top 5 or 10% of those who get doctorates in physcs. That's the appropriate group. From Scopus, I find 42 published papers, (with the most cited having 114 and 87 references respectively). the average number of papers published in all fields by those who get a PhD is about 2 or 3. It's probably a little higher in physics, but I know of no studies here. That's enough for notability. there would be other ways of disambiguation, so I do not find David E's argument convincing, but PJ is notable in his own right.DGG (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Maintain delete~~ The correct group to compare this person with is not any persons that ever got a PhD. This person should be compared to other professors at research universities. If one does that, the production mentioned by DGG is just average, at best. Wikipedia cannot include articles on each and every professor at a major university. Hence I maintain my vote for delete unless other evidence of notability gets presented. --Crusio 07:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I struck out your second !vote. You may comment multiple times here, and this is not a vote, but it is still bad form to leave multiple un-struck-out delete or keep requests, because people often do count those to get a sense of how strongly the community is leaning one way or the other. —David Eppstein 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, sorry about that, won't do that again! --Crusio 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relative to the criteria ("If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable") listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), being a fellow of the American Physical Society is evidence that "The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field."--orlady 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really believe this is a hoax? --Evb-wiki 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VERIFY,WP:PROF --AmerHisBuff 09:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do you require for "verifiability"? This article lists several sources now, and the bogus information about birth date and death has been removed. Would you feel better about this article if it included a list of Morrison's technical publications, such as "Noncanonical Hamiltonian Density Formulation of Hydrodynamics and Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics" (1980), "Hamiltonian description of the ideal fluid" (1998), and "Generalized Poisson Brackets and Nonlinear Liapunov Stability - Application to Reduced MHD" (1984)? (As for notability, I figure that if Wikipedia has articles for freshman basketball players at the University of Texas and people from small towns in Texas who had brief careers in minor professional wrestling leagues, it can also have articles for respected senior physicists on the U of Texas faculty.)--orlady 15:20, 9 September 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.

Judd Bagley

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karabad

hoax RepriseRubric 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What evidence do you have that this is a hoax? The references in the article seem to establish that this village exists. ~~Whether it's notable enough for an article is another question.~~ Thomjakobsen 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a real place, at least in India[15] if not Iran. Would keep per WP:OUTCOMES pending verification. Wl219 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would appear to be a different Karabad. The maps linked to in the article, when zoomed out, indicate a village in western Iran. The Indian Karabad appears to be a cave complex in Madhya Pradesh, which is central India. Thomjakobsen 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both included extlinks indicate that it does exist and is in Iran. DMacks 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This article is clearly not a hoax, but merely a stub. Please review WP:DELETE. --Evb-wiki 17:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a Notability tag. The article is fairly new and it needs to provide sources establishing the notability of this village (article suggests it's undergoing rapid growth due to discoveries of oil). We have no reason at this stage to believe it's not notable, so it should be kept and reconsidered later. Thomjakobsen 17:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't need a notability tag. According to WP:OUTCOMES, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". Zagalejo 22:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheers, noted. Thomjakobsen 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Evb-wiki. --Djsasso 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- Thomjakobsen 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a perfectly good stub about a real place. It's a good idea to do a quick google search about a subject you've never heard of prior to labeling it a hoax. OfficeGirl 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Sources will be needed to confirm the last sentence, but it is not deleteable. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES. Once again, locations such as this are notable just for being there, regardless of their size. The nom's rationale for deletion is ridiculous; the sources obviously prove its existance.--Boricu æ ddie 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above discussion. All real towns and villages (larger than, say, 10 persons) are per se notable and worthy of inclusion in English WP. Sorry, I can't WP:AGF here: this is a lousy nom if I've ever seen one. Bearian 18:35, 6 September 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 apparent hoax - delete DS 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhysicsCorp

Hoax. There are zero Google hits for PhysicsCorp outside of Wikipedia and the supposed company's website. Their own website contradicts the history of the company as discussed in this article. Corvus cornix 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a scam site. They will rent you one of the three books they have in their extensive library for about the price of the book new. DCEdwards1966 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's true, and they only have 1 availible [sic] of each. Hmm. Leebo ^T/C 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a little Googling, for the phone number in particular, led me to the residential address of the "headquarters" in the name of... Keshav Bhattarai, who just happens to have a Wikipedia page as of several days ago. He's a real professor, but honestly... this is inappropriate behavior for someone of that standing. I guess I'm open to other possibilities though, maybe it's a child or relative of his doing this? Leebo ^T/C 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Keshav Bhattarai should probably be deleted as well. No claims to notability except for being the president of this "company". DCEdwards1966 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total crap. RS1900 05:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now nominated Keshav Bhattarai for deletion. Corvus cornix 20:29, 5 September 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. --Core desat 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Randolph

No claims of notability and no claims that the podcast he hosts is notable (I have some severe doubts about the Revision3 article and all of the blue links there and the templates at Systm, but that's for a later discussion which I am trying to get input on on the Village Pump but have received none so far). My db tag was removed as inappropriate, although I strongly disagree, but here we are. Corvus cornix 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established Corpx 04:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Corvus Cornix. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:13, 8 September 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. CitiCat^♫ 02:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with unspecified rules

Untidy load of boring, non-notable, unsourced cr*p. It doesn't need to be here. Rambutan (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If it's untidy then it can be tidied, and it doesn't matter how much it bores you. But the links to other, existing articles are (or are at least likely to be) notable and sourced; it seems trivial enough to tidy this up into a simple list of articles. Would suggest a merge with List of fictional games, but the "actual games" section wouldn't fit there. I agree that it's not much of a list, though. --McGeddon 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you the article's creator? Yes, it could be tidied, but it's not a notable topic under the auspices of the notability policy. Nobody would look at that article, and even if they did they'd go away as ignorant as they arrived. It's taking up our kilobytes unnecessarily.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was originally a sprawling section of the Mornington Crescent (game) article, I just lifted it out a while ago for being off topic. --McGeddon 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R. McGeddon. He doesn't have to be the article's creator to comment upon it. I agree that there's enough notability for the list to continue, and a category wouldn't serve since the names alone don't say much. There is room for improvement, as is the case of BTW-- if nobody looked at the article, how did it get nominated? Mandsford 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a feeling that you understand what I mean. BTW, you misunderstood my "are you the creator" - I was just interested.--Rambutan (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. But note that there might be a merger candidate, not in Mornington Crescent, but in nomic. Because WP:DASH suggests that disjunctions should be indicated, any merger should be cotangent to avoid the possibility of loop links, so be certain to place a diaeresis on the originating page. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - To be sourced and cleaned up, but not to be deleted. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete I feel this list borders on being a directory of loosely assosiated topics. And WP isn't a directory of loosely assosiated topics. Sasha Callahan 20:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As this is a content fork from Mornington Crescent and does have some references, at least the editors of that article didn't seem to think it should be deleted outright. Mostly needs to be additionally referenced, especially the fiction ones. --Rocksanddirt 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace the notable ones with a category, as there is no way to know whether all the stuff mentioned here are hoaxes Corpx 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I followed the link to this article, and found it both interesting and amusing. Yes, Rambutan, it's narrow, but a site with two million articles will have some narrow ones. There exist people who enjoy it, though (such as myself) and it's not something that should be deleted just because some people find it boring. Alsadius 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because not only is the selection criterion arbitray, most of the games are either made up in school one day or rely on an editor's judgment as to whether they have unspecified rules; one, for example, uses improvised jargon, but that does not mean it doesn't have rules as such. Virtually none of the entries are actually cited to an independent source which explicitly states that they have unspecified rules. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was looking at a number of games that had unspecified rules, and then followed the link I found to this article, which I enjoyed. It is not "boring" to me. On it are a number of games that I have heard of, a couple of which I have even played. Several have been mentioned on widely spread media. In other words, not all the games are "non-notable". However, I must reiterate what others have said about the article needing cleaning up. The games should all either be sourced, or have wikipedia articles, with the extras deleted. That addresses "unsourced". This article should be linked to from all the games mentioned in the article, which would take care of the "orphan" issue. All in all, one man's "crap" is another man's fertilizer. BTW, "taking up our kilobytes" is not a reason for deletetion. --Jjamison 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up the article a bit. Mostly it was sources and links, but I deleted a couple games. Hope this improves the article enough so that it is not deleted. --Jjamison 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up the article more. --Jjamison 06:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it sounded really ridiculous from the title, but I looked at the revised article. "Unspecified rules" is being used in the sense of "deliberately concealed rules" A good and encyclopedic article on an unexpected subject. suggest re-titling to clarify the scope. DGG (talk)
- Rename (along with keep, above): I like the idea of a rename. How about "List of games with concealed rules"? --Jjamison 03:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suppose the concept is sufficiently notable, given the blue links to most of these games - I do remember something in grade school along the lines of things Mrs. McGillicuddy likes: kittens but not cats, puppies but not dogs, butter and jelly but not margarine or jam, etc. The article is just in poor shape but could likely be sourced and improved. A re-title along the lines of DGG is probably also a good thing. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 10 September 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. --Core desat 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron-Robert Zieler

The subject does not meet the notability criteria laid down in WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league or competition. PeeJay 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nomintating the following pages for the same reason:

Delete all - as per nomination. Youth and reserve players are not notable. - fchd 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Yes, none of these fulfil WP:BIO at the present time but should any at some in the future make the first-team and play in a fully professional league, do bring the article back. --Malcolmxl5 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I've saved all of the articles in TXT documents on my computer for when any of them make an appearance in the first team. - PeeJay 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Peejay! --Malcolmxl5 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Have not played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zieler (he was in the squad for Man Utd during the Champions League last season and given a squad number, and also he is first-choice for Germany's U-18 team, which means it is possible to find verifiable third-party sources), Wolff Eikrem (somewhat notable in Norway, for example there was an article in Aftenposten about his transfer). Delete others. ugen64 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Zieler was given a squad number last season, he has not been given one yet this year, and he hasn't made a first team appearance either. Eikrem is barely notable for the circumstances of his transfer to United, but he has done very little since, apart from playing in a pre-season friendly this year. - PeeJay 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a player hasn't done anything notable this season (it's only been less than a month - Mark Randall does not have a squad number yet either... nor does Fran Merida...) doesn't mean he is completely not notable. It is quite possible to find verifiable sources about Zieler - for example this article at ARD's website. ugen64 01:23, 8 September 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Crush Crew

Old school hip-hop crew that doesn't even attempt to meet WP:BAND. Nothing charted, no tours, no record deal. -- Ben 15:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per CSD A7, no claim of notability, they wrote a song, and dissed some folks. Not even Google has heard of them. Burzmali 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of bands and musicians-related deletions. —-- Ben 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Burzmali and CSD A7. Sasha Callahan 20:28, 5 September 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 - Nominator has good reasoning and there seems to be consensus here with the people involved. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Verstraeten

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Lack of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Sources provided generally fail WP:BLP and mention the subject only tangentially or trivially. Any useable material can be merged into articles on vaccine controversy, thimerosal controversy, causes of autism, etc. Article is clearly a WP:COATRACK to present alternative hypotheses on cause of autism, and violates WP:BLP in its current sourcing and state. This in and of itself could be corrected by editing, but there are not sufficient reliable, BLP-appropriate sources to write an encyclopedic article, hence nomination for deletion. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have too much respect for MastCell to voice an outright disagreement, but I don't understand why the problems in this article cannot be fixed without deletion. Even if Verstraeten has promulgated fringe theories, the references suggest that these theories have been published in serious forums, so I think deletion might be a solution looking for a problem. Shalom ^Hello 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I appreciate the sentiment, but you're welcome to disagree with me. :) Actually, Verstaeten's research does not support fringe theories, but has leaned toward the mainstream scientific view that there is no proven link between vaccination or thimerosal and autism. However, the article as currently conceived and written is a forum for a number of questionable sources which bash Verstraeten and promote minoritarian beliefs about mercury and autism. Those beliefs are certainly notable and widely reported, but to cover them in such depth in an article about a scientist whose research actually comes to a different conclusion is a WP:COATRACK issue. That said, you're totally correct that these issues can be fixed with editing rather than deletion. But, in order to fix them and write a substantial, encyclopedic, and neutral article about Verstraeten, we'd need some independent reliable secondary sources. I have not found such sources. Verstraeten has a solid publication and scientific record, but I don't see enough notability for an individual article rather than coverage of his findings in the context of larger articles about autism or thimerosal. Basically, I think that if you remove all of the questionable, unreliable, and BLP-violating sources and material, there will not be anything substantial left to write an article - hence the nomination for deletion. But maybe you're right and I should stub it first and see if any better sources come to light. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up MastCell, thanks for the message. I removed the last two paragraphs, which I understand as the main source of BLP concern because they seem to contradict his current opinion. Other than that, we are left with a question of whether he is notable in and of himself, or whether his research should be incorporated into articles about vaccination. I don't have a strong opinion either way; my weak opinion is to maintain the status quo and keep his article because it is well-written and referenced. Shalom ^Hello 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MastCell --Truest blue 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thiomersal controversy, if anything more needs to be there than the existing citation to his paper. It looks like his research is relevant for that article, but that he is only known for that single contribution and as such does not warrant a separate article. If kept, though, the newmediaexplorer web page link alleging scientific misconduct should be replaced by the Washington Times article it quotes, per WP:BLP. —David Eppstein 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is not about M. Verstraeten but a placeholder for his view on vaccines. I see no reason to keep this. Pascal.Tesson 02:35, 14 September 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. --Core desat 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River City Theatre Company

The subject of this article patently fails the requirements of WP:N, with not a single reliable independent source to confirm even local notability. Recreated after it was deleted via PROD, the last AFD resulted in no consensus. I see no reason for this, as it is abundantly clear that the article has not, and cannot, be verified. There is no point in cleaning up an article that fails notability guidelines and lacks sources, as any attempt to verify facts will obviously fall short if no sources exist. Without sources, this article is simply free advertising. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There do appear to be independent sources available,[16][17] and some local notability.[18][19] — RJH (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - fix with RJH's references. --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local, amateur theatre group. The first two 'refs' above are based on the same audio system seller's press release touting their 'pro bono' work, the second two are a local, amateur theatre association. Last AfD was 4 deletes to 1 keep by my count--I would have called that consensus. Hellosandimas 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also see no reason to believe it has any notability outside the local area Corpx 04:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur group. Keb25 16:15, 7 September 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. However, no consensus on the renaming issue so I will leave it named as-is and that issue can be addressed in another manner (WP:BOLD and/or WP:RM). —Wknight94 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Martyrs" of the Spanish Civil War

I've started trying to edit this but this strikes me as having no value except as a blatant POV fork. A merger with Spanish Civil War has previously been suggested, but the discussion has since become fairly stale, and I think simple deletion is actually more appropriate in this case Nwe 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename back to Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. I don't see this as a POV fork, as the term is in wide use, in both Catholic & lay media. No merge necessary, as there is enough depth to this article to stand on its own. Historical events that lead to mass beatifications like this are certainly notable. Article move to include the quotes in the title was done by the nominator just prior to the AfD nom. Caknuck 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are don't appear to be any sources for the neutral use of the term. This is a clear POV fork, and there is very little substance to the article. The historical events are included in other articles, most notably Red Terror - Spain. I renamed the article as part of my initial intention to improve its neutrality, but on reviewing it further came to the conclusion that it has no value and is biased by definition.Nwe 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The azcentral.com story cited in the article uses the term. There are over 1000 ghits for that exact phrase. Other secular examples include Sydney Morning Herald (reprint) & The Telegraph. Caknuck 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the azcentral.com story, and the secular examples a mere reports on a controversial decision by the Catholic Church to beatify clergy killed during the war.Nwe 12:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep & rename back to Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. This nomination is totally without merit. This is plainly not a POV fork. Hundreds of the individuals which are the subject of the article have been beatified by the Catholic Church. Info regarding beatification would not belong in the Spanish Civil War article or in the Red Terror article, yet, just as with other beati, they are notable and a separate article is appropriate. Mamalujo 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a pro-Catholic, pro-Franco POV fork, and would be even more atrociously so if it was renamed back. It is an article about a particular name used only by one specifically partisan group or groups to document an event related from a more neutral perspective in other articles, it gives no information that people couldn't get in a more balanced way elsewhere. Almost all of the article describes the events of the red terror, and not the process of beatification.Nwe 10:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spanish Civil War. POV fork and bordering on propaganda Lurker (said · done) 11:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; rename has already been done. In terms of navigation, this article is usefully found from category:Catholic martyrs of Modern Times and other categories. If merged with the main article, do so as a new section and leave this as a redirect to the section, with the categories on the redirect page. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or if expanded, as would be better, rename Roman Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. But the current name really can't stand as even the heirs of the Repubblicans (especially the Communists) often call those that were killed for their loyalty to the Republic "martyrs".--Aldux 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is not a POV fork, but the way the article has been written, apparently to refight part of the Spanish Civil War, is definitely a POV fork. Where's the information on the people actually killed and beatified? Make it a stub, solving the POV problems, and allow it to be rewritten into a NPOV article that actually about its subject. Frankly, this article is an insult to the martyrs. Noroton 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Since when do we delete legitimate articles just because they aren't up to standards, yet? If this article can't stand on its own, then it calls into question the whole Project Saints. Bwpach 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a POV fork and of pamphletary quality in absolutely all its characteristics, from the title to the content, biased from beginning to end. It is simplistic and misleading, giving no valuable per se information, and nothing which could even be worth merging into the Spanish Civil War article. Dr Benway 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Irrational anti-Catholicism is the only reason it was ever marked. It is simplistic, because the facts are simple: Catholics were slaughtered in that profoundly Catholic country simply for being loyal sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church. To delete or rename is to deny history.Yupamonarchist 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And regarding the Caudillo: he was a wicked man of whom the Church is not proud. He killed many Catholics (difference he didn't kill them for being Catholic), but he was the ham-fisted savior Spanish Society and for that some of us connected in some way to Spain are very grateful.Yupamonarchist 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Out of respect for others who, like you, can feel quite strongly on this issue, please keep your political opinions to yourself and to those who may have any interest in them. I'm sure there are many places you can post them on, like your user talk page, for example. This is a discussion on wether to keep or delete this article, and the reasons why you think it should be one way or the other. Let's keep it that way.Dr Benway 07:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I'm Sorry Dr. Benway, but you know nothing of my politics. I haven't spoken of them. I have spoken of my religion Catholicism. I have said indirectly that you are an anti-Catholic, a bigot. I guess I'll say it outloud. And regarding my politics since they've been mentioned, I'm a liberal democrat who voted for John Kerry, who supports gay marriage, but who to the mystification of many is opposed to abortion. This will be my last response to you. God Bless and Mary Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupamonarchist (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That's very considerate of you, thanks :) . Your lack of manners as well as your drivel are something I could really do without.Dr Benway 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle: Catholic martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. to some people, Martyrs of the SCW means the Republicans who met a tragic end there. DGG (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys 01:22, 12 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Bortolucci

Minor actor, essentially sourceless bio (~~one of them doesn't~~ two of them don't even mention him). No sign of any significant roles, fame, or real-world impact. PROD tag added, but reverted without comment by User:Eagletrust -- his or her first and so far only edit. Calton | Talk 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC

This actor stars in a movie the great Leonadro Dicapiro produced that is yet to be released, and the word is the film is genius.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) - — 35mm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete sounds like this article exists to get "the word" out. Which is not what we are here for. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of actual notability or good sources. It certainly doesn't help that the article has been edited by a high number of very focused or even single purpose accounts or that it in absence of a working courthousenews link it just draws attention at some stalk site out there.--Tikiwont 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC
Do Not Delete single purpose accounts are what built Wikipedia, however he is oblivious being discredited by a single individual with a purpose. IMDB confirms all his credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The emphasis was on 'high number': I counted almost 10 SPA, many of them adding impressive detail for an allegedly secretive person and none a reliable source. Since we also have a policy regarding living persons and IMDB doesn't count as source there (only for the credits), I've trimmed the article accordingly. --Tikiwont 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the WP:BIO section on actors: "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Nothing in the article demonstrates his roles are significant, so he fails the notability hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB Has him appearing in numerous commercial endorsements, including a superbowl commercial with Muhammad Ali

WP:BIO section on actors. It seems he defiantly meets that criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Comment Also found this, It shows more criteria which is meet from WP:BIO section on actors http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1477868/publicity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extended, Extented Comment Found this also www.davidbortolucci.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither imdb nor the subject's personal website is a reliable source. Corvus cornix 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems not even not the subject's personal site, but a highjacked one, mentioned above and implicitly also in the article before I removed it. And 35mm seems to be aware of this problem [20]. --Tikiwont 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most defiantly a highjacked site amongst many. Evidentially he is famous enough to have psycho-stalking fans. Never the less the bogus site directly shows notability, in his part by providing various images of him at different events. The disclaimer is a dead give away that there is no affiliation. Leave the poor guy alone people, its evident he has enough cyber problems already. Peace Love Happiness will make you a success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funonline (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Funonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable - one of the external links (tv.com) even states "his acting career has yet to take off." Hal peridol 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there are people like you trying to discredit him for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.247.214 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cut as non-notable. The credits on IMDb are mostly single episodes on TV shows; roles in the two 2007 films look to be minor. Clarityfiend 06:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eh - seems just below or at the notability, but we have no reliable sources for it. --Rocksanddirt 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before deleting, someone ought to note all the various single-purpose accounts screwing around with the article: the article history until recently -- and even now -- looks like a battle of sockpuppets. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bit part actor whose scenes seem to hit an awful lot of cutting room floors. --WebHamster 00:25, 10 September 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. --Core desat 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Voodoo

Unsourced and has been so for 2 years. Nothing of value in this article cannot be covered in Homosexuality and Christianity. The only source given is a personal website on AOL. No assertion that this is a notable issue other than what is already found in Homosexuality and Christianity. So, delete per WP:V and to lesser extend WP:N. MartinDK 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Nom withdrawn. Trolling wins. Bye MartinDK 09:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research, no citations or sources. Please, no jokes about where to stick the pin in the voodoo doll. Mandsford 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete OR nonsense. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two years! Unverifiable. Looks to be nonsense. Pursey 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. Someone can EASILY improve this article with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckeredFlag200 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. Unverfied. No assertion of notability through reliable sources. On top of all that, its probably nonsense--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent changes I'm sriking my comment supporting deletion. I'm still not sure of the subject's notability but for now I am neutral as regards its deletion. Considering that the sources and notability are thin on the ground, this subject might be better served if the page was merged to ~~Homosexuality~~ Religion and homosexuality--Cailil ^talk 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have to merge it (I have asked to keep it below) might I suggest we merge with Religion and homosexuality instead? Fosnez 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I've changed my position above--Cailil ^talk 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Truckloads of OR and fails WP:V.--JForget 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Total crap, spam, ...just delete! It is hard to believe that such article even exist on Wikipedia. RS1900 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article sucks, but that's not the reason to delete it. Fix it. lose the OR, read the book referenced and include something interesting if it's there. If it's not, then the stub can be deleted later. --Rocksanddirt 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Rocksanddirt. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.71.92.70.77 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's impossible to improve an OR subject with no significant coverage from reliable, published sources. This topic simply isn't notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some reliable sources to the article. I think more can be done for it, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The books are not about this subject, they just deal with Voodoo which is already well-covered on Wikipedia. MartinDK 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nonetheless, the pages (and sometimes chapters) cited deal with this specific subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some more sources, it needs work but should be kept. Fosnez 08:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merging into another religions article hardly seems appropriate, the article simply needs improving per WP:AFD "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Benjiboi 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a load of bollocks! --angelus dolorum - bdsm writer and poet 03:53, 10 September 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 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy

Note. This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a history of edits whose contents or relevance are disputed by the subject. The subject considers the article to be a violation of his privacy, asserting that he is a private, not a public person. Past actions by the subject and others largely outside his control have served to escalate the dispute. Accuracy is not really the issue, he hates the fact that the article exists and the insertion of some facts, and the editing of the article by some individuals he considers "stalkers", cause him quite disproportionate distress. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1

Keep Sorry.. he's notable. Passes all guidelines. SirFozzie 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes he passes the guidelines, but they are just that; guidelines... not a policy set in stone or a suicide pact. Guidelines are not meant to be a hard and fast rule. There is no reason we absolutely have to have an article on a person just because they meet the letter of WP:BIO, any more so than we absolutely have to delete an article just because the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Guidelines are meant to be applied with judgment. Having an article doesn't make Wikipedia an inherently better encyclopedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not give a reason to delete. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I feel that I did ("Having an article doesn't make Wikipedia an inherently better encyclopedia"). The article is about a marginally notable producer who perhaps meets the letter of a relevant guideline, but other than that isn't overly important to have an article about. It isn't a question of whether or not Mr. Murphy likes having an article about himself here or content/editing issues. It is a fundamental "is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia for having this article here", and I happen to think the answer is no.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't delete articles on notable people because they don't like it. We are guided by NPOV and if the article deviates from that then fix it. If it is neutral and the guy still does not like it then that is just to bad. We have the BLP policy, Don knows how to contact the foundation. I have not seen any valid reason for deleting this article brought up. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has recently deleted ~dozens of articles on notable (insofar as they were mentioned in multiple published news stories) people on the grounds that "they (the subjects)wouldn't like it". In addition, violet/riga was ~admonished for undeleting them and BadlyDrawnJeff was ~scolded (or whatever verbal punishment is harsher than admonishment) for arguing about the deletions. There was an entire RFA about the matter of the deletion of material on the grounds "they wouldn't like it" [21].Uncle uncle uncle 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he is notable enough that his wishes about the existence of the article carry little weight, as long as there is no harm being done. He is certainly more notable than Ted Frank or Barbara Schwarz. - Crockspot 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope. Eusebeus 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the Foundation does not see fit to defend its editors from the problems we have seen in this particular case is disturbing. I don't like setting the precedent where all someone has to do to have their way on Wikipedia is to start making trouble for people off Wikipedia. If the Foundation doesn't want to deal with this problem, then it's the beginning of the end for Wikipedia. What if we weren't dealing with a movie producer - what if we were dealing with the Bushies harassing people who don't tow the GOP party line? What if it was religious fanatics harassing people at work that said something negative about their cult? The Foundation needs to step in an do something here. Unless or until that happens, I vote delete, but that really isn't a solution. PrivacySock 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— PrivacySock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SirFozzie 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Of course this is my first edit with this account so far. I'm an active user posting from an alternate account for privacy reasons. PrivacySock 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:BIO to enough of an extent that the subject's desire to have the article deleted are immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per Guy (I nominated it before) and Don's own clearly stated wishes, SqueakBox 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes notability criterian in my opinion. Only push for deletion appears to be he does not want it here. If everybody who did not want an article here got it deleted, that would set a bad precedent. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for utilitarian purposes. Even if he's marginally notable, this guy really, really doesn't want the article on him to exist, and he's willing to stalk and harass members of our community to disrupt our project in an unbelievably childish manner until he gets what he wants. Let's please just delete this article, so he goes away and we can get back to building our encyclopedia. krimpet ⟲ 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, as ChazBeckett has said below, he's no where near the margin of notability. SirFozzie 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I disagree, I'm still not sure he's all that notable~~(striking this out too, as i just noticed he's the subject of a 300-page biography, forget I said that =/) -- however, after delving further the history of this dispute, I'm striking my decision above as I now realize that appeasing him may only make things worse. --krimpet ⟲ 18:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this was a borderline, semi-notable subject, I'd probably vote to delete, given that he'd prefer not to have an article. However, he's produced several very well known films, including Transformers, which has already made over $300 million (in the US). Chaz ^Beckett 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to stop the harassment of our volunteers by giving the subject what he wants. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But at what point should the line be drawn? When should we say "No" and refuse to delete an article simply because the subject is harassing editors? Don Murphy has produced multiple successful mainstream movies, including one that's made nearly $700 million worldwide. Chaz ^Beckett 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drawing a bright line would probably be too restrictive. We should be able to evaluate the extent of any problem in each case, and balance the severity of any abuse with the importance of the subject. If harassment becomes more serious or becomes a real-world problem, we can reevaluate without being constrained by a policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's the producer of several very successful movies. If we delete the article, someone will eventually notice that, "hey, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Don Murphy", and create one. Because he's the producer of several very successful movies. If we take it down, that raises several difficult questions, including whether his films should be considered notable either (why do we have an article on Natural Born Killers, for instance). It's a shame that some nitwit at Warner Brothers added "gay pornographer" to Mr Murphy's article and then teased him about it, yes, but hurt feelings are a reason to keep the articles high-quality, not to delete the articles in toto. If we show that harassing our contributors is the way to get what you want with an article, that just invites more harassment. DS 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep: He's fully notable and the removal of the article does open up a sizeable hole in our material in this area. I know he's a complete jerk who has indulged in stalking of editors to force his want upon them, and that he's capable of much more. I would have no objections to the article being deleted and rewritten from scratch, also, I know it's highly unorthodox, but I wouldn't object to edits being deleted or oversighted to protect any user who feels they are at risk from Murphy. In short, the message we need to send to him and any others who think they can gain something by indulging in borderline illegal activities against our editors is that they can fuck right off. Algie The Pig 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to comment about the repeated placement of a template that seeks to tag this account as being a single purpose account. That's certainly not correct, I'm only using this account to provide an additional degree of anonymity, it was not created just to take part in this discussion. Algie The Pig 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If Tony Blair objected to his article would be delete it? No, because he is obviously notable. Similarly Don Murphy is certainly notable enough for an article. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: --SkyWalker 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG, Tom harrison. Re Until(1 == 2)'s comment above, "We are guided by NPOV and if the article deviates from that then fix it…We have the BLP policy, Don knows how to contact the foundation." That is completely inadequate. It's our responsibility to get it right, and if we aren't willing to establish mechanisms to do so (e.g. permanent semi-protection of BLP's, bans of users who violate WP:BLP, etc., published) If we can't maintain biographies per BLP, or at least in a non-libelous state, we've no right to publish them at all. Our desire to maintain our system, whereby anyone may edit anonymously, does not trump our obligation not to libel living people, anymore than do our notability guidelines. Providing the platform and the tools to smear them today, that we might fix it tomorrow is still libel, and by this time completely negligent: we know it happens, we know exactly how it happens, and we know it will happen again, we continue to provide the tools to do it and decline to take credible measures to fix it. If that's not negligence, what is? Suggesting that he maintain contact with the foundation on a (presumably) regular basis is perverse: must everyone profiled on Wikipedia check in daily and maintain WF on speed-dial? Who will answer the phones? Or must they all become editors here, where they can be attacked in talk space as well? It's only a matter of time before this all catches up to the project. Until we have a credible solution, when in doubt, delete. None of this remotely negates the project's failure to protect its volunteers from harassment; that's just another miserable failure of our community. Instead of protecting bio subjects from attack, we offer them the opportunity to harass our volunteers in return, which we are likewise powerless to stop. What a disgraceful mess.Proabivouac 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a "delete it because Wikipedia isn't working" argument. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By Proabivouac's definition, I wait with bated breath for the AfD for every other BLP article on WP he will soon be filing. And don't try to bring JVM on this, most of his troubles he brought on his own head. SirFozzie 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, because somebody posted a poop edit in his article at some point, and because he has a website from which to be an ~~asshole~~ (per BLP) from, we will delete the article of a fairly notable filmmaker who has produced VERY notable films, but on the other hand, someone like Barbara Schwarz, who is barely notable for one thing, who has no website from which to attack, whose biography makes her out to be a ~~raving lunatic~~, and who has been pleading for as long as I have been around to have her article deleted, gets ignored. I just don't get it. - Crockspot 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz is probably the best sourced article I've ever seen on someone who really doesn't matter. Personally I don't see much of a reason for that article either.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't publish malicious lies about someone - even temporarily - is very basic journalistic ethics.Proabivouac 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, we need to delete every biography on Wikipedia, and every reference in non-biographies to any living people, because somebody has or will make a nasty edit to every one of them at some point in time. We can rename it DeadPeoplepedia. (btw, this isn't a journalism organ, and we are not journalists, nor are we practicing journalism here.) - Crockspot 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, we could change our system. Even semiprotecting all BLP' would prevent edits of this nature:[22] That's over 24 hours that information remained. The only way in which this could not have damaged Mr. Murphy's reputation is if no one actually read the article in that period. Have we learned nothing from the Seigenthaler controversy? There's a real world going on all around us, in which people read Wikipedia to learn things. They don't wait until vandalism is fixed. If they read falsehoods, it's we who have misinformed them (itself unethical,) and in these cases also damaged the subjects of our articles.Proabivouac 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions would also be fairly effective at preventing the real world from reading vandalized articles. I'd definitely prefer that solution than outright deletion of oft-vandalized bios. Chaz ^Beckett 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this article will not change anything here - if you want to change the system there are many discussions about how to move forward. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will solve the problem for one living person who's requesting that we solve it.Proabivouac 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the living person in this case IS the problem. SirFozzie 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did he write this? No, that would have been us. That we allowed User:ColScott to harass editors here is actually part of the same problem: we've no method, or worse, we've not the will, to keep attacks on living people, whether bio subjects, editors, or both, off of Wikipedia.Proabivouac 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going to disengage, since I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, but seriously. It was even agreed that the subject's wishes would be a factor in the discussion in the case of semi-notable folks during the later Daniel Brandt AfD's. This is nothing of the like. The Notability bar has been well surpassed. What's next? Because Don Murphy doesn't like the way he was portrayed in the book about him, he will get the right to pull all copies of the book? Is the system perfect? No. Should we pull any BLP article because idiots, vandals and morons have or even MIGHT screw things up? No. Fix the underlying cause of the issue. And the fix is not giving notable folks veto power over having anything on them. SirFozzie 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we still havent deleted the thread. So much for oversight. Murphy has complained that his professional reputation has been affected by vandals on wikipedia. Is this in any way acceptable. This kind of stuff has the potential to turn our site into being perceived as a trolling site as to effect somebody's business in such a way and then do nothing to remedy it is simply not acceptable. I am pleased to see that after I was the only delete on the first nomination the community is at least tackling the issue with more maturity now, SqueakBox 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) We don't ever remove an article because it's vandalism target, we deal robustly with trolling, and it's hopefully going to be something we can much more easily control with flagged revisions, tools like Virgil's Wikiscanner and more robust open proxy scanners, so by Christmas, finding and blocking vandals and trolls before their edits are seen by the wider populace is should be a matter of routine. Algie The Pig 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr. Murphy's wishes. Sasha Callahan 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known director, even though his own personal agenda has driven at least one Wikipedian away. We don't delete an entire article because the subject doesn't get to say what goes in it. If it's sourced, and doesn't run afoul of undue weight, then keep it. If it isn't sourced, or if the sources are questionable, get rid of them. What's so hard about that? Corvus cornix 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not a "well-known director". Where did you get the idea he is? Keeping on the grounds that he is a "well-known director" when he most definitely is no such thing is poor encyclopediamanship Uncle uncle uncle 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. I meant to say "well-known producer". Corvus cornix 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is clearly notable, and has produced several popular films. The controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers would be sufficient for an entry, regardless of his other noteworthy activities. While I can concede that individuals of marginal notability could be accommodated in the "requesting deletion" category, it is not appropriate for a clearly noteworthy person. And I am sorry, but deleting an article specifically because the subject is reported to have harassed editors is an open invitation for anyone who doesn't like their Wikipedia biography to harass WP editors. I am sure there are all kinds of people in Hollywood who'd rather do without than the article they have here, and I have no doubt word would spread that this is how to get rid of their bio. Risker 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will abstain due to prior interaction with Murphy; he'd only lump me in with all the other editors he believes are out to get him. I will only note that had I continued to monitor the article I could have reverted the vandalism almost as quickly as it appeared, but he has driven away even sympathetic editors who are fans of his films. I'm not sure that's germane here, but it's certainly a factor in how well his article is maintained. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Jzg, TomHarrison and DonMurphys wishes. I read all about this on WR. Don is a little harsh when repsonding to his one particular teenage stalker sometimes, but I can understand why. Let him go! •smedleyΔbutler• 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Teenage stalker"? You mean the administrator who was enforcing Wikipedia policy? Corvus cornix 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Mr Murphy was referring to User:Saturday, who is not an administrator. DS 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly correct. User:Saturday. I am not casting doubt and malice at any Wikipedia administrator. I wont post Saturdays real name even though I know it. I cant post a link to the thread WR with all the details because its banned. •smedleyΔbutler• 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought you were talking about User:H who left Wikipedia because some of Mr. Murphy's fans were making threats to himself and his family in real life. Corvus cornix 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Guy says it best. Shadow master66 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While, in the probable words of Mark Kermode, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself (Transformers? Yeesh), he's still, unfortunately, notable, and his fragile ego shouldn't be Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don Murphy is notable and no I'm not biased because he gave me the charming message "solinnearwantstobeexposednext". --MichaelLinnear 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep this is mad! He was involved in making 'natural born killers' and now 'transformers' which is very current and noteable. Where will cow-towing to people's whims end? Also as it stands, there's nothing in the article which the subject could object to, the current version simply records his achievements.Merkinsmum 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment I'm shocked at what I'm reading, but won't endanger myself lol seeing as someone has no qualms about attacking children verbally, and their privacy. Anyway, the latest version by 'Squeakbox' has nothing objectionable in it. It's not illegal to discuss someone or have an article about someone, and I don't see how Mr.Murphy can ever win anything claiming otherwise. As long as we do our best within reason to remove any vandalism of it in future, wikipedia is not liable for anything surely?Merkinsmum 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "vandalism" according to our house terminology. If someone hacks into a site, that's vandalism. Editing the article is exactly what we invite people to do; see the third button from the left. We don't ask if their intent is malicious, but assume good faith and hand them the tools. It's impossible to characterize that as "doing our best" to prevent anything.Proabivouac 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to say that I wasn't referring to any recent edits, just that on other sites the subject was saying stuff he considers to be nasty had been added in the article's past. I know the recent edits are more in good faith and anyone can edit. However in the famous words of an essay, most vandals are friends of gays lol and I think one edited this article in the past, such an edit was clearly vandalism as I believe it was unfactual, not that I know anything about the subject of this article.Merkinsmum 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable Hollywood producer. Though some have tried to tag me an "attack site sympathizer" after my recent struggles against the BADSITES policy, one area on which I remain resolutely opposed to the philosophies espoused in such sites is that I strongly oppose giving notable bio subjects veto power over having an article here. *Dan T.* 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to have a significant filmography record and thus passes WP:BIO although it would needs some further references to meet WP:V.JForget 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and protect or semi-protect the article and work with Murphy on any concerns he has. There's simply no question that he warrants an article. Everyking 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy and the spirit of WP:BLP. Subject doesn't want an article, and we are powerless to permanently police the article from determined vandalization. Subject's wishes should be a factor in the discussion in the case of semi-notable folks, per previous discussions in the Daniel Brandt Afds. End the madness now, for the benefit of Mr. Murphy, and the good of the Foundation. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or else just shut down the WP servers since we're no longer interested in being an encyclopedia. "producer Don Murphy" is clearly, obviously, very, very, very notable within Hollywood. --DeLarge 09:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The subject of an article wishing it to be deleted should never be used as a reason for deletion; AfDs using this as a reason should be shut down on sight. Subject is clearly notable. Let's keep to our principles and avoid another Daniel Brandt debacle Lurker (said · done) 11:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is clearly not policy and would meet stiff opposition where anyone to attempt to change policy to make it so, SqueakBox 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my vote. Murphy is involved in "outing" Wikipedia editors, which is a form of harrassment. Theoretically, I dislike the idea of giving into this sort of thing, but I am not prepared to stand on principle if it compromises the right to privacy (and, potentially, the safety) of Wikipedia editors. Give the scumbag what he wants. Lurker (said · done) 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if he meets guidelines and is notable, keep the article. All because he doesn't like or want his article is not a reason to delete it. I also agree with Violetriga. Acalamari 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per decision on John Stockwell and numerous others - if you are a "public" figure, you can't complain that you don't want your name to appear in print. If he's had a messy divorce, or once flirted with Satanism, I agree, leave it off the article if he has an issue with it, but as of right now the article seems to be highly "uninteresting, plain, boring and factual", which shouldn't cause any problem. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why hasn't this been taken to the OFFICE/OTRS/Jimbo directly? Prior history on this article is known to most posting here, and given the legal hassles in the past, and the likelihood of more, why aren't paid people sorting this one out? ThuranX 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if this issue is that serious in legal terms it seems higher powers should be dealing with this directly--the whole thing might be beyond the scope of a simple AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2

Delete article on Subject.
- Reasons:
  - Subject did not sign the Informed Consent Release that would validate his participation in our sociological experiment.
  - Lack of due diligence on the part of our Human Subjects Committee.
  - Editorial incompetence and gross lack of control on the part of our researchers in the field.
- Result: We have lost the confidence and the good will of yet another experimental Subject, one who was apparently neutral on the matter of the article at the outset of the experimental trial.
- Recommendation: Terminate experiment as far as this Subject is concerned. Try to do better on the next Subject.
Respectfully submitted, Randolph Stetson 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm...OK. Are you sure you're on the right site? Chaz ^Beckett 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slight humour, but I think the point is clear. How about if I say it this way: Delete per Murphy's Law — everything that could go wrong with this article … already has. Ergo, time to hang it up and move on. Randolph Stetson 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response - subject doesn't need to have signed anything and given us 'permission', this is just an article which discusses facts in print in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be about all noteable subjects. Subject is not semi-noteable like those who policy has decided can be removed due to their wishes- this is a noteable subject who doesn't fall into that exclusion. There may have been problems in the past but the version by Squeakbox has no problems with it. If this subject has harassed others on wikip and threatened them with 'outing', he should be subject to the same processes as any other user who threatens others in a similar way. If he has threatened or outed others (particularly underage children, which he has admits he has) who have a particular need for privacy and consideration, the boy concerned, or his parents, should report the person revealing the details of children or picking on others to his ISP just as they would do if it had been done by anyone else. I don't know how much luck they would have, but worth a go. This person is in the wrong,not us. As long as we do our best to remove vandalism if it occurs, we are surely not liable. Will we remove anyone's article if they threaten us? Forgive my long reply, but I'm shocked at what's happening.Merkinsmum 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's important to understand that Wikipedia must live according to the rules of the outside world. The outside world is not required to live according to rules of Wikipedia. Randolph Stetson 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is, without question, highly notable and this is what matters here. He is not of marginal notability such that it's questionable as to whether he passes our notability guidelines, nor is he a "regular person" who gained unfortunate notoriety on the internet because of a YouTube video or something similar (I have no problem with those kind of articles being deleted). I agree with the editors above expressing extreme disappointment with this AfD, which I feel is incredibly misguided. If we were to delete this clearly notable person we are heading down a very dangerous road that suggests writing the best encyclopedia in world history is no longer our main goal (rather do no harm--a sentiment with which I largely agree--would seem to be our top concern). The argument presented by the nom, that the subject "hates the fact that the article exists," is mildly terrifying, particularly as it is invoked with increasing frequency around here. But the idea that we should kowtow to the subject's wishes because some of our editors have been harassed/outed over this article is even more wrongheaded. If we delete this, we are essentially saying "if you harass us enough about your article, we will quite possibly delete it." This would be a terrible precedent--though we've already set it to an extent--and essentially throws our objectivity out the window (deleting this also would not, as some suggest, stop harassment of our volunteers--instead it would encourage harassment since we would tacitly be admitting that that is an effective tactic for getting material you do not like deleted). As was suggested above, if we delete this because some vandals added scurrilous information, then we may as well delete every article we have about prominent living people since scurrilous information is added to them constantly. Or else we should say that this is no longer the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (though an AfD seems like a weird place to decide that). If we want a situation where prominent people with power (and/or their supporters) have a fair amount of control over Wikipedia content related to them then by all means we should delete this because that is precisely the message we will be sending. I find it utterly baffling that keep voters do not seem to recognize that fact, or, if they do, that they do not see it as being fundamentally in conflict with our main mission here--to write the best, most objective encyclopedia ever written.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our inability to police articles and to remove poor versions from the history page (and make them not readable by admins) is at the heart of this problem and until we deal with this problem (indeed not here) then IMO we are unable to "write the best, most objective encyclopedia ever written" because as our appraoch to writing wikipedia stands right now some individuals who are subjects of articles feel that it is wikipedia who is stalking them, SqueakBox 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any such offensive statements are clearly attributed to those who make them. By removing them from the current version we are doing enough. We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to this AfD (as you essentially admit) which is what we should be focused upon. One of the main points in my comment is that, if we decide to delete this on the basis that it makes the subject angry, we essentially open the door to mass deletions of important articles simply because folks complain about them (particularly powerful people who can easily make themselves heard). You bring up a serious issue which should be discussed elsewhere, but I hope you would agree that my point also relates to a problem that would prevent us from writing an excellent encyclopedia (i.e. anytime someone threatens us, we basically do what they ask us to--journalists and publishers usually avoid being intimidated by threats and I think we should strive for that as well).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its the fact that Murphy is threatening us but the fact that we (albeit inadvertently) have threatened him by threatening his career and reputation by allowing (again inadvertently) some idiot to vandalise Murphy's article and then failing to revert it which was then (according to Murphy) spotted by people whom he does business with. If we threaten his business by threateneing his reputation we must take steps to remedy that and I believe my comments are relevant here to the extent that if we cant resolve this problem right now we should delete his article till we can and then we could rerstore it or start it anew if notability indicates that would be appropriate, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then we should delete all biographies of living persons, period, because we can never protect them 100% from vandalism. I would not want to work on such a Wikipedia, but that appears to be the direction things are going. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I dont think we are likely to go that far I think the level of notability should be raised considerably higher, especially relating to people who dont want an article about themselves, and that our level of bn notability should exclude Murphy. We could so easily just have an article on AngryFilms here instead containing exactly the same information. If wikipedia doesnt go far enough in this direction then I am not sure I'll be wanting to work on the project 6 months down the line myself, SqueakBox 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is some support for turning Wikipedia into a business directory, but it may not have the same attraction as a project. (It would probably help kick our PageRank back down a bunch of notches, though, once we became just spam.) I don't see how it prevents vandalism or libel by changing the title of articles retaining the "same information", though. Also, Angry Films only exists for part of Murphy's career; what do you propose for the remainder? --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JDProductions? Actually we have lots of articles on businesses (eg Microsoft) so changing this article into those of his businesses would not weaken the integrity or quality of our encyclopedia whereas leaving people like Murphy feeling they are being stalked by us is potentially catastrophic for the project, besides we are not as a project more important than these people and their lives and we shouldnt think of ourselves as such (the "what people think doesnt matter as we can write what we want about them" argument). This is supposed to be a noble project, SqueakBox 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I eagerly await your merge of Steven Spielberg into Amblin Entertainment. (This is not an idle choice, as Spielberg and Murphy co-produced Transformers, which has earned one third of a $billion. Murphy may say he feels stalked, but I lost my ability to extend him good faith long before he even began to harass User:Saturday. He has inserted bad-faith edits into articles himself and libeled people on talk pages, so he obviously speaks from experience when it comes to the weaknesses of our project. I'm sure he'd like to get a USA Today editorial, too, but then all of his own juvenile behavior would come to light, so it's a Mexican standoff in that regard. And if you think that I've argued "we can write what we want", I have not. I am arguing for sourced articles compliant with our policies on neutrality, which several other editors have said this article is. That is as noble as it can be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Squeakbox's remarks are quite apt and to the point. The world does not give you credit for what you are trying to do. It judges you according to what you actually do. We cannot get away with saying, "We are trying to do something really peachy keen here, so please excuse us if there's a lot of collateral damage on the way to our goal. A toy manufacturer does not get held harmless because it "gave it the old college try" at keeping lead paint out of its toys. Articles have real effects, on real people's lives, in the real world, and those effects cannot be called back the way you would amend, delete, or oversight a piece of an article. In this case, as in so many others, real harm was done, and that harm is irreversible. Wikipedia dropped the ball, it may lose a Big Game because of it, there's no crying "Do Overs!" in the Big Kids' World. Randolph Stetson 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did we really drop the ball? I see an article that is very neutral here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A man sees what he wants to see …" And I do not see a striped shirt, so you must not be the Ref. Randolph Stetson 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Paul Simon.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's not so notable that we'd look silly without an article about him. Therefore, his wishes should be taken into account. ElinorD (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the fact that he expressed his wishes via a large, organized campaign to harass Wikipedia editors--and that we are apparently considering capitulating to that--be taken into account, or do we honestly not care about that? Do we have a new WP:N guideline (to be applied only after a subject has complained about an article and harassed our editors) called "not so notable that we will look silly without an article about them" of which I am unaware, or are we just making up new policies on the fly here? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with capitulating, it's whether we should or should not have an article given that the subject does not want one. Would it leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage of the films he's been involved with? Would it look odd not to have an article? Are there good sources to draw on? That kind of thing. We mustn't punish him for not wanting an article. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I think it ignores the points that several keep voters are making. Murphy--by his own admission elsewhere on the web--engaged in an organized campaign to harass editors here and also asked that his article be deleted. Some of the delete voters are suggesting that we should delete this in order to end the harassment, and it seems odd to me that we would not see that as a huge problem and a bad precedent for reasons already described. Whether or not a subject of an article wants the article to exist is something we can and should consider in certain cases, but our policies on notability, verifiability, etc. are simply more fundamental and important since our goal is to write an encyclopedia--an undertaking which is bound to make some people angry along the way. As to sources, gaps etc.--yes, clearly there are a large number of sources about Murphy--including a full-on book--and yes, it would look odd if we did not have an article about him as he is a significant Hollywood producer (it would look even odder if we salted the entry to prevent re-creation, which we would probably have to do). The subject is notable, and thus the rationale for deletion amounts to "this guy does not like it and he is bugging us and the article is not super-duper important." But, and I ask this quite seriously, upon what policy is that based? What policy do we use to decide that it's acceptable to delete the article on this person or any other person because they have not achieved some kind of uber-notability? That is, how do we determine if it would "look odd" or "leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage" if we throw our notability guidelines overboard and essentially just rely on instincts/our level of annoyance at the consequences of the article's existence? Just as disturbing, do the wealthy and well-connected like Murphy get more say over our content simply because they can do a better job of badgering us? The ramifications of deleting this in the fashion being proposed go well beyond the simple fact that the content will be gone. I'm trying not to over-dramatize here, and my apologies for what is obviously a bit of a rant, but I find this all extremely bizarre and, for lack of a better word, "unencyclopedic."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete it, it should be out of respect for the subject, and for no other reason. I have no control over what others think or advocate, but I told Murphy that I would make a sincere attempt to get the article deleted, and I have done that. Some people agree that this is an issue of human decency; others (hopefully with the intention of participating in the effort to keep the article free from crap) are of the view that we should respectfully decline the request and instead give our undertaking, as a project, to do our very best to make the article as good as it can be. Sadly that is probably doomed because (a) we've said that before, or words to that effect anyway, and (b) the article existing at all is his problem. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I watchlisted the article yesterday (and encourage others to do so as well) and will certainly do my part to help keep it free from crap, which is obviously a problem on a huge number of articles here. I still stand by my other comments above which relate to completely different issues than the ones you bring up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maintain wikipedia's principles - and its status as the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. In a very public place, we provide a very big wall and sufficient tools for anyone to write what they wish. Many people write things on the wall; many more read it. Some of those things prove to be popular, some are believed, some people see their own names and may not like what else they see. Is that a flaw in the wall, or with the tools? I don't think so. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3

keep - notable enough, more verification through good sources. Is this an encyclopedia of the sum of verifiable human knowlege? or a collection of fan articles on various nice subjects? --Rocksanddirt 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry that Mr. Murphy doesn't want an article, and I'm very sorry that it was vandalized in an offensive way, but he's a notable public figure and it would be a disservice to the reader base not to have this available. I will put it on my watchlist to try and keep it from being vandalized in the future. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and in my opinion will remain an encyclopedia with or without this article. The thing is, people, whatever we as a community thought previously, Wikipedia is in the Real World. In the Real World, Bad Things happen to people when inaccurate, volatile and wide-spread information is regarded as a "biography" and maintained by an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is, of course, a service to the readers. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Second, of utmost concern are the people, especially those still living, regarding whom we maintain "biographies". This "biography", however, is not a biography. From the article "biography" (which, admittedly, is not a definitive definition of a biography): "As opposed to a profile or curriculum vitae, a biography develops a complex analysis of personality, highlighting different aspects of it and including intimate details of experiences. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts like birth, education, work, relationships and death."

Now read the article, "Don Murphy". Perhaps read it again. Pardon me while I comment that the article is not a biography. It is instead a profile and a list of facts ("Don Murphy is an American film producer .... formed JD Productions in Los Angeles .... formed his own company ....", etc.). There is simply insufficient sources with which to maintain a biography.
We could maintain a profile, but we must not trick ourselves into thinking that we are maintaining a biography. Many "dead tree" encyclopedias maintain "stubs" or what we would call "sub-stubs" to offer what little information is available regarding a topic. I don't think we should adopt the practice across the project, as I like the fact that even an obscure, silly or mundane topic can have a large article (like the article "Pencil"). I think that we have two options: (1) Delete the article or (2) Begin the practice of maintaining "sub-stubs" or "stubs" which are not biographies but are profiles, and which are protected from editing. Barring the adoption of #2, I recommend #1. Delete. --Iamunknown 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable whether what you call a "biography" is even possible for any article due to NPOV and NOR. Why are you so worried about the semantics? It's a collection of neutrally-presented, verifiable and notable information about Don Murphy. You can type all that out each time you mention it if you like. And we already do "maintain "stubs" ... to offer what little information is available regarding a topic", but it isn't clear to me what this has to do with Murphy's article (there's plenty of information available about him). Everyking 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is simply insufficient sources with which to maintain a biography. You haven't looked very far. Murphy's work on Natural Born Killers was extensively documented in a book by his partner and he has been profiled in detail in LA Weekly, as well as many other books, news stories, and magazine articles sufficient to maintain a biography. The question is whether anyone dares edit the article without playing the bootlick. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In the last AFD I wrote "Keep, because being a producer for a film as famous as Natural Born Killers makes you highly notable in cultural life. From WP:BIO we have 1) "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and 2) "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" and 3) "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Very far from borderline notability, and Wikipedia would be seriously damaged if this article were removed." I see nothing which would suggest that WP:BIO is not passed by a tremendous margin for being the producer of a major movie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as delineated significantly already. The desire by a notable subject, with established notability, not to be covered at a news source, an encyclopedia, or library, is regrettable, but not an issue. - Nascentatheist 07:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's not set a bad precedent. Whether someone is notable is determined by us, not them. Reinis^talk 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now, see, when you say that, you are illustrating the very violation of WP:NOR that many good Wikipedians are worried about when Wikipedia strays into the business of publishing first biographies on a subject. If any subject's notability were determined predominantly by the fact that Wikepedia elects to publish an article about it, then Wikipedia is originating the opinion that the subject is notable — and that is something that Wikipedia is specifically forbidden to do, by the spirit of our principles and the letter of our policies both. The overarching policy of WP:NOR expressly trumps the practical guideline of WP:CONSENSUS here. We are not allowed to take an opinion poll among ourselves — or any other population, for that matter — in order to form the synthetic judgement that so-and-so is notable or not, because that would constitute Original Research on our parts. Randolph Stetson 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR refers to the content and claims we make, it does not refer to our editorial practice which has always been internally decided upon. The external verification we use to determine if it meets our criteria is our notability criteria, and it is based on reliable sources. This is also not the first biography for Don(Killer Instinct). ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of article content. The article has to contain the statement that the subject is notable, or else the article is supposed to be speedily deleted. And if the article contains a statement to that effect then it has to be WP:VERIFIABLE on the basis of something more than a procedural finding of Wikipedia editors who happen to turn up at a given AfD. The book that that you mention is not a Biography of Don Murphy. It looks more like the Anatomy of a Movie, that is, a documentary. We have ways of distinguishing documentaries of controversies, episodes, events, and incidents from the biographies of the people who are naturally involved in them, and this book does not qualify as a biography. Morever, if Don Murphy were here trying to argue for his notability on the basis of a book written by one of his business partners, you know that it would be disqualified as a vanity publication, or more broadly on conflict of interest grounds. Randolph Stetson 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be verifiably notable by our own criteria. We don't need a source that says "Don is famous", we need sources demonstrating he has achieved things that meet our criteria, and by having a major role in several major motion pictures he has, verifiably. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do, or else we violate WP:NOR. Indeed, it would take a whole lot more than one source saying something to that effect. It would demand a consensus of public opinion, represented by multiple reliable sources, independent of each other, independent of the subject as a source, and independent of Wikipedia as a source of opinion. Randolph Stetson 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only need a source that says "Don is famous" if we say "Don is famous". We are not, we are claiming he has done things that we consider to establish notability, internally. If we claimed he was famous then yes we need to source that. But if we claim he played a major role in several major motion pictures, then we don't need to source that he is famous, because we are not saying that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to fuss about the word "famous", as opposed to "notable", "notorious", "significant", or whatever. Unless it's a whole lot of other sources besides Wikipedia originating the opinion that someone is notable, then we are doing something wrong. Moreover, unless we are applying the same standards to all comparable subjects then we don't really have any policies, rules, or standards at all. Can anyone really claim that Wikipedia should have full-fledged Non-OR Biographies on everyone who ever "played a major role in several major motion pictures"? The idea is absurd. And the absurdity of it shows anyone who is looking that there is a whole lot of special pleading going on to keep this case, not the fair and unbiased application of a criterion across the board. Randolph Stetson 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary: this entire nomination is a special pleading. Murphy meets WP:BIO regardless of what word you choose to use. Please understand that the standard uses the word notability for particular reason: Persons who have been noted in published works with a high standard of credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an uncharitable reading of what I said. I meant that notability is determined by following the WP:N guidelines by us editors, not asking the subject whether they feel or don't feel notable. Reinis^talk 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reinis: calls for deletion based on notability are almost certainly going to fail in this case, and in general, calls for deletion based on subject's personal preference, campaigning, or harassment set a very bad precedent for WP. Further, I think this whole sub-thread is subtly weird. WP has guidelines on notability precisely because we, as editors, are supposed to make a decision as to what is notable. Consider the following:

An article on subject S containing the text "S won a Nobel prize^[RS]" is the subject of an AfD.
RS is a reliable source which says subject S won a Nobel prize.
WP:N says Nobel prize winners are notable.
Therefore, S is notable and the article should not be deleted.

Statement 4 is not a violation of WP:NOR nor of WP:SYN. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit bias, I was "outed" (not that it was that hard, all the info revealed is public already). I won't exhaustively recap the arguments in favour of keep but the highlights to me are that Don Murphy is not marginally notable (to the point where we would on balance honor a delete request), he is way more notable than that, (I'd opine that he is more notable than Daniel Brandt, which we sometimes use as an example in this area) and that he is not notable solely a victim and thus deletable under BLP regardless of how notable. Omission of this biography would leave a significant hole in our encyclopedic coverage of American film. That the article has has issues is regrettable... but the thing to do is to fix them. That Mr. Murphy is apparently not a nice person, who apparently encourages his fans to do things that we do not approve of (perhaps even, via "wink wink nudge nudge" plausibly denyable tactics, illegal things), and who apparently is willing to out or countenance the outing of, non public figures, is regrettable, but of no bearing on whether this article should be here or not. We should not give in to pressure tactics such as those. This seems a very obvious Keep to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one point: I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to whether Murphy is a nice man or not from this article and his reaction to it. I'm told that Daniel Brandt is a nice man, but his reaction to the article was out of all proportion (albeit with probably better reason in his case). Don Murphy has some fans who are every bit as mature as you'd expect of fans of the maker of the Transformers movie, and as far as Murphy is concerned he believes (wrongly, in my view) that what he has done is not different from what we do by having this article and allowing the notorious "stalker" User:Saturday to edit it. Me, I think that's horsefeathers, but it's what he thinks, and we can't know what it feels like to stand in his shoes. I don't think he's an abuser of the project, like some people we've come across lately, and I don't think he's evil. Odd, yes, by my understanding, but then I'm rather odd myself. My boss looked at me like a martian when I reacted joyfully to Ricardo Chailly's announcement that the Leipzig Gewandhouse Orchestra were going to give us the Academic Festival Overture as an encore. Takes all sorts. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination lays it out well, low notability, and the subject does not want the article, spirit of BLP for someone like this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment & digression struck out after reason added)~~This isn't a vote. Please provide a reason, or your input may be ignored. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - And it may not be ignored as is either (indeed I am sure it will be considered along with everyone else), this is a long established editor who clearly has a right to his opinion, SqueakBox 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He presented a desired outcome, but has not really presented an opinion on why it should be deleted. That is why it will not be given much weight. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably academic anyway as there are more than twice as many keep votesd as delete votes and it would take a bold admin to actually delete in the current state and then would just go to DRV anyway, but I do agree that TDC should explain his position, SqueakBox 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepClearly Notable. ~ Wikihermit 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 4

Comment. This article needs to be deleted and Wikipedia management — whether at the user community level or the foundational level — needs to put much more effective measures in place to prevent what happened with this article from happening again. The same breakdown in quality control has happened all too often, and we are losing the benefit of the doubt with the public that we are acting in good faith. The arguments that some people flail about in a vain effort to defend against these hard facts of life simply do not wash in the outside world.

"Did we really drop the ball?" (1==2). Yes, we did. Real harm was done. That harm is not reversible by any number of edits after the fact, but compensation can be demanded by those who were harmed.
"We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do" (1==2). We can say that until 1 = 2 or the cows come home, whichever comes first, but it will not be us who referees our own play, and the outside world will have its own ways of judging whether we make a "reasonable effort" or not. One of the ways that Society has of judging whether some producer's effort is reasonable or not is by comparing that producer's success at assuring quality and controling harm with the success of other producers in doing the same thing. I hate to tell you, but we are not looking so good there. Randolph Stetson 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're only legally required to remove vandalism as soon as we see it, no more than that can be done on any site. As to it damaging the subject, he hasn't proved that and as far as I know he's just said someone asked him about it, then it was laughed off, it certainly hasn't noticably lost him work as he's just produced transformers. You can try and claim 'libelous' edits on this site, by a child, which was removed, are something wikipedia can be sued for, all you like. They're not, as long as the edits are removed and the user reprimanded (or sources added for the claims, if there's anything to them, which I doubt.) It would be the same as something 'libelous' being written about someone on proboards or other sites. They'd just remove that particular content, end of debacle. It need be, the oversight facility can be used to remove the disputed edits. If nothing remains of the nasty edits, what's the problem? This article is only similar to those on IMDB or any profiles of producers, there's nothing tendentious about it. I could call this what it is, but I won't.Merkinsmum 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know with any kind of authority what we are legally required to do. From an everyday common sense standpoint, what the Law demands is just a somewhat imperfect barometer of what Ethics demands. So I am really talking about what we are ethically required to do, and that is something that we keep failing to do over over and over. I am talking about what Society expects us to do, now that the GeeWhiz Honeymoon is over, if we want to maintain a good reputation as an Encyclopedia, and not just another fad forum that flies way beneath the search engine radar, where no rational person loses sleep worrying what someone might be saying about you there. I did work for an organization that got hit with a discrimination suit one time, and I learned a lot about the kinds of things that an organization has to do in order to prove that it's making a bona fide effort to act in accord with its letterhead-emblazoned advertisements of its policies. So I do know that most of the defenses I've been reading here are complete no-starters as far as that goes. Randolph Stetson 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give our volunteers any training let alone training in libel law, SqueakBox 01:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Mr. Murphy is a public figure -- he has spoken publicly plenty of times for Transformers like here and here. Looking at just Transformers alone, his involvement shows that he is a prominent figure in filmmaking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this fine, if somewhat tagged article on "Public figure". Merely speaking in public does not make a person a public figure. And Murphy did not get that Nobel Prize everyone about town keeps buzzing about — he didn't even get nominated — I know, I checked. Randolph Stetson 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And do we really want people rejecting the nobel prize because they dont want to be outed by us? Do we want to be the Outrage! of the encyclopedia world? We deserve beetr and its in our own hands, SqueakBox 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not considering Mr. Murphy a public figure in the strictest legal sense. However, Mr. Murphy has produced for a number of notable projects, including the aforementioned Transformers, and it would not be appropriate to shun his article. I don't know what you mean about this Nobel Prize, anyway -- I never said that the article should be kept because of anything like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that apart from 4 minor edits- (grammar correction and disambiguation), User:Randolph Stetson has only contributed on AfDs- no other articles, only the AfDs of Angela Beesley, Daniel Brandt, and Don Murphy. All of whom are mentioned on certain sites:):) I am still assuming good faith, but just saying.:)Merkinsmum 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment such a record sounds absolutely in good faith, SqueakBox 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable producer meets WP:N in all respects relevant. Don't like it is not a valid criteria for deletion. --Sandahl 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't like it isn't a good criteria but I am baffled by your comment as none of the deleters have used this argument, SqueakBox 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the subject of the article doesn't like it to be here. The nom in part says this "he hates the fact that the article exists". As for the problems about accuracy it's our job to keep the article free of unsourced, less than fully documented information and especially in line with WP:BLP.--Sandahl 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 5

I asked Don Murphy for his comments. He asked me to post this, with no edits. So that's what I'm doing. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you Guy, but replying through you would tend to indicate legally that I find anything that your cult does okay - and I don't and it isn't. You have all been misled by Porno Jimbo and his dimestore lawyers that, as one crestfallen user writes here "as far as defamation goes the law says we only have to delete it when we see it." But that is simply false on the face of it. He is confusing the DMCA act which refers to copyright. The moment you PUBLISH or allow to be PUBLISHED defamation you are liable. The law is a slam dunk in the UK, which is why you hear about settlements all the time. The author and the publisher ends up paying. The law is less severe in the States, but still very enforceable. In any case, NOT ONE SINGLE VOTER on the page has taken in to account real world experience. Makes me think they are the same losers crawling in the Talkbacks at Ain't It Cool news. Maybe they don't have a real life. Notable does not mean public figure. Wikipedia law is not real world law. If being involved in Transformers means I have to be abused on your site, then where are the other 600 articles for the rest of the crew? Why is it okay to gather information on me and yet some of you flip out when your identities are revealed? Do you really think Jimbo and his foundation will protect you when lawyers come? I don't know Guy, you run with a dangerous crowd." - Don Murphy

Taking care of old business in the hopes of avoiding new business. I've cast my vote and given more than sufficient reason for it, but this is where I came in, as they say in the movies, and I'll no doubt see this whole cast again in Murphy's Law, Episode 3. But I'd like to address a few residual points from the above discussion, in the most likely vain hope of averting the eternal reruns of infernal syndication. Randolph Stetson 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Having Long Arms. The Law is just the brass knuckles on the fist of Ethics, and sensible people learn to work things out in the kid gloves stage, if they can find any way at all of doing that. One more time we have turned a neutral-to-positive bystander into a Very Indignant Person, and he's behaving just like everyone I know does when they are Really Pissed Off. Maybe that's just my Bad Company, I don't know. But people who dream that the problem is solved when you stuff a WP:GAG in the mouth of a really pissed off person probably need to start reading past the plot spoilers a few more times. Randolph Stetson 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Effort. When Society judges whether we are making a "reasonable effort" to assure the quality of our publication and to prevent undeserved harm to persons, it will not accept the excuse that "We are doing the best that we can with the system that we have". It will take a look at other systems that address the same tasks and say "Why can't you do as well as others have done?" Over the centuries, Civilization — that's the thing that defines what it means to be "civil" — has developed ways of dealing with the kinds of problems that we face here, and Civil Society will ask us "Why aren't you using anything like the 'best practices' that are currently known?" Randolph Stetson 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to wikipedia it is on new ground (callaed teh Internet) and the problem goes far beyond wikipedia alone, eg the privacy concerns re Google as one other example (I am not talking about cookies but people being able to easily find out about others through search), SqueakBox 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, probably more than you know. Being a Conservative Revolutionary — no wait, it's an odd-numbered day (UTC), so I must be a Revolutionary Conservative today — I would never be content with "best practices" that stifle innovation. Still, it's a simple fact that Society requires would-be innovators to prove that the new rites are really better than the old routines. My main point here is that "reasonable effort" is not an absolute term in practice, but involves a comparison with the qualities of other efforts. Randolph Stetson 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Pleading. Maybe I can explain what I mean by this in terms of a real-life experience. Despite what Don Murphy says, I know that some of us have them now and again. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1. The more that Wikipedia comes into the public eye — and isn't that what we've all been working for? — the more it will have to validate its claims in the court of public opinion. One of the most memorable experiences I had with that was when I took a job with an organisation that got sued for job discrimination the very week I started, so I learned a lot about what an organisation has to do in order to convince a judge and jury that it's making a good faith effort to act in compliance with the policies that it so proudly advertises itself as honouring. And when you come right down to it, the very same principles are involved even if you are lucky or smart enough to stay out of courts of law, since the public eye is upon you all the live-long day. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2. I'll make one last try at tying up what I was trying to say here, and then I'll make the obligatory penitential pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Fu. Back to the feature. The outfit that I worked for got sued for unfair hiring practices by a job candidate that did not get hired for some position, and the first thing that I remember happening was that everyone in our organisation within a couple of grade levels of the job in question had to submit our CV's to a court-appointed accountancy firm. Why was that? Randolph Stetson 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part 3. Here's the moral of the story. Judging whether a person is qualified for a job and judging whether a person is notable for a body of work are very similar types of judgements. The judge in the discrimination case did not focus on the absolute qualifications of the candidate at all, if indeed such a thing can be defined, because absolute qualifications did not really matter. The judge focused on the comparative qualifications of the candidate relative to all of the people who did get hired at comparable grade levels. When push comes to shove — as it looks more and more inevitable that it will — the only way that Wikipedia can prove that it has meaningful standards at all is to show that its decision-making procedures apply equally to all comers in every given category. If there are a whole lot of producers without Wikipedia articles who are just as qualified for recognition as Don Murphy, then that would constitute prima facie evidence that the editors of Wikipedia have chosen, for whatever reason, to "pick out" or "pick on" Don Murphy for special treatment. Randolph Stetson 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue — this is not contributing to the discussion. violet/riga (t) 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for contributing an object example of WP:GAG to the discussion — lucky for you I'm not the VIP in question — but it's Saturday (Saturday day, not User:Saturday), so I'm in no Rush. Randolph Stetson 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with violetriga that your comment here is not at all constructive. This is not an attempt to "gag" you, merely an observation. It will not be taken seriously as it seems you are trying to make some kind of opaque point. I recommend that you remove it or at the least add nothing further. Just friendly advice, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you both for sharing your opinions but my own opinion is that I am making constructive comments with regard to how Wikipedia can avoid the types of troubles that we have seen in this case. It is precisely because several participants in this discussion have asked me about a couple of the points listed above that I think it's worth a few more words to clarify what "opaqueness" may happen to remain. Randolph Stetson 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to talk about your opinions on such troubles, but in your own userspace or as an essay rather than trying to stuff this page full of your own garrulous text. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrulous? — Ouch! Fair enough, even if I really have time to expatiate like that only on weekends. But thanks for making your criticism more constructive, as that helps me to make my comments more to the point — and I mean the discursive, non-disruptive kind of point. Sadly, though, I don't have the kind of time that would allow me to particpate in abstract dilatations on policy pages, especially if no one is really going to follow those policies anyway. But I do find that nothing focuses the mind like the type of object example that we are discussing here, in a place where our Brave New Words might actually make a difference to many living persons' real lives. Randolph Stetson 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 6

Keep I'm all in favor of deleting articles about minor beauty queens who are inarticulate on occasion or other borderline cases on grounds of compassion, but for someone this notable we don't really have a choice if we consider this a serious project. I think it's important to follow standards for subjects this notable because, no matter how many articles we have on subjects like Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, we can be relied on by readers to cover the more important subjects, and the producer of these movies is simply an important subject. That serious purpose shouldn't be overruled because the subject is threatening lawsuits or otherwise trying to pressure us. Noroton 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep beyond possible question; are we an encyclopedia with a responsibility for NPOV and honesty, or do we give in to intimidation? We have a perfectly good way of dealing with vandalism on articles by protecting them. If necessary, we even have oversight. that he is a non-public person is arrant nonsense. He has a right to honest writing, but not to privacy. DGG (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a funny definition of "perfectly good" that allows for such repeated and spectacular failures. Randolph Stetson 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any vandalism on this article now? No, it's been dealt with. That's a success, not a failure to deal with vandalism, it would be a failure if the alleged vandalism was still here. But it's not.Merkinsmum 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merkinsmum, I know that all human beings have some kind of real world experience, if only they would make a reasonable effort to reflect on it, so let me appeal to those humane resources now. This "Do Overs!" argument has been repeated untold times, both here and elsewhere. But a moment's reflection on our everyday experience, not to mention what little acquaintance we might have watching Judge Judy or old Perry Mason reruns, should tell us that this defence is a complete non-starter in the overwhelming majority of cases where the effects of harmful speech cannot be called back as easily as we "Undo" — or far less easily "Oversight" — a bad to noxious edit. I know that I've had many such rueful and regret-filled experiences and I'm sure that others must've had theirs. To err is human, after all. The question is — What does it take to make it right? And I'm afraid that the answer is slightly harder than "Do Overs!" Randolph Stetson 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to what Murphy said it is clearly a spectacular failure, he is saying his reputation has been affected by previous vandalism, how could that not be a spectacular failure by any measurement. That Murphy is unlikely to have a legal case against us is of no importancce, we arte not trolls like the GNAA buut a noble project (in theory) and we need to ensure that people like Don Murphy are not totally pissed off with us because we sullied hi reputation, SqueakBox 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I notice few here even address what Murphy says above. I thought he made three VERY good points. FIRST, that he is not a public figure. Second, that we cannot assure no vandalism at all times ( I noticed a vandal attacked yesterday from New Jersey) And third that as a publisher we have defamation laws to worry about. I hasten to point out that the statement made by DGG is idiotic in the extreme and currently being mocked on other sites. He does have a right to privacy. It is the law of the land. We all have it, even people who make dumb comments like that. Fredbroca 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) — Fredbroca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- While you have some good points and Murphy does have privacy rights, the law of which land are you talking about? Thinking this is an all American affair wont get anyone very far as we are an international project with editors located in a large number of different countries, SqueakBox 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the project is international in scope, I believe it falls under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, and the state of Florida. - Crockspot 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true for the foundation but many editors have no relationship with US law and my point is that the whole internet is on new territory and therefore we cannot think in the old ways as if everyone editing is somehow subject to US law, because we are not, SqueakBox 18:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are holding the individual editor responsible for the libel he inserts, then yes, it would fall under that editor's jurisdiction. But in such a case, the foundation is not liable, the editor is. (I believe the foundation has made past statements that if it came down to legal action against the foundation, they would roll over on any editor who was found to be inserting libel.) - Crockspot 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course my own view isnt relevant in the sense that it is Murphy who will be pursuing legal action if anyone does, not me. I think if Murphy were to opursue legal action against individuals who made good faith edits and the foundation failed to supportt hem that the foundation would be at fault. I get the impression Murphy wants to pursue "any" editor who edits the article, not merely those who have committede obvious libel, SqueakBox 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I was using "you" in a generic sense.) Such a broad based legal attack would be very costly for the plaintiff, and would probably be futile. The costs associated with finding the identity of anyone who added so much as a comma would not be small, and such actions would have to take place in a broad number of venues. You can file a suit against anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the judge will find merit in it. - Crockspot 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it would fall under American law, not where the editor lives. At least in the UK as an example, and I think UK laws are stricter than in the US, it is only libel if the editor knew it to be false and still wrote it, if they were passing it on from somewhere else and believed it's true, it's not. Aside from that, at least one of the first editors to insert the disliked comments, was only 15 at the time, as Murphy himself says. I don't think and editor who was underage at the time would be easily given very grave punishment, or possibly wouldn't even be punishable at all, in law. Which of us hasn't written something silly, especially as a child?Merkinsmum 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And extradition laws don't apply to libel so there is no chance of the long arm of the libel law touching, well at least 50% of wikipedians from what I can see. The idea of being extradited because one has edited a wikipedia article in a good faith way is hilarious, SqueakBox 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the subject feels that there is legal liability that works in his favor, rather than making thinly veiled legal threats against the project, and not so thinly veiled insults toward the entire community, I suggest that he contact Wikipedia's designated agent directly. If his view truly does have merit, the office will take care of this article, regardless of consensus expressed here. - Crockspot 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject complains about a comment that was in an article at some point, just that comment is barred/dealt with with great circumspection, rather than the whole article. This was the case with Tony Robbins, who it is believed instructed his lawyers to complain about statements that were in the article at one point. Just the one tendentious statement was rewritten/removed, rather than the whole article. That would be proportionate and in line with how we deal with the rest of the articles about notable subjects, surely?Merkinsmum 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article that has been re-written by me would hopefully meet those criteria except that (a) anyone can still insert vandalism and (b) anyone can still disagree with me and edit war to that effect. I think the article needs further trimming (to remove the details of people he collaborates with and to remove outing info from other articles (ie pursuing what links here as I did yesterday somewhat) but if the community must have an article on him (as appears to be the case from this afd) then it should really be salted, ie permanently locked at a suitable version, then he cant really complain, SqueakBox 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree there - this is still a wiki. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in permissions don't make us not a wiki. What they (already) do is violate our motto, "anyone can edit." That's what Murphy is up against: we're insisting on 1) the right of random anonymous people to write whatever they like about Don Murphy 2) our right to publish it before vetting it. I sure wouldn't want anyone publishing my biography under those rules. Would you?Proabivouac 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, SqueakBox 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you feel that way, Proabivouac and SqueakBox, but then you should be over at some other part of the encyclopedia proposing fundamental changes in how this place operates--i.e. proposing that we do not let anyone edit and that we vet every edit before actually publishing it. This would be a fundamentally different place if those were our policies, and of course you're welcome to make suggestions along those lines. I just don't see what the relationship is between your concerns and this AfD, which is proceeding under established Wikipedia norms rather than the norms of some radically different project which to me sounds more like Citizendium. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read your comments I can only assume that you are in favor of radically altering our procedure for creating articles, at least those which deal with living people (which is a hell of a lot--far more than simply "biographical" articles).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a famously known film producer who has produced films such as Natural Born Killers and was the originating producer of Transformers, a film which made over USD $155-million in its opening week. LexisNexis reveals several hundred hits relevant to this specific person. Color me perplexed. RFerreira 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're perplexed, it's probably because none of what you've said here has anything to do with the proposed basis for deletion.Proabivouac 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you people cant be fucking serious, hello hollywood producer! Notability? YEP! References? YEP! So the subject is pissed at us... so fucking what? If we deleted the biography articles of every wikipedia critic and person upset at their article we'd only have bios of dead people. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If we deleted the biography articles of every wikipedia critic and person upset at their article we'd only have bios of dead people." Must we now assume that any living person will be upset by his/her biography on Wikipedia?Proabivouac 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we only cover biographies on wikipedia is a serious misconception. Probably nop more than one in 10 articles is a bio, SqueakBox 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no more than 1 in 10 articles is a bio (I have no idea what the number is) many more than that contain references to living persons and are therefore equally bound by BLP concerns. Furthermore, to Proabivouac, of course not any and every living person will be upset by their bios, but would thousands? Hell yes. And even if most of our BLP articles still existed, to lose a thousand or two thousand articles (and no doubt we would lose the ones on people with money and power like Murphy--a fact which keep voters seem to be studiously ignoring) would fundamentally compromise the quality of this encyclopedia and its encylcopedicnessosityesque. Deleting this article would put us on a very slippery slope as it suggests that we will delete any article about a living person that has been vandalized in a defamatory manner so long as that person tells us they were harmed by that version of the article and therefore want us to delete the whole thing (though not one keep voter has yet explained how deleting this would right the original wrong done to Murphy and there are all kinds of remedies other than "delete the article"). I'm not even saying that folks who agree with that course of action (i.e. deleting a bio if it got screwed up and defamatory and somebody got mad and told us to delete it) are wrong. I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) if that's how we decided to operate whenever a BLP concern came up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) …" (Bigtimepeace). That's the smartest thing anyone has said here in a long while, humbly excepting myself, of course. We would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place, that is, we would need to start running this place the way that responsible publishers of reference materials do. Randolph Stetson 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw everyone's attention to the Streisand effect. Certain websites take it upon themselves to mirror any articles which Wikipedia takes down - the information that's "TOO HOT FOR WIKIPEDIA!!!!!", or that "WIKIPEDIA IS TRYING TO CENSOR!!!", or whatever. DS 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a BLP-compliant article can be written (indeed, the current version seems to be so), the fact that it has been and may continue to be a target of vandals is not a reason to delete, otherwise we'd better axe the article about George W. Bush which has no end of vandalism directed at it. I cannot give much credence that the subject wants it gone: 1) are we sure that it's the subject who is telling us that, and 2) is this the authorized biography Wikipedia? Wait till we get Charlie Manson's or Larry Craig's little missive that he doesn't want to be listed here. It'll be the Obitupedia only. Carlossuarez46 03:14, 10 September 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. However, I strongly urge to the people who are arguing for keeping below that they add to the article the appropriate citations and explanations of how this event changed laws. JoshuaZ 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Wallace

Since Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a newspaper, and since the amount of murders per year in the USA alone ranks in the 10,000s, I do not believe Wikipedia should have an article on every single murder. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) isn't. >Radiant< 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably delete, unless the inquiry cited lead to changes in child welfare policy. Red Fiona 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the case had a major impact on child-welfare policy in Illinois. Some the effects were documented four years later by a Chicago Tribune editor here. Needs more sources, but they are alas plentiful, as this case crept through various venues for years. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, write an article about child-welfare policy in Illinois. Corvus cornix 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't think four years of news coverage makes a murder notable? --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are thousands of murders a year. Corvus cornix 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, then, what your standard for keeping an article on a murder would be. Don't run in circles, please. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular standard, I would have to judge each article individually. Corvus cornix 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and source better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a notable murder. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. RS1900 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate sources over a period of time. this is a crime involving public policy aspects, and that is sufficient to justify the article. DGG (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup and add more sources. Case was responsible for law changes, and was all over the media even as recently as 2006. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:54, 10 September 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 without prejudice to a non-in universe article being written. Arguing for keeping an article on a "procedural fault" in the nomination is not usually a very productive avenue of argument; especially when the "procedural fault" amounts to your personal interpretation of what a game guide is, or is not. --Haemo 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paptimus Scirocco

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Captain panda 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-universe style of writing, and per nom. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - absolutely no coverage by verifiable independent sources to satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inexperienced at AfD, but shouldn't this be speedied? There is no context here that I recognize, for all I can tell this is just some gibberish that an eleven-year old made up one afternoon sitting at home. Unschool 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sounds like it (Speedy criteria are at WP:CSD) - especially A1: definitely no context provided (It does sound like a Gundam thing). It doesn't even start off with a complete sentence. ALTON .ıl 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zeta Gundam. While I'm here, what's the point of adding strong when you put delete? It doesn't make your delete more likely to count. Jtrainor 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you asked, I'll direct you to a discussion they had about that very topic (here), but it fizzled out before it got good. ALTON .ıl 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jtrainor. This topic is significant enough to deserve its own article but until a better article can be written, redirecting is the best option. --Polaron | Talk 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It's impossible to tell whether this topic is actually notable or encyclopaedic, as the article is so woefully lacking context. Failing that, delete. DWaterson 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He seems pretty important considering his final confrontation with the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 16:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, there's an article for Adenaur Paraya, but he was only in one movie. Paptimus appeared in more than one episode of Zeta Gundam. His final confrontation with Kamille Bidan was very epic to say the least. Even Paptimus ultimately died, he delivered a crippling blow that fired Kamille's brain. So yes, this article should be kept. It just needs to be fixed. Shaneymike 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article needs some serious fixing to make it notable. Ominae 05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 13:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in universe game guide content that's rich with original research Corpx 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This kind of article MUST be deleted from Wikipedia. RS1900 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of articles on Wikipedia dealing with anime characters. Obviously, this one needs a little work, but I see no reason for its deletion. And as I said, this character is pretty important considering his final confrontation with Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was nominated for deletion 8, count them, 8 minutes after it was created. Give it some time to be worked on. Kyaa the Catlord 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Been nominated for a week without significant improvement. If trying to avoid deletion doesn't inspire improvement, there probably isn't any to be had. Doceirias 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it and other Mobile Suit Gundam characters into List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters per WP:FICT. Editors who have commented that this article is a game guide clearly did not look at the article. --Farix (Talk) 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they called it a game guide was because whoever started it did a very poor job. I just added that opening paragraph describing him as a fictional character in Zeta Gundam today. Shaneymike 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds - article is not a game guide, so nominator has provided no reason for nomination. Edward321 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. Seems rather obvious to me... MalikCarr 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321, due to the procedural fault in the nom. I concur also that some cleanup is required - but that's not Cause for deletion. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:55, 12 September 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. Walton^One 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duttons

AfDs for this article:

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion id s a failure to meet WP:BIO. Incidentally, this particular article had a prior AfD in June, which closed as no consensus. Xoloz 05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the Holidays with the DUttons special (and apparently one other[23]) did air on PBS and an episode of Branson Jubilee[24] was also devoted to them. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete look at the producer credit for those PBS shows... its *GASP* The Duttons... self produced content doesnt categorize as Secondary Source now does it? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Uh, look at the producer for Mission Impossible 2, it's gasp, Tom Cruise. Do you know what "producer" means?

138.210.196.190 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For notability, the issue really is, what is the threshold on America's Got Talent for notability? Ton ten? Top Four? For me, I think that top ten is enough to be considered notable. Others obviously disagree. For sourcing, I plan to, before the end of the day, source all three of these AGT top-ten that DRV just returned. I will add to them performance data, fully sourced from the NBC web site. - TexasAndroid 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the appearances enlisted above as evidence of notability are insufficient. Eusebeus 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of proer independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Good Lord. They have been a headlining act in Branson for years. Have had their own PBS special. Covered in hundreds of magazine and newspapers. 138.210.196.190 16:31, 10 September 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 lack of independent sources indicating notability, despite a DRV and a two-week AfD to provide these. Fram 08:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe (performers)

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Xoloz 05:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability outside reality show context, not a finalist. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Unschool 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For notability, the issue really is, what is the threshold on America's Got Talent for notability? Ton ten? Top Four? For me, I think that top ten is enough to be considered notable. Others obviously disagree. For sourcing, I plan to, before the end of the day, source all three of these AGT top-ten that DRV just returned. I will add to them performance data, fully sourced from the NBC web site. - TexasAndroid 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to become a finalist, other than an appearance on AGT has no notability. This should be deleted and turned into a redirect to America's Got Talent. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add references - In my humble opinion, I believe that making into both seasons and doing so well in this latest season, Sideswipe is a notable enough group to have their own article on Wikipedia. However, the article could use more references. TheInfinityZero 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sideswipe was in both seasons and made the top 8. I don't think there's a problem with notability. However, the article could use some work. Useight 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP#NOTNEWS - No notability outside reality show appearance Corpx 04:32, 6 September 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 have closed this as "delete" rather than "merge/redirect" because there is no evidence that the term is actually in wide use in the BDSM community, and proponents of the article have had two weeks to come up with sources. Retaining it as a redirect would be misleading and violate WP:V. --MCB 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplicant (BDSM)

Not notable, no references Hornet35 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if it true merge the sentence with BDSM --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~DELETE~~ KEEP (salvagable). I am a member of the BDSM community and I don't necessarily agree with the definition in the article, but if he/she can back it up with referenced sources and expanded beyond a dicdef, the article is salvagable. You may call me "Mistress BaldDee" 12:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM. DWaterson 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Include it in BDSM and develop there, depending on sources. I don't see it as enough for a separate article at this point, and it's been there since May 2006. — Becksguy 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it has no place here.--Rambutan (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per User:Becksguy. Sounds like a reasonable solution to preserve the information, which is valid and encyclopedic, but not developed enough at the moment to support its own entry. If at some point the section on supplicants grows to a point where it can support its own well-sourced, contextual article, then I have no prejudice against it's future re-creation. LaMenta3 22:20, 6 September 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. --Core desat 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Gulen Movement

No independent sources, no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. The world is full of conferences, they run at the rates of hundreds a week in most cities. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get 8 google hits, none of them appearing to be reliable sources. No News or Books mentions as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I freely admit this conference may be non-notable, and it did start off as effectively an advert, but I cleaned it up on the basis that it is probably more notable than some of the ones in Category:Conferences. Could those participating here help clean that category up? Google searches for the name of the conference "Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement", get 84 ghits, which is more than 7 but still not a lot. Another consideration is that the conference has not taken place yet. One suggestion for notability guidelines for conferences has been to restrict coverage to notable ones that take place regularly (eg. annually), and for one-off events to be covered only if they are particularly notable. Other considerations could be size and impact. Some interesting examples of obviously notable conferences are Solvay Conference, Volta Conference, Shelter Island Conference, Wannsee Conference (not an academic conference, but a conference of a rather different sort...). Conferences closer to the present day, that are more the "series of academic conferences" thing I was looking for when cleaning up that category, include Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. Nobel Conference is another interesting one. This one doesn't come close to those ones, but it may be a big event within the area of Islamic studies. I simply can't judge. In general, I suspect that one-off conferences shouldn't have articles until it is clear whether or not they have had an impact. Carcharoth 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the notability as an academic conference seems fairly simple to establish, as Eileen Barker and Tim Winter are notable scholars. The question seems to be which academic conferences are notable? It is rare for academic conferences to get coverage outside of their specialised areas. Does this mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover them? Carcharoth 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Once the conference has taken place and if it produces some proceedings or coverage that might be useful to improve Fethullah_Gulen#G.C3.BClen_movement. --Tikiwont 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is necessary to distinguish between individual academic conferences like this one, and conference series. In my view, almost no individual conference is notable--the bar is and should be very high. (I can thing of a few exceptions--none of which presently have articles). I do not think this one will be--it is not sponsors alone or even primarily that make a conference notable, but rather what happens there. Conceivably something sensational might. The Shelter Island Conference is a clear exception. If this conference is equally important, then it would merit an article--after the event. I think that highly unlikely. Take a look at the participants in that conference--compare with the articles on the two leaders of this one. There's a difference between important enough for a WP article, and truly famous. I've been looking through the category and its subcategories for individual academic conferences--so far I have found only three, and listed them all for PROD, as none of them showed the slightest evidence of notability--not even up to the level of this article. If challenged, they'll come to AfD also.

Essentially all the individual conferences lsted in the category are political conferences of one sort or another, and of course the likelihood of notability is very different--because they are intended to have a major political impact. The Wanseee conference is an example of this--very few conferences of any sort except the major peace conferences have had that kind of effect on the world.

Series of conferences are another matter entirely--all of the academic ones you mention above are in fact conference series, with a great many sessions over a long period of years, and their collected proceedings over that period are major information resources. We need articles on more of the major ones. I think the category needs some sorting out. 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Delete - I'm convinced now. Thanks, DGG, for explaining it so well. Carcharoth 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I think there should be a special page for Fethullah Gülen Movement, not just the conference... although, there don't seem to be that many English sourcs. gren グレン 02:51, 8 September 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 by JzG as patent nonsense (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3oclockfuntime

Very little substance, seems to be neologism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Completely unsourced neologism. --Ginkgo100^talk 13:47, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Rai

Non-notable civil servant. Article seems self-promotional in nature, and it's all unsourced. It looks like a previous editor managed to source evidence of his existence, but nothing for all the bio details, nor notability. Thomjakobsen 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - I do not think notability should be inherited by his position Corpx 04:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this civil servant biography. The position described is at a level of non notability and the importance of the subject is unsourced.--Stormbay 03:31, 8 September 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 JzG (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm (Georgia Tech)

I can't see how this could possibly be notable or vaible as it's own article. Possibly merge or redirect to the Georgia Tech page itself, though not as it's own atricle. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is difficult to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up only two hits for this subject. Fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:01, 5 September 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 Mike Rosoft. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singat

Very little context, seems to be only a definition of a foreign word. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 ACC Baseball Tournament

WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wizardman 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the information of this article from third party reliable sources as yet for this event. A quick google search brings up no reliable hits. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Atlantic Coast Conference has already announced the site for the 2009 tournament. I also did a quick google search and found this from the ACC's website. Oh, as for a crystal ball, why is there an article for 2022 Winter Olympics when they won't even select a site until 2015! Jober14 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I have no opinion about deleting or keeping it: "Other things have a page" is not a valid argument. And I just speedy tagged 2022 Winter as it was deleted as WP:CRYSTAL before. 1redrun ^Talk 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The lets go through and delete all future sporting events. The 2009 ACC Baseball Tournament has much more information than half the things in that category. Jober14 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 1redrun ^Talk 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete A full article can be created sometime around the spring of '09. For the next 18 months, there's no reason the ___location can't be mentioned in ACC Baseball Tournament along with any other future venues. Other than the ___location, it's presently crystal ball material. Acroterion _(talk) 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bit too early and there are little confirmed info provided.--JForget 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article does meet the requirements to be included in Wikipedia. WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I content the ACC baseball tournament is notable and is almost certain to take place. The policy goes on to say, "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Jober14 found an official release about the ___location of the tournament. X96lee15 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wizardman--Truest blue 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon for an article Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:17, 10 September 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 JzG (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm (Georgia Tech)

I can't see how this could possibly be notable or vaible as it's own article. Possibly merge or redirect to the Georgia Tech page itself, though not as it's own atricle. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is difficult to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up only two hits for this subject. Fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:01, 5 September 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. --Core desat 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Squitti

The subject of the article is a published medical researcher. However, she does not seem to have been the subject of significant third-party coverage from published reliable sources, and therefore does not seem to pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Karada 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable researcher with no reliable sources. Creator of article is a relative so possible WP:COI. --Djsasso 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Djsasso --Crusio 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scientists are judged on their science, as judged by their peers. In this case I cannot tell the notability of the position, so looking at the articles in Web of Science, I find 32 peer-reviewed articles The most cited one has been cited 38 times. (then 18, 16, 12). In some subjects this might be reasonably impressive, but not experimental medicine. Her work is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 03:34, 9 September 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. CitiCat^♫ 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Mall

Non-notable, tiny 70s mall. From the article text, it sounds like it's pretty run-down and struggling financially. Only source is the promotional site run by its current owner/developer. Thomjakobsen 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without substantial third-party sources it fails WP:V and WP:N. Jakew 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been there; it's just a mall. Mangoe 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete As a resident of Laurel, MD, I have followed the saga of the mall. It is slated for major renovations and the centerpiece of the downtown area, which will also include restaurants and residential areas. The opinion of the original petitioner is inaccurate. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to the masses, not censor it.--Mrferrante 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be worked on quite a bit, but as far as WP:V goes, it had an entire Washington Post article written about it. shoy 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that doesn't establish notability: you'd expect the WP to include coverage on a major local redevelopment, so by that argument all malls are notable as we could source articles announcing their construction. From WP:OUTCOMES: While the notability of large malls is in dispute, strip malls and individual shops are not generally notable. By the article's own admission, this is not a large mall, and its lack of notability among local shoppers seems to be what has triggered its planned redevelopment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomjakobsen (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Washington Post article about it does establish notability. Citing the trend described in the non-binding WP:OUTCOMES does not negate a topic that passes the core WP:NOTABILITY guideline whereas if something is the subject of secondary reliable sources, notability is established (in this case, the source is very reliable). The deletion of non-major malls in WP:OUTCOMES applies to those malls that have no reliable sources written about them. --Oakshade 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the reliability of the WP, but it's the local newspaper for this mall. I would imagine that every mall in the world generates some local press coverage when it's built or pulled down, so wouldn't this mean that all malls are notable? Or only malls that happen to be in the locality of a big-name newspaper? Thomjakobsen 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" newspapers are reliable sources. Besides, the Washington Post's market covers a vast area; not only Washingdon, DC, but the large heavily populated Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Even in Baltimore, it has a high subscription rate. Not every mall in a given region is covered by their respective newspaper(s), but this one was. There's no escaping the fact that this passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm guessing that every mall does generate coverage in the local press, especially at the start and end of their existence. Given enough time, we could track down such articles for every single mall that's been deleted as "non-notable". It seems arbitrary to give this non-notable mall a free pass because its local press happens to be a respected publication with an online archive. Thomjakobsen 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most ass-backward thing I've heard all week, dude. Burntsauce 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomjakobsen, every mall doesn't have their local (major) newspaper writing about it. You're still avoiding the fact that it passes WP:NOTABILITY as it's the primary subject of secondary reliable sources like the Washington Post and the Associated Press. WP:NOTABILITY doesn't discriminate against a "reliable source" because it's "local" to the topic. --Oakshade 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where we disagree, then. My hunch is that every mall does get local coverage for building/demolition/huge revamp events, and that the WP article is of that nature (it's in there for local interest, rather than the big stories on which the WP's reputation is built. the NY Times wouldn't cover this mall's story, for example). WP:N mentions that depth and nature of coverage of sources needs to be considered, and I think that an article about a local mall getting largely pulled down and replaced isn't the kind of article that establishes notability, otherwise virtually all malls would be notable. It's a subjective judgment; reading the main article here screams "non-notable" to me, which is why I'm unconvinced by the WP source. Thomjakobsen 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article is three pages [25], very in depth and the nature of the coverage is exactly about the mall. Not making this up, but I don't think I've ever seen such in depth coverage in a single article about a mall before (that actually screams notability). Any way you look at it, it passes the letter and spirit of WP:NOTABILITY. I hate to say this, but your arguments for deleting this article are looking more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than being based on our actual guidelines. --Oakshade 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Renovations include expansion. Read the External Links and you will see that. No, it is not a HUGE mall. But it is not tiny either. The mall flourished through the 80's and early 90's. Nowhere in the article does it say "lack of notability among local shoppers." The mall was in decline because of mismanagement. Local papers have been covering this for years. Back your argument up with factual information, not words like "seem" which are opinion based. As for it's notability, repeated newspaper articles in the Washington,DC area and Baltimore papers over a number of years is noteable enough for this entry to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrferrante (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References in the local press do not establish notability. By "notability" we mean whether it is sufficiently worthy of notice to justify its own encylopedia article. There are thousands of malls, and only a fraction of those count as notable. This one, despite references in the local press - which probably applies to every single mall in the world - doesn't seem to be noteworthy compared to all the other small malls out there. The Washington Post article seems to support this: The halls of Laurel Mall are lined with vacant storefronts. Some are empty shells; others are masked by new drywall and paint. Even the food court was deserted on a recent afternoon. And the enormous parking garage that sits on Route 1 and is supposed to serve as the mall's grand entrance is almost never full, a testament to decades of neglect and the fickleness of retailers. Thomas P. Falatko looked at the property and asked the tough question: Should Laurel Mall even exist? Another of the linked articles, on the proposed name change, talks of the "stigma" associated locally to the name "Laurel Mall". If "the notability of large malls is in dispute" - presumably thriving, well-maintained, profitable ones - what claim for notability does this one have? Perhaps the new "Laurel Commons" will be notable in the future, but that isn't scheduled for completion until late 2009. Thomjakobsen 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local press articles do establish notability as they are independent secondary reliable sources, as stipulated in WP:N... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'... The Washington Post and the Associated Press are major national news organizations anyway. Even if the Washington post calls it a "small mall", it's still notable by our guidelines as a major secondary source has written about it, critically or not.--Oakshade 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. WP:ILIKEIT is not reason to establish notability. Vegaswikian 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the Washington Post has written an entire article about it, that is notable enough for my standards. Otherwise a merge to the appropriate locality will suffice. Burntsauce 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Washington Post doesn't usually write about malls, but it did about this one and that's a major case in establishing notability. --Oakshade 21:38, 11 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B1FF

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a few Google book hits for 'biff usenet', but there's probably not enough to demonstrate notability, nor is there much scope for expansion. Jakew 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some notability. I heard of B1FF/Biff from the Jargon File and came here looking for more information (not that there is much.) Significant as a precurosor to 'l33t' culture and so on. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, that's a seperate subject, which has another article B1ff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entry in the Jargon File is definitely about the 'personality'. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does seem to have a sliver of notability as one of the first 'net "memes", but the article is poor (mostly just a giant ASCII signature) and I can't find reliable sources: There are plenty of News and Books results for "B1FF", but they appear to be random strings or coincidental/accidental usage, such as a 1968 newspaper where it appears in the classied ads, apparently an abbreviation for something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please see Notable_Usenet_personalities#Unusual_personalities for a Wiki reference on B1FF. No need to create an extra article on him/her/it... whatever... 1redrun ^Talk 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that list has also been nominated for deletion on this deletion-spree. I would also note that a topic is allowed to be included on a list and in its own article. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Robin Johnson. A potential reliable source. Sadly it's pay-per-view so I can't tell whether the "biff" mentioned within the article is the one we're talking about here. A less reliable source but 10k hits is nothing to sneeze at. —David Eppstein 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along the same lines as Robin Johnson. Remember Usenet? The original repository of information that anyone could edit? The B1FF phenomenon began when the Internet was still largely the ___domain of academic institutions, and the September horde of brand-new users. The great breadth of coverage of B1FF supports the notability of this Internet phenomenon. The article could stand to be improved, maybe even merged with B1ff, the Internet argot. --Ssbohio 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the power of his big brother's VIC-20, Strong Keep. Very distinctive and well-known, massive coverage over the years, everyone knows who B1FF was. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable meme in Internet folklore and is sourceable. "B1FF" has an entry in The New Hacker's Dictionary by Eric S. Raymond, which was published by MIT Press. "B1FF" even got an entry in the Microsoft Internet & Networking Dictionary [26] albeit with a slightly different meaning. --Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. These mass nominations by someone who apparently has great pride in deleting articles are getting disruptive. Tarc 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears this editor has already been on one deletion spree (although perhaps that one was justified) regarding non-notable pornographic actresses/actors. While I might agree that every single porn actor (like regular actors) does not require a page, these Usenet articles are not indiscriminate lists of users or fanpages/advertising for pornstars. It was even mentioned in some of those AfDs, despite the fact that they went through, that this user appeared to be trying to make a point or something. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source in the article, and it is notable. Your blanket minor-flagged boilerplate responses to several peoples' votes are disruptive and rather disingenuous. Tarc 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL. The Jargon File isn't reliable. Epbr123 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice, and yes, it is. The Jargon File has been around for over 30 years, it is not some random newbie fan site. This is the problem that I and others have with your mass nominations, is that you appear to have a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding Usenet and its history. Anyone that knows anything about this area of computing history would not be nominating this, Joel Furr or Serdar Argic for deletions, as they eould be well aware of their respective notability. Tarc 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how old it is, it's still unreliable. Epbr123 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. No other way to put it. Tarc 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in 30 years, Wikipedia will be a reliable source? Epbr123 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples & Oranges. Tarc 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that usenet phenomena aren't notable as a class does not hold water. B1FF is one of the notable ones. B1FF even is documented in print. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. A), Usenet is a reliable source for Usenet. B), the Jargon file entries for this were published as the Hackers Dictionary by ESR, so it's in paper print form. C) The statement that lack of reliable sources makes something non-notable is ludicrous. Notability and verifyability are orthogonal. If we did have a problem reliably verifying anything at all, then that might be a reason to question having an article, but A and B above indicate that this is not unreliably sourced. Epbr123's nomination and comments here are unreasonable and unsupported. Georgewilliamherbert 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fys, Metro90, etc. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have three responses to this: (1) Please consider everyone's vote individually, instead of blanketing the page with duplicate responses. (2) Do not mark such edits as minor. Doing so could easily be interpreted as an underhanded attempt to discredit someone's vote and have them not notice. (3) I could just as easily (if not more easily) claim that your nomination of a dozen of these related pages (in a way that disrupts Wikipedia and does not conform to AfD standards) is an IDONTLIKEIT move. --Cheeser1 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This user is being very underhanded in this deletion spree - when a set of related articles is nominated for deletion in this fashion, their AfD is supposed to be combined. Instead, we're dealing with a slew of AfDs (which mostly appear to be going leaning towards keep), and if a few slip through the cracks and get deleted, it will be because of this senseless barrage of new AfDs. See: here. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's continuing to spam nearly every comment with "No reliable sources" after two have been presented by Metropolitan90 above makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. DHowell 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DHowell. --Martin Wisse 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree that Usenet may be a reliable source for Usenet, but I don't buy that Usenet is a reliable source for notability. RFerreira 19:40, 9 September 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 04:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark V Shaney

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete According to the article, the person does not even exist, it's just a name attached to some machine-generated nonsense postings on usenet. Most of the article is just a lengthy quote from one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did somebody make today "Erase Usenet day"? Reasonably well known Usenet hoax from the formative years of that subculture. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well-known" doesn't mean notable. Epbr123 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes, and that somebody was Epbr1. "Garbage Collection" and "Starblind" seem to be following him around and nodding. Improve the article, don't delete it. Jeh 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL. Epbr123 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am not following anybody but applying my common sense. What about creating articles for some of the wikipedians? -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those called user pages? ;) Jeh 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of user pages, I think having a brag section of "articles I have helped delete" on his user page shows much of what Epbr123 is about. I consider this conduct disruptive, not to mention uncivil. Jeh 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't find your accusations very civil, to be honest. Epbr123 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - civility does not mean "ignore wrongdoing" or "overlook misguided intent to delete slews of articles" or anything of the sort. If he had called you "a big dumb jerk" it would be incivil. He pointed to what you put on your userpage. That's all. --Cheeser1 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article says that "Mark V Shaney" is a Usenet username and does not assert that "Mark V Shaney" is or was ever a real person. The article itself does not seem to be a hoax in any way-- it is just reporting of a clever hoax that was perpetrated on Usenet. And it's an interesting story, but that's not enough to qualify a subject for a Wikipedia article. But we need some cold hard reliable sources, not firsthand narratives here. There's got to be a showing of notability here, or the article can't stay. has any publication ever written an article about this hoax? That's what we desperately need. For example, there was a hoax on YouTube called lonelygirl15. It made such an impact on the YouTube users and fooled so many people that it was even reported in newspapers across America. Show us where something was published, please. If not, then the article has to go.OfficeGirl 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree. The newspapers were not taking nearly as much notice of Usenet in the "Mark Shaney" days; you can't apply the same standards. Jeh 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I was asking for was: "has any publication ever written an article about this hoax?" And newspapers were not taking nearly as much notice of Usenet in those days because there wasn't much going on there that was newsworthy or notable. Some newsworthy and notable stuff, but not much in those days. It wasn't the influential medium that it is now, either, and that may lend credence to the assertion that the subject of the article now being discussed is not going to be very notable.OfficeGirl 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should "reported in (general interest) newspapers across America" be a standard for notability? There are a lot of things that are notable within their sphere without being notable enough for general-interest news organizations to cover. A "Turing Test" experiment in Markov chains, foisted on an unsuspecting public, and generating the response it did, is mostly certainly notable... even though nobody at the NYT or USAToday likely ever heard of the concept of Markov chains, let alone this particular example. Jeh 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has problems akin to an in-universe article. Mark V Shaney was a Markov chain generator that received coverage in Scientific American, surely a reliable source, and generates several Google Scholar results as a precursor to other Turing test human conversation programs. It was also a USENET prank, from which its notoriety comes, but treating it as a "Usenet personality" (at least primarily) seems a bit off. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that last part. The "Usenet personality" point is indeed misplaced. Jeh 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be evidence that it's been covered by reliable sources. Epbr123 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Scientific American mention of Shaney was in A. K. Dewdney's "Mathematical Recreations" column for June, '89. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sounds like you've got hold of two good sources. If you can get those in to the article and clean it up a bit for clarity so that regular folks can understand what it's all about, you'll convince me to change my vote to keep.OfficeGirl 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OfficeGirl, the Scientific American reference has been in the article since April 2005. —David Eppstein 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between saying that there's an article out there somewhere in Scientific American and telling us what issue and page number that we can look at to verify the information. Also, other than saying that the article discusses Mark V Shaney we are given no report of what this alleged secondary source material actually said about the subject. That doesn't count as being "in" the article in the sense of appropriate editing. If the Scientific American article turns out to be just a passing mention or a small blurb, that would not be what we are needing in the way of reliable sources to prove notability. OfficeGirl 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS We can't justify having an article on a topic just because it was mentioned in Scientific American. There needs to be real coverage or it's not evidence of notability.OfficeGirl 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article required more sources, or clarification on sources, or more reliable sources, it should have been tagged {unsourced}, not nominated for deletion. WP:N and WP:RS are two different policies, with two different procedures to address problems. Articles with WP:RS problems are not (necessarily) subject to deletion. --Cheeser1 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but find references. World Arachny 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but find more references. This was notable in its day, and notability is not lost over time. Tarc 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, referencable, POINT nom. Georgewilliamherbert 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alternatively, merge into notable Usenet personalities. (There's nothing there requiring the personality to be human.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GWH. --Cheeser1 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have added Sci Am citation and another reference from PC-Computing, so article now passes notability test. Gandalf61 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, especially per Tarc. Was highly notable "in the day", and it certainly wouldn't be less notable over time. Otherwise, let's delete all articles on old Europeon nobility. • Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but to me it looks as if you're saying "I knew the whole batch would fail if I tried to get it through that way, so I ignored the recommendation and did them all individually." Yes, it's only a recommendation, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored completely just because doing so is more likely to result in success of some of your AfDs. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to think that by nominating together, they'd either all get deleted or all get kept, and since you apparently are very happy to get articles deleted, you think you'd have a better chance of getting a few deleted by hedging your bets. Unfortunately, this is completely wrong. Nominating multiple articles does NOT mean they all must suffer the same fate. Some can be kept, some can be deleted, but it centralizes discussion to avoid unnecessarily disrupting Wikipedia. You seem to have been aware of the policy, and split up the nominations in spite of this, for the express purpose of getting a few deleted by (absurdly) claiming WP:SNOW after 3 or 4 not-votes have been cast. This seems to qualify as an intentional disruption of Wikipedia for the purposes of trying to get as many of these articles deleted as possible. This is inappropriate. --Cheeser1 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Michael Hardy 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread newspaper coverage is a sufficient, not a necessary, condition for notability. Pappus' theorem may never have been mentioned in a newspaper at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and notable. Xihr 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; has actually been cited by other sources. [27] Feezo (Talk) 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noticable on Usenet in the context of Usenet and outside; no reasons for deletion given. --Martin Wisse 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no brainer. Cited in multiple print sources, notable usenet topic. Bartleby 12:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff reliable, non-trivial sources can be found about the subject. If such sources cannot be located this should probably be re-nominated for deletion as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a primary source of information. RFerreira 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : iff means "if and only if." In case anyone is unfamiliar with that particular abbreviation. --Cheeser1 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable independent sources to support his weak claim to fame, most opposes are procedural only. Fram 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bottomley (Usenet innovator)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no claim to notability, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, he was nothing. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the creation of soc.history.moderated is primarily of interest to soc.history.moderated users. It wasn't the first moderated newsgroup. Nor was there any one personality primarily behind opposition to Canter & Siegel. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Dhartung. The first moderated Usenet newsgroup seems to have been net.announce in 1983. (See here for evidence.) The soc.history.moderated newsgroup wasn't created until 1994.[28] Thus, neither of the sources in this article holds up in terms of supporting the statements they refer to. --Metropolitan90 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then let's fix the article, not delete it. ALL of the w: pages concerning deletion procedures seem to strongly recommend that the first response to such an article should be to improve it. Jeh 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that one of the sources claimed for this article does not even mention the subject, and the claim it is trying to support ("highest Kibo number in Britain") is difficult to believe. (Someone who had never received an e-mail would have an infinite Kibo number. Bottomley more likely was one of many Britons with a Kibo number of 1 or 2.) --Metropolitan90 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it shows YOUR lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. They are related in that their claim to notability derived at least partly from Usenet, and from the Notable Usenet personalities page... and you seem to have found them all from that page. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter what their claim to fame is. Each one has to have been covered by reliable soutces; the vast majority haven't been. Epbr123 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:RS does not demand deletion of poorly-sourced articles. --Cheeser1 05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINT. Meets WP:V and seems to potentially meet WP:N. May need more/better sources, or an explicit pass of WP:N. Those are not reasons to swoop in and delete, but rather, reasons to tag the page and discuss it there, with established editors of this page. --Cheeser1 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué? It's been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since July, and there are absolutely zero reliable sources listed. Extremely unclear on why you assert that WP:V is met. Nearly all available sources seem to be usenet posts and mailing list entries. Delete, MrZaius^talk 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Though I disagree with the deletion of all or most of these articles, the nominator was 100% right to nominate them separately--had they been nominated in a group, the proper & inevitable response would have been to ask him to renominate. The individuals have different accomplishments, and need to be judged accordingly. It is very likely that some of them are more notable or have better documentation than others. Every bio article stands on its own. DGG (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - this is incorrect. Articles on similar topics should be nominated together. The fact that their notability varies is immaterial - we can judge which to keep and which to delete altogether (the decision need not be all-or-none). See the relevant AfD procedure. --Cheeser1 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important poster from semi-early days of Usenet, whose article needs fleshing out, not deleting. --Martin Wisse 10:37, 9 September 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. One keep !vote is based solely on the notion that the nomination was flawed. That notion is incorrect and the !vote is therefore disregarded. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusis/Zwitterion

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eleusis/Zwitterion

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only claim to notability is running a meth lab and getting caught. The fact that he only served four years suggests that it wasn't exactly the crime of the century as the article makes it sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was highly notorious at the time, when USENET fancied itself a sort of uncensored, uncensorable freenet (as opposed to a free-net), thus it was "shocking" that someone could post drug-lab info online and be arrested for running a drug lab. It wasn't something the EFF or allies got behind, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn't expire. --Cheeser1 03:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it shows YOUR lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. They are related in that their claim to notability derived at least partly from Usenet, and from the Notable Usenet personalities page... and you seem to have found them all from that page. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter what their claim to fame is. Each one has to have been covered by reliable soutces; the vast majority haven't been. Epbr123 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This page has TWO sources and is marked as a STUB. Putting it up for deletion is entirely inappropriate. It has enough sources for WP:V and appears to pass WP:N, even if it doesn't have enough reliable soruces. You sould have tagged it as {refimprove}, or just waited for it to expand (it is marked as a stub!), not nominated it for deletion. --Cheeser1 03:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeh and per WP:N =/= WP:RS and because notability does not expire. -Cheeser1 03:14, 8 September 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 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Furr

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think he's notable enough, although I'm having a devil of a time finding reliable sources: Google News shows a 1994 wire story in which he's quoted, and Books finds a citation that he wrote some sort of article in 1995 called "The Ups and Downs of Usenet" for comething called Internet World. That's about it. Hopefully somebody else can find more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability isn't lost over time. Not that it matters for much here, but I tussled with Mr. Furr on numerous occasions back in the Usenet days. Tarc 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- with some reservations. IMHO the article needs to be rewritten to emphasize notability and exclude that which is purely vanity. Furr's claim to notability is really only the undocumented claim to having coined the word "spam" to refer to unsolicited commercial email. If true, that's certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Most of the rest seems contextless and meaningless. Digitalican 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only so that the kept Usenet personalities aren't all certified net.kooks. Furr was a bit of a prankster but never really a kook. I still own one of his t-shirts; adding two WIRED references.--Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Well known historically. Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historically notable. Keep. DS 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per most of above. Jeh 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it shows YOUR lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. They are related in that their claim to notability derived at least partly from Usenet, and from the Notable Usenet personalities page... and you seem to have found them all from that page. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter what their claim to fame is. Each one has to have been covered by reliable soutces; the vast majority haven't been. Epbr123 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my point. My point is that the proper context for this discussion must include awareness of the other related articles you AfD'd in the same day. I might also mention another mere "recommendation", the one at the very top of the Articles for Deletion page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Why not do that? Jeh 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's hard to improve an article with no sources. Epbr123 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Or tag the article appropriately." Sure, it's hard for YOU to improve an article on a topic with which you are unfamliar (then again one can search on Google, Google Groups, etc.), but isn't that what the cite tag is for? Much less disruptive than a volley of AfDs. Jeh 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Apparently you missed this. --Cheeser1 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources, passes notability test. Gandalf61 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf, Jeh, etc. --Cheeser1 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient sources for notability. Each sort of topic has to be judged by the sources which are likely to be applicable. But I think it was totally correct to nominate them individually--some are better than others. A group nomination would quite possibly have led to incorrect decisions in some of the cases, whichever way it went. DGG (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Joel Furr is certainly noticable in the world of Usenet. Wikipedia was meant to cover subjects like this, to document domains not covered by traditional encyclopedias. --Martin Wisse 09:43, 9 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases featuring a vocoder

AfDs for this article:

Delete - deleted based on a prod, restored by an admin. Similar to innumerable "lists of songs by special sounds" that have been deleted, in fact so many such lists that the category holding them was also deleted. This is a directory of loosely associated items. The songs have nothing in common past the use of a particular instrument/vocal effect. The use of a vocoder says nothing about the songs, nothing about the vocoder, nothing about any relationship between the songs (as there is none) and nothing about music in general. Otto4711 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vocoder As with "Love and Marriage" (the vocoder version), you can't have one without the other. Mandsford 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not the place for a list of videos featuring <equipment> or <instrument> Corpx 04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's unfortunate to see this list on its way out. Taking into consideration that the list has, agreeably, been loosely put together and is lacking sufficient references, I still tend to believe that it continues to belong under the subject vocoder. I am a "vocoder fan" if such a thing exists, and this was the only such list I have been able to find online (I found this list by entering vocoder in WP). What contributed to its length and thoroughness(I mean the list as a whole) was the fact that many people helped put it together, this being the fundamental principle behind WP. Similar lists exist on the net, but each is mostly compiled by one person and due to that fact, are severely limited in content. The vocoder is still being used today for new releases, and even if users were to copy/download the current list now before its impending deletion, visitors (including those who already contributed and those who could do so in the future) will no longer have readily access to updates regarding new bands/releases that use this instrument. Otto, You mentioned "the songs have nothing in common past the use of a particular instrument/vocal effect", and I might agree with you, but cheerfully add that this is exactly the reason why this list was such a great find for me. On the other hand, while, in my opinion at least, there is a solid relationship between these songs, I might concur that there exists a better place for this list than here, if I better knew what options were available. Can the list stay intact if I was to renovate the list by trying to go through and start citing/sourcing at least some of the entries to increase the articles overall credibility? Or (I don't know Wiki that well) is there someplace else with comparable access that we can move the list to, so as not to detrimentally affect the integrity of the original article? Thanks.--Dereliktae 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) — Dereliktae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This is pure listcruft, and listcruft quotes 'list of songs that contain the laughter of children' as an example of something highly questionable. The importance of the vocoder and the key notable uses of it are well-documented on the vocoder page, anything important that has been missed out should be merged. RichyBoy 20:43, 8 September 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.--Kubigula (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Squitti

There seems to be no verifiable information about this person anywhere; only web hits for this link are in Wikpedia and its mirrors, and all of them seem to have been generated by a the same editor that submitted this article. The "Nobility of Italy" book cited does not have a sufficiently specific cite to find it in a library, and the web link is a broken link. Karada 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:V concerns. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V, WP:NOTABILITY. This user seems to continuously be creating articles for family members. A number were deleted back around last December I think it was and he seems to be at it again. --Djsasso 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The deletion of Rita Ubriaco a local politician, was not a relative of mine, and the above suggests, neither was George Petralia the sicilian wood carver, cowbody who discoverd Carrol Baker. These were not family members, although they were all Italian in origin. --Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I take that part back about the past deletions then...but there are still two up now. --Djsasso 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You also delted Joesph Mauro no family member. You did keep John Potestio, who is not a family member and who totally ignored the Squtti family in his book, "Italians of Thunder Bay", why ? Dirty politics ? Perhaps ? Jealousy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I have no idea why "he completely ignored" that family. As or why he wasn't deleted, probably cause no one noticed. --Djsasso 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability and sources. NawlinWiki 14:00, 11 September 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 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serdar Argic

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per my criminal murdering Armenian grandparents. Notable usenet personality still very memorable for those of us who remember the old days. He had media coverage in his day: Eye Weekly, a Toronto arts newspaper, covered him on July 28 1994. They'll be going after Robert E. McElwaine next. Unaltered reproduction and dissemination of this important information is encouraged, as they say. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup. Google News does show that his activities attracted some media attention, some of which unquestionably appear to be reliable sources. Needs cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is well-established. What's with all the Usenet lore being up for AfD lately? Tarc 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, well-known Usenet "poster". Corvus cornix 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; you are joking, surely? Argic was a legend in his time. The nominator is howling in the wires. -- ChrisO 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is ridiculous. Of course he's notable. He's referencably documented all over. Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misdirected packets / sent by Serdar Argic / man you should have seen 'em / posting MAKE BIG MONEY FAST. A legend, though not in a good way, who was responsible for significant changes in worldwide Usenet policy. Keep. DS 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINT, WP:N, and WP:SNOW. --Cheeser1 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known enough to be namechecked in Ken MacLeod's first novel. --Martin Wisse 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles Stross too. -- ChrisO 10:50, 9 September 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. Maxim_(talk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Conrad

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 14 footnotes and not a reliable source among them. The only one that looked promising, the CNN search, does not actually return any results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete, per nom Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The snowball deletes at this AfD shows why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three-to-one could barely be considered consensus. WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeh. Make it three-to-two. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. Epbr123 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep PER JEH. I agree with Jeh. My reason is the same as his. There is also PLENTY of notability established for this user. Do not tell me I don't have a valid reason when I do. It is insulting and demonstrates the fact that you are more intent on making sure these articles get deleted than on discussing the issues at hand. I have assumed good faith as much as possible, but it appears that you're out to delete, regardless of anything or anyone in your way. --Cheeser1 03:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes notability test. Gandalf61 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice you didn't say reliable. The blogs, forums and personal sites linked in the article aren't reliable sources. Epbr123 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems to me that the standards for reliability for a claim of "notability" are a bit different (lower) than those for matters of, say, scientific fact. How reliable do you need for "people are talking about him"? Jeh 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're talking about me; should I get an article? Have you read the notability guidelines? Epbr123 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have an article, it's called your User page. As for the notability guidelines, yes, I've read them, in particular this part. Did you try any of those other steps before your AfD? From the history on this page it would not appear so. Jeh 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr - You don't seem to get it. The notability test establishes notability (see WP:N), regardless of reliability of sources (see WP:RS). These are separate policies. The article passes the notability test and should be FILLED OUT with reliable sources, content, links, etc. It should not be summarily deleted because no one has gotten around to cleaning it up yet. That's not how things work. --Cheeser1 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Epbr - Regarding the notability guidelines, I call your attention in particular to "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." That would be Notable Usenet personalities, of course. But you've posted an AfD for that article too! "Hmmm." Jeh 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is my final word on the matter; WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Epbr123 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N also clearly states that you should attempt to improve the article, or ask others to improve it by adding appropriate tags. If that fails, you should merge it into a "broader article providing context." Only after all of these steps does it mention AfD as a next step. Jeh 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It also doesn't say "...and must be presumed not-notable if not significantly covered in reliable sources...". And your assertions regarding what Usenet related sources are reliable are not particularly reliable right at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - irritating, yes, but notable and referenced and verifyable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreliable sources. Epbr123 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usenet and web site sources related to Usenet are reliable sources for events that have happened on Usenet. Usenet is not a reliable source for events happening outside Usenet. This is established Wikipedia precedent. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um ... so how is it an independent source then? Epbr123 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's like saying "So how are newspapers independent sources for discussing other newspapers?" Georgewilliamherbert 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't quite see what that's got to do with anything. Usenet can't be used as an indepndent source for Usenet users. Epbr123 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, the precedent is that Usenet is a reliable source for Usenet users and events. It's known and acknowledged that it's not "an independent type of media". Usenet is a transmission medium and set of groups and the contents of all those groups. Usenet as a primary source for Usenet's own events is a reliable source, per existing WP discussion and precedent. Newspapers may be reliable sources for events in the newspaper industry, and books for other books, and so forth. Usenet is considered a reliable source only to that extent, though, not for other topic areas outside itself. Georgewilliamherbert 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sure it can. Just as, for example, newspapers in Austria could be used as a reliable source for information about Austrians. And the fact that those Austrians were never mentioned in U.S. media would not detract from their notability. How is Usenet an independent source? It's independent of Ed Conrad. We can't use Usenet postings by Ed Conrad to establish his notability, but we can use postings by other people. Jeh 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Plus I think you are unfamiliar with the precedents surrounding Usenet pages because, rather than discuss notability or verifiability of these pages with their active editors, or even tagging it and waiting for a response, you swamped the AfD with these pages. If you're not familiar with this stuff, don't take it upon yourself to translate a possible WP:RS problem into a WP:N problem into a delete. --Cheeser1 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unreliable sources are NOT an excuse to go on a deletion rampage. If an article lacks reliable sources, you're supposed to tag it as unreferenced (or as poorly referenced). Notability and verifiability are NOT dependent on having the most reliable of sources. I've explained this to you several times now. WP:N and WP:RS are separate policies. Only one provides for deletion. --Cheeser1 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough sources for this one. Not great sourcing, but sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It looks like a fine article to me. DxMxD 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we want to adequately cover Usenet and its culture on Wikipedia, people like ED Conrad (or the others nominated for deletion) belong here. --Martin Wisse 10:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jeh. Xihr 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as annoying as Ed is when dealing with him, I believe that notability is established by his significant presence, how well he's known across Usenet communities, his notoriety being what it is, of course, the fact that he has an alt.fan.* newsgroup created, and has a number of web sites dedicated to his kookery. - Nascentatheist 05:50, 13 September 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it's sad that he (supposedly) died, but the article has no claims of notability beyond posting lots of silly stuff to a message board. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not at all "silly stuff." Gharlane's knowledge of science fiction was, to coin a phrase, encylopedic, and he never hesitated to share that knowledge with questioners. Jeh 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Usenet =/= "a message board"; learn your internet history! Within the context of Usenet history, Gharlane was a prominent figure in his time. His acknowledgement by trade publications such as The Register establish notability in and of themselves. There seems to be a tendency to dismiss online personalities because that's "old hat" now; a reference source like Wikipedia is vital for keeping things in context. --Orange Mike 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Sure, Gharlane was so un-notable that The Register devoted a page to his obituary AND another page to revealing his true name. His postings to Usenet were so infrequent that he single-handedly made the automatically generated monthly "list of suspected spammers" several times with hand-composed unique posts (the lists were only looking at numbers of posts per month, not content). This puts him mong the most prolific (at least on a per-month basis) Usenet posters of all time. He's notable! I also notice that the proposer here, Epbr1, has been on an afd rampage lately for "non-notable Usenet personalities," even proposing the Notable Usenet personalities page for deletion. He has been asked to "slow up!" on a similar spree in the past. I propose that ALL of his recent AFDs be summarily rejected. Kids these days don't realize how notable Usenet was. Jeh 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established in the article by reliable sources. Frivolous nomination. Tarc 13:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Frivilous IDONTLIKE nom. Referenced, notable, historically relevant. Why on earth nominate this? Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW, also per other keeps. --Cheeser1 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orangemike and Jeh were two of the main authors of this article. Epbr123 09:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - They're eminently qualified to talk about the subject's notability, then... Georgewilliamherbert 09:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And Epbr123 is the originator of this afd. (And that of many other "notable Usenet personalities" and of the "notable Usenet personalities" page itself.) So what? Actually this claim is uninformed at best, deliberately misleading at worst. If you look at the "diffs" via the page history you'll find that Orangemike and my contributions to the page are small (no offense meant, Orangemike!). After that, looking at Epbr123's contributions, and this item on his user page, might be informative. Jeh 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Georgewilliamherbert - keep. DS 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Epbr123's recent spate of AFDs seems to me to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. These AFDs should be collectively rejected on that basis alone. Jeh 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Epbr123 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WRONG. Multiple related articles should always be grouped together. Otherwise you disrupt Wikipedia by creating an excess of AfDs, and interested parties, particularly those who routinely edit all 11 of these articles, will have to juggle all 11 at once. The result of a combined debate IS allowed to have some delete, some keep, so don't think that you'll miss out on being able to put another notch on your deletion-belt by following accepted procedure. I'd ask that you please learn the deletion procedure before you use it to defend your disruptive behavior. --Cheeser1 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just imagine how messy an AfD would be for these 11 completely different people. I already know the deletion procedure; as you are keen to point out, I do have quite a bit of experience with it. Epbr123 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If they're so different, then why were they the subject of all of these AfDs from you in a single day? They are all related in that you found them all on the Notable Usenet personalities page, which you are also trying to get deleted! I'm sorry, but to me it looks as if you're saying "I knew the whole batch would fail if I tried to get it through that way, so I ignored the recommendation and did them all individually." Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You nominated 11 articles about the same thing, for the exact same reason, on the exact same day. Don't throw a hypothetical "I'm sure it would have been messy" at us. AfDs are sometimes messy. But it's decidedly messier to try to discuss the exact same issue(s) on 11 different deletion pages. --Cheeser1 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It would have been even worse to have nominated together. Out of 11 people, some will be more notable than others. The nom was completely right to do them separately. But they should have been spread out a little. It is unfair to do this many at a time--since it is so much easier to nominate than defend, it biases towards deletion. I have previously suggested there be some reasonable limit, like 2 or 3 at a time. It's been rejected so far, but perhaps someone would care to suggest it again. consensus on such things can changes as it becomes more evident how the afD procedure can be abused. DGG (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Gharlane was one of the best known posters on Usenet, well established in several newsgroups, if I'm not mistaken thanked in several author dedications, etc. Also remember: noticability on Usenet is established from Usenet. If we want to cover Usenet and its culture, we need to look at what and who is noticable there first, not just rely on traditional sources --Martin Wisse 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no reservations with this article as there are multiple reliable sources beyond the bounds of Usenet. We can do without the geocities.com ref though. RFerreira 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete* David G. Potter was a Usenet poster who spent a great deal of his work day posting to Usenet newsgroups. He made extravagant claims about his background and accomplishments which have no basis in fact. He claims his pen name, "Gharlane of Eddore" was used with the permission of E.E. "Doc" Smith, although Smith retired from public appearances and public life when Potter was 16. Potter claimed to have published many science fiction stories and screen plays, and to have been a television writer. Although in reality, the only thing he published were two stories shortly before his death. If the article is to be kept on the basis of his reputation, then these exaggerations should also be mentioned. Also, his habit of attacking and berating those on the Usenet newsgroups with whom he disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.41.1 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - is this a content dispute? An article is generally not deleted if there is a content dispute. Instead, you should work to properly source your claims and integrate them into the article. --Cheeser1 11:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In fact, in the newsgroups he frequented, he was constantly attacked along the above lines. This only contributes to his notability. *grin* Jeh 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - AGF, Jeh, AGF! This isn't Usenet. --Orange Mike 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - reply to comment Orange Mike, you are perfectly correct. Mea culpa. I have revised my previous comment accordingly. Jeh 02:53, 11 September 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 ignored those commentary which attacked the nominator, and didn't see a satisfactory response to the lack of multiple, independant, reliabe sources argument. Daniel 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xinoehpoel

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete one of the very few things that happened on Usenet that actually made the news (and the New York Times!) but it never got past a brief "quirky news" story, especially at a time when the press had much bigger fish to fry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeh, and per WP:POINT. --Cheeser1 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the reasoning behind this persons !vote. Epbr123 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the proposer's motives in not following recommended procedure, not excepting "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Jeh 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. Epbr123 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on alternatives to deletion, that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that is an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that you think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. Jeh 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've searched the internet and I can't find any sources. It has to go. Epbr123 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Odd. I got 2,380 hits, the very first of them being a reference to a story about him on Euronews TV. There are good references SOMEwhere. The fact that I don't have time to find them today doesn't prove the article has to go. Jeh 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The fact that you barely seem to have any idea of how notable Usenet is leads me to believe that you don't know how to search the internet very well. Please refer to here, here, here, and here. --Cheeser1 19:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as noticable as some of the misguided nominated articles here, but harmless enough and notable enough to stay. --Martin Wisse 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and paucity of reliable sources see [29]. Sure he gets some hits but see WP:GOOGLE. Also the motivation of the nominator is not relevant if the page itself fails to meet the relevant guidelines, as is the case here. Eluchil404 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: If you refer us to WP:GOOGLE to assert that Google hits do not aptly measure notability, how come you are basing your vote on the lack of Google hits? There is one reliable source already listed - two are needed to establish notability. If this nomination had been made in good faith, the article would have first been tagged as needing more sources (see Alternatives to Deletion and Before Nominating an AfD). Active editors of the page would have had a chance to find another source, instead of scrambling to find another one before this AfD closes. --Cheeser1 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article completely lacks NON-TRIVIAL THIRD PARTY SOURCES about the subject, WP:POINT or not. Burntsauce 23:20, 13 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myke Amend

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:V; no sources cited or found, a total of 57 unique GHits for artist name, most of them leading to blogs and other self-published sources, or else places selling prints, etc. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 19:34, 5 September 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. CitiCat^♫ 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Usenet personalities

Unsourced and non-notable list. Epbr123 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete I believe it some entries can be ~~well~~ referenced. However, i am not sure if all of the people/pseudonyms listed are notable enough. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N says that a summary article like this is the place to talk about people not notable enough for their own articles. "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." Jeh 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article is a giant list and its only reference is to a school newspaper, that's a bad sign. Besides, this is redundant with Category:Usenet people. I suggest that before deletion it should be combed through for A7/AfD candidates--virtually everyone listed is completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, so below, although as an annotated list, it's better reading than a cold, plain category. --Agamemnon2 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Improve the article with references, don't delete it. Epbr1 has been on an AFD rampage today for "non-notable (to him) Usenet personalities", and the first two responders here have been following him around rubber-stamping these AFDs for the most part. If Gharlane is not a notable Usenet personality then no one is! I believe this is disruptive behavior on wikipedia and should be looked into by admins. Jeh 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entries are unsourced, and given the subject matter, this is a WP:BLP nightmare just waiting to happen. Xihr 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a bit of cleanup. Needs to remove the POV-ish qualifiers ("eccentric", "unusual") being given to people. Ad more references. Tarc 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - IDONTLIKE nom is no reason to delete it. Claiming that Usenet is not notable and its phenomena aren't notable is ludicrous. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is NOT an ILIKEIT vote. Stop labeling every vote that disagrees with you as ILIKEIT. This vote EXPLICITLY states that (according to this user) the subject meets WP:N, which should be obvious (did you read the title? NOtable Usenet personalities?). --Cheeser1 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - list, with exposition, of several related personalities. Would not be superceeded by category. Entries in list seem relatively notable, and some even link to well-sourced articles (the sourcing issue is a red-herring - it's a list, and many entries are already sourced in their respective article). --Cheeser1 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the goal of this is just a list, rather then content within it, I think it would be much better suited as a category. Xihr 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, a list and a category are vastly different in Wikipedia. This list is sorted, and contains a fair amount of exposition, not to mention many entries that do not correspond to their own article. It cannot be downgraded to a category without losing alot. --Cheeser1 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I disagree. The person I was responding to suggested that this article had links to well-sourced, useful articles. That in and of itself indicates that the list does not serve any obvious useful purpose beyond a category. Xihr 07:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But (I will say again) WP:N says that a summary article like this is the place to talk about people not notable enough for their own articles. "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." A category can't include entries that have no articles; a list article can (as well as including entries that do have articles). I say again: Improve, don't delete. Jeh 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine personalities listed on this page, and of this page itself, seems to me to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree wholeheartedly, and hope the appropriate admins take this into account. I personally think this article is better suited as a category, but simultaneous AfDs for the list and its (article) items without comment strikes me as inappropriate. Xihr 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the entries are notable and are sourced in their own articles. Useful reference list. Gandalf61 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Gendalf61 sums it up nicely for this page. Even if not all are well-sourced or not-sourced-in-this-article, many are sourced. Nuking the article isn't the solution for that. I also object on procedural grounds for all the unbundled AfDs...looks like gaming the system (get enough support for any one page not being viable in a vacuum (without even proposing a merger!), then others that are inter- or intimately-related become less viable without it). DMacks 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much unsourced information in probable violation of WP:BLP. Also: trivial. If the result is "keep," then all entries on the list that do not have a corresponding article should be deleted from the list. BCST2001 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - criteria for being one's own article and criteria for being in an article (or in this case, list) are not the same. See here. --Cheeser1 00:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They still need to be sourced though. Epbr123 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not the point. WP:RS does not provide for deletion if an article or list might benefit from more sources. Not only did you completely skip alternatives for deletion, but you aren't even arguing based on a deletion criterion. If you thought it needed more or better references, you should have tagged it with {refimprove}, not AfD'd it. WP:N is what must be met, and I can't think of anything that meets WP:N better than an article that is explicitly structured as a list of notable people. The fact that some of them do not have their own article is irrelevant to WP:N (as I've pointed out), and has nothing to do with this nomination. --Cheeser1 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so we can all waste more time on a 2nd motion to remove, and, also, keep because

the world thus knows Uncle A"I" is a computer program with John Baez. Note the AL is really Ai for artivical intelligensia. 216.16.56.201 07:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Gandalf61. Good starting article, even if sources need to be improved. --Martin Wisse 09:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Usenet personalities" or "List of Usenet personalities". RFerreira 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you move this article without discussing it? The fact that you suggested it here on the AfD does not give you permission to immediately move it. If you made this suggestion as part of the AfD, you should at least wait until the AfD is over. I have moved it back. I would strongly suggest that you wait for the AfD to end, and in general, refrain from instituting such suggestions until others have had a chance to comment on them. This article is obviously the subject of scrutiny and disagreement - making such a move without forming consensus suggests that somehow you thought it would be complete uncontested, which I believe is a completely unreasonable assumption. Please take care not to make moves that one can be certain would be contested. See WP:RM. --Cheeser1 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drinikeep -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great article, lacking in sources but that can be remedied. Really fundamental to Usenet culture. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Silly unsourced triva. No logical rules for inclusion or exclusion in article; anyone who shows up on a Google search could be listed here.--Paul 21:52, 11 September 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 nonsense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nether-Realm

Hoax anime series. Various speedy/PROD tags added, with the last PROD tag removed by User:DGG in some sort fit of bureaucratic excess: correct tzag, speedy does not apply to hoaxes, though apparently not concerned enough to bring it here. See also Hellsing Death Nether. Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The letter of speedy does not apply to hoaxes, but deliberately inserting incorrect information is a form of vandalism, which is speediable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete along with all related pages. These hoax articles have been around quite long enough already and are not in any way suitable Wikipedia content. --tjstrf talk 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing is verified on this page. Not even the existence of such a series. KyuuA4 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, fails WP:BK and WP:V. Also, the prod tag was removed by an anon, and really should have stayed there. Oh well. Irrelevant at this point. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable and possibly false this seems to be linked towards a video game site instead.JForget 01:34, 6 September 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. NawlinWiki 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zerg

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

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

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

This overlong article about fictional race has no independent references to demonstrate notability per WP:Fiction and as a result reads like a WP:POV fork from the computer game Starcraft, from which it is featured. --Gavin Collins 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StarCraft. Notability is the issue here, not WP:POV. MartinDK 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can't delete Zerg! I don't even like the game but I know a noteable topic when I see it! From our own article on Rush (computer and video games)
In real-time strategy (RTS) and team-based first-person shooter (FPS) computer games, a rush is a fast attack at the beginning of the game. In this context, it is also known as swarming, goblin tactics or Zerging,
Just because an article does not have any references is no reason to delete it - if sources cannot be found, then yes it can be put up for deletion... Don't put it for an AfD - Find Some Sources for it instead! Also, Starcraft is too big as it is. Leave the article where it stands. - Fosnez 11:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. Also, it is written from an in-universe perspective which is bad. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, you can't tell someone that they should find sources instead. The onus is on the creators of the article to state their sources and assert notability per the appropriate guideline. Also, I said Redirect not merge. There is nothing of value to merge so the size of the main article doesn't matter. MartinDK 11:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment anyone can find sources for an article - thats the point of wikipedia. I agree the the article needs a rewrite - but again I will say it... rewrite it! don't delete it.. from what I can see from a lot of these deletions (and I'm not attaching you here Gavin or MartinDK) they are from editors that either don't have the time or don't care enough about the subject to fix it. If you don't have enough time to fix it then you shouldn't have enough time to delete it! Here some basic fact that I have thrown together:
    Number of article edits: approximately 500 non trival
    
    Number of link to Zerg: about 40 (not including user or redirects)
    
    Number of google hits: almost 1,500,000
    
    Number of Google Scholar hits for zerg starcraft: about 20 - some look quite interesting, but you have to pay for them. - Fosnez 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One final comment - WP:FICTION says that articles should try to be kept, otherwise merged, or transwikied and finially put up for deletion if non of the above can be done. Having looked through the edit history, I can't see a request for a merge? Fosnez 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge content The Zerg are kind of popular in modern (mostly internet) culture. However, they don't need an article. I suggest enhancing the StarCraft article with all relevant information found here. Or, seing as other races from the game have an article, create a page Species in StarCraft (or similar) and collect the information on the different races there. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the 3 entries in Category:Blizzard_Entertainment_characters; there is no conformity on how the other 2 Articles handle this sort of thing. One goes with a "List of..." the other with seperate Articles. Making a "Formal Decision" on this article could have a future effect on 1 of the other 2 Articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (use page names to Redirect to StarCraft if deleted): WP:FICTION states that all other options should be exhausted before deletion. All other options have not been exhausted. As with the Protoss, and the Terrans I have rewrites on the way. I was going to work on locations and mapping next, but these nominations have pushed species up the priorities list. If I didn't have any rewrites planned, I'd join in supporting deleting this - the current version is awfully in-universe and lacks any real-world information. However, just like I said in the Protoss AfD, deletion of this version of this article doesn't really matter to me - the rewrites will be completely different, written from an out-of-universe perspective with minimal plot details (the Characters of StarCraft article and the main game articles do that sufficiently) and contain information on development, notable gameplay aspects, critical reception, cultural impact all referenced from reliable sources. When moved out, they will comply with notability guidelines and so forth, so it doesn't really matter what happens to this version of the article. Certainly do not merge into StarCraft in the meantime - that will probably make a mess of the article, damaging it's FA status. -- Sabre 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:NOTINHERITED also tells us that the creation of sub-articles, while not implying an "inherited notability" per se, can be acceptable for practical reasons. As the whole game is constructed around three different races and also game reviews seem to look at them in turn, this would IMO be such a case.--Tikiwont 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Starcraft universe is massively popular, and an article on one of it's key components isn't cruft and it is worthwhile. But like the Protoss article it needs some work. JMalky 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Now this is just getting silly. Artw 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zerg aren't notable? I've never played the game, have no interest in playing the game, am not a big gamer, and yet I still know all about them just from general conversation with friends. Bryan Derksen 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire article is in game content with no real outside notability established....this is game guide level content Corpx 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Finding references to substantiate this article is not difficult at all. A much more effective use of time would be to apply some copy editing and citations to the article and improve the content that way. dr.ef.tymac 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per User:Corpx - fchd 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - confident it can be rewritten into proper form. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable enough. Its close association with StarCraft makes it plenty notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not really. WP:NOTINHERITED. None of these keep votes have anything to do with policy or guidelines. I don't mean to bite you but please try to refer to something we can actually discuss (policy, guidelines) rather than spam the AfD with WP:ILIKEIT votes. MartinDK 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Responce From WP:NOTINHERITED Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That's not to say that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia and also, Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes [and] often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. Combining all the "non noteable" articles relating to starcraft into one would make it an extreamly long and cumberson article. Now for some policy, which directly relates to this. If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. - - Fosnez 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You want to wikilawyer your way out of WP:NOTINHERITED and then invoke WP:IAR to stop all further debate? That's it. I'm out of here. Good luck with your crap article. And oh yes... that's all it will ever be. MartinDK 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment So now I can't even quote policy to keep this article? Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.... Fosnez 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Care to explain why you are vote stacking ? MartinDK 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Well if you had cared to read the project page you would understand what that is all about. Also it appears this is not the first time you've thrown a tantrum like this. Also, I don't appreciate being called a "inclusionist vote-stacking 14 year old asshole", I presume that was aimed at me considering it was made just after you above comment?. - Fosnez 08:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        General comment I strongly urge everyone to read the AfD that Michel refers to and not least the DRV that followed. Do you have anything to add to this AfD that even remotely relates to policy or are you just here to prove me right.? MartinDK 08:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Specific comment - So after a personal attack and a false accusation against me you are attempting to take the higher moral ground? Also, who is Michel? Fosnez 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Michel is the name of the editor whose comment on my talk page you linked to above. I would have thought you read it before linking to it here. I'm not attempting anything. I'm repeating my previous argument. Can you cite policy, other than WP:IAR? Can you cite a guideline that would allow this article to exist? Or are you simply here to disrupt the process? MartinDK 09:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I don't think it is me who is disrupting the process "That's it. I'm out of here. Good luck with your crap article. And oh yes... that's all it will ever be" Also, the last time I quoted policy you accused me of "wikilawyering", so am I allowed to do it now or not? - Fosnez 09:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment All you need to do to shut me up is show me that this meets WP:N and is sourced according to WP:V and WP:RS without trying to argue your way around the requirements which are quite clear. That's it, that's all it takes. MartinDK 09:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment While you have been here abusing me, have you bothered to check the article itself? or actually read any of my above posts? No? Well then I would refer you to the numbers that I have quoted above and to the article itself, there are sources now. Also, would you care to quote the policy were I have the responsibility to shut you up? I could quote a few back do you like Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, both of which you have violated in this thread, and (after reviewing your edit history) many times before. Fosnez 09:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I'll take that as a no then. See you when this is going to deletion review. MartinDK 09:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Hold on their buddy! So are you saying now that you are going to ignore the outcome of this AfD even before the outcome has been decided? And then lodge a deletion review based on your own, preformed opnion? It sounds like you don't have a very Neutral point of view on this subject or perhaps you just Don't Like it? - Fosnez 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:FICTION states that "non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted". All other options have not been exhausted, a full rewrite is underway in sandbox that will address the notability, in-universe style and "game guide"-like information (although I fail to see how it can be "game guide" when it doesn't mention anything about gameplay). WP:RUBBISH states that "just because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia". WP:UGH states "arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects". Right now though, I'm thinking that the final paragraph of WP:RUBBISH may be a good reason for deletion, particularly due to the afore mentioned rewrite: "Sometimes the current article is so poor that deleting the whole article and history, and starting from scratch is the best option." -- Sabre 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Protoss, it is inappropriate to view this article purely from fiction guidelines, as the significance of Zerg is not primarily as an element of the StarCraft fiction but as an actual element of StarCraft gameplay. This is especially significant given the extensive popularity of competitive StarCraft. The article does badly need a rewrite. Note additionally that the term “Zerg” has sufficient notability in this space to be applied to things quite separate from StarCraft as well. taion 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pare down, then merge and redirect to Starcraft spazure (contribs) (review) 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding? Sounds like a bad faith nomination. 86.1.200.103 01:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant article for the starcraft universe because it potrays and describes a faction and helps clarify the plotline on the starcraft page. Incase it gets deleted I transwikied sections of the page to the Encyclopedia Gamia. --Cs california 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the assertion that "Zerg" has become a common synonym in gaming circles for "canon fodder". This in itself renders any arguments based on WP:NOTINHERITED (whatever that string of upper-case letters is supposed to mean) moot. While I'd like to see citations provided for this usage, I think Wikipedia will survive if we keep this article & give people some time to provide those cites. -- llywrch 07:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use of "Zerg" in reliable sources. Several [30] [31] [32] articles by scholars, etc. Clearly notable outside the in universe context. User:Krator (t c) 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So Zerg = cannon fodder. So what? Besides that one factoid, nothing else in this article is sourceable. This is just typical fancruft: unreferenced, excessive plot detail, massively in-universe. Delete and do not merge in Starcraft or anywhere else. --Phirazo 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUBBISH "However, because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia." As with Protoss, the significance of Zerg as a fictional race is debatable. The significance of Zerg in StarCraft gameplay is not. This article is not "History of the Zerg". This article talks about the Zerg as a whole. Refer to the discussion and the conclusion reached in the Protoss AfD; this is no different. taion 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fictional race is non-notable outside of Starcraft and gaming circles. The Protoss AfD ended with no consensus, so there weren't any conclusions reached there. In the end, all that can be attributed to reliable sources is "Zerg = cannon fodder". This is a worth a sentence in StarCraft, not an entire article of plot summaries and cruft. This is not a "surmountable problem". Unreferenced material must be attributable to reliable sources, or it must go. --Phirazo 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that StarCraft is televised in Korea, right? The number of people who are actually interested in StarCraft and the various races is quite large. You're making a statement analogous to saying that the Sicilian Defense is not notable outside of chess circles. True, but irrelevant. There should not be an entire article of plot summaries and cruft, you're right; but this is not all there is this topic. Again, note WP:RUBBISH. I'm not arguing that I like how the article stands presently. Your apparent assumption, however, that this article is not missing large chunks on much more notable topics than are presently covered is, well, wrong. taion 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing that this article could be useful as game guide material? The only future I see for this article is a game guide or a plot summary, which is unfixable rubbish. If there are usable Korean sources, show them, or better yet, integrate them in the article. The sources given are insufficient for an encyclopedic article, and this article does not inherit notability from StarCraft. Yes, Korea loves StarCraft, but that isn't an excuse for unverifiable articles. --Phirazo 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Taion's been around for a long time, he knows his way around, there's no reason to assume that he's making such fundamental errors and no way that it helps this discussion. In fact, are you all right over there? You've been testy and snappish, knowing when to take a breather is not one of our strong points on the whole, and those things tend to feed themselves. This is not a ploy to discredit your judgement or play to the admins, that's way too difficult anyway, I'm concerned because an editor blew his top just above and by the time I came to talk to him he'd scrambled his password and logged out.
Taion is free to hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but he's definitely not arguing that (fill in later). If you need more sources, note from the link below that a single particular player received multiple articles in major Korean newspapers. Organizing an effort with WikiProject Korea should be more doable when the article is not in immediate danger. --Kizor 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: I don't know if "chess cruft" is a term in usage on Wikipedia, but Sicilian Defence would certainly qualify. That article is horrible. --Phirazo 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that there is a distinct risk of these articles devolving to game guide material, which is undesirable. I would optimally like the article to look like something of an equivalent of shortstop or first baseman, which give adequate descriptions of the underlying things without being guides. Perhaps for a closer analogy, the article on the Queen's Gambit gives a capsule description of the opening but also does not serve as a guide. This seems pretty analogous to doing things like covering basics like ultralisk + zergling combos or mutalisk tech without adding irrelevant levels of detail that would turn the article into a guide. The plot summary should be cut down to a paragraph or two at most, with the rest of the article giving an appropriate description of gameplay (but specifically not a guide) and a reference to prominent Zerg players and games. StarCraft is a bit unique in this space, yes, as it's really the only video game that has reached this level of popularity and professional development. However, if you're so unimpressed by Sicilian Defense and similar articles, I suggest putting them up for AfD as well. taion 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments in here, at Protoss and at Park Jung Suk about Starcraft's peculiar status as South Korea's unofficial national sport and the Zerg's status as a vital part. Starcraft uses the olympic stadium. It has not only professional players, but a professional league - and each player is associated with a particular race. Irrespective of the merits of the article as coverage of fiction, it has merit as coverage of a fundamental of unexpectedly major English-lacks-a-term-for-non-athletic-sport, making it not as much a matter for the current WP:FICT (which by the way has already exasperated its primary author, as it's not supposed to be used this way) and more like Out (baseball). No, I would never advocate articles about - say - Starcraft tactics or gambits, but those are both definite minutiae despite the significance of the main game, useless for our coverage, and unformalized concepts (unlike the Sicilian Defense). The Zerg are neither.
I know it's weird, but considering that I'm writing to you instantly from what is for most the other side of the planet, and on the largest encyclopedia in human history that's been built entirely by amateur volunteers, we've probably gone past weird. --Kizor 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above reasonings. • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, & I'm kind of inclined to agree with the notion that this vibes "bad faith" nom. --mordicai. 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article should be kept because though it is about a fictional race, that race is from a wildly popular game. It has a huge cult following and as with all games of that magnitude it has a back story. This page is a comilation of history, strategy and other useful and interesting things on that race, if you feel the need to delete this page dozens of others would have to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan Joe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 September 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 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Pulver

Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO for inhouse copywriter for various publishers. Long list of works for gaming instructions is not independent source. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I'm still working on the article, but he has won two awards for works he's written and/or contributed to. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've added even more information, linking in other existing Wikipedia articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards."

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors (true and mentioned in page)
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (I think true in field)
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (true: Transhuman Space by itself would be that.)

One standard needed, and at least two are met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons stated above. --Loremaster 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pulver's one of the most famous GURPS supplement authors, his works are used as source material even outside the game.Bryan Derksen 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known author in the field, has won awards, reff'ed article... Spurious nom. Georgewilliamherbert 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is reason for improvement, not deletion. Person meets all three standards of WP:BIO listed. Nomination is factually wrong, referring to a game designer as an 'inhouse copywriter' and books of rolepaying games as 'gaming instructions'. Nominator has been corrected before on their previous attempts to delete every single article related to the GURPS game, yet persists in using incorrect terms in the nominations. Edward321 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In view of the recognitions received by Pulver. Moreover, as Edward321 says, calling him an "inhouse copywriter for various publishers" is a bit like calling Stephen King an inhouse copywriter for his publishers. --Goochelaar 08:05, 8 September 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 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transhuman Space

This article is for gaming instructions does not demonstrate notability under WP:NOTABILITY. The article content fails WP:POV for lack of references and identifies this as WP:FANCRUFT.--Gavin Collins 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to notability concerns that may be adressed during the course of this AfD. I think you are being a bit hard on this article. If notability could be established it isn't that bad. A bit overly detailed but that's an easy content issue to fix. MartinDK 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep; one award brings it halfway to WP:N, and as the first RPG of its type I'm loath to see it go. Percy Snoodle 12:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The article needs impromvement but a google search of " 'Transhuman Space' game" nets about 79,000 hits. Of course not all of these are about the game but a good enough portion seem to be Johhny-turbo 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a copy of the magazine, but in case anyone does, there has been a review of this book in Vol 20, No. 1 of Prometheus, the journal of the Libertarian Futurist Society, one of the few RPGs that has ever been reviewed by this magazine. :) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having won an overseas award and being reviewed in a non-RPG-specific journal seem to make it quite notable. --Goochelaar 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is well within the bounds of notability. Strong keep. If articles were created for minutiae such as individual characters etc., those might be deletable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written article on award winning subject. Artw 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Worth keeping, although I think some words should be added on the conceptual elements of the series, namely, how it links to the real-world concepts of post- and trans-humanism. Hejincong 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons outlined by others, including awards, unusually wide reviews, etc. Whateley23 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among other things, is a reference for Orion's Arm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on awards, independent sources shown by previous comments. Nomination also incorrectly refers to a roleplaying game as 'gaming instructions', which is as accurate as referring to Monopoly as 'gaming instructions'. Edward321 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for many of the same reasons as above. Li3crmp 14:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Amir E. Aharoni 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet 26

It is presented as a proposal for an educational reform, but it seems to me that in reality it is little more than a non-notable font design. I found it mentioned on a couple of blogs and that's it. Amir E. Aharoni 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bradbury Thompson, the creator and (apparently) sole proponent. cab 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I agree. It's so stupid of me to miss the fact that there's an article about him. I think that i can withdraw this proposal now; what's the best way to do it? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an admin will probably come along and see your comment, but informally speaking, I guess you can also close it yourself (at least based on my reading of Wikipedia:Speedy keep). Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page. Cheers, cab 09:56, 5 September 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. DS 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kushmire

No references. High on a tree 07:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kush if references can be found else Delete. Google returns just one hit, and I can't seem to access the site. Looking at the URL it would seem that the one possible hit was created in August of 2007 anyway. I suspect that a lack of WP:RS is going to kill this unless someone can cite it from printed works. Pedro | Chat 09:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure about kushmire, but kentake, the other bolded term in the article's lead, gets a relevant hit on GBooks [33]: Van Sertima, Ivan (1984). Black Women in Antiquity. Transaction Publishers. p. 27. ISBN 0878559825. cab 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making a similar search, I finished ending on the same book. It seems clear in any case that the title is kentake, not Kushmire, latinized Candaces, and appears to be have applied especially to 4-5 queen-mothers that became indipendent rulers. Also the Historical Dictionary Of Women In Sub-Saharan Africa has a voice under "Candace", as an apellative of four ruler-queens in Meroitic Kush. That said, the wikitext seems to be pretty povish.--Aldux 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having overlooked this earlier: The entire article has been copied and pasted (violating the GFDL) from Kandake. I suggest a speedy deletion now. If someone finds reliable sources that "Kushmire" is indeed another name for this, a redirect can be created later. Regards, High on a tree 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast - I've controlled Google print, Google scholar and the web and this name seems to be a pure hoax.--Aldux 19:36, 5 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning event

This idea is a combination of common sense and OR. The improvements made after I PRODed it make it seem worse. I don't think Wikipedia needs a article on this topic in addition to the pages on reason and reasoning. I would be interested to know what other people think, though. Anarchia 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Banno 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search revealed this link. ~~How about merging with Natural deduction?~~ —AldeBaer 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find the phrase on the referenced article - am I missing something?Anarchia 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's in there. Just search the page for "reasoning event". —AldeBaer 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did, I promise! Suspect that capitals and plurals caught me out! This is not an inspiring reference/use of the phrase. I know you did not suggest that it justified an article. I do not think that it should be merged into natural deduction - which is a philosophical term/concept. This reads like a researcher came up with the definition purely for the sake of his research project.Anarchia 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article should be deleted as non-notable and non-verifiable. Interesting though that there is a reference for the term itself and some definition of it at all, although the concept is still non-notable and the reference has nothing to do with any of the content of the Reasoning event article (which reads more like it's cult-related). —AldeBaer 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Original research. --Alksub 03:14, 6 September 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. DS 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teabag (billiards game)

Procedural AfD. {{prod}} and {{prod2}} removed without comment. Content is WP:MADEUP — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT as original prod2er. Earlier revisions of the article state it was made up by New Zealand college students, which was removed when the prods were. No sources in the article, and Web searches have turned up nothing. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, completely own-invention, as can pretty much be read in the first revision of the page. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 5 September 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 huh, wouldja look at that. Good work, people. Keep. DS 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong in popular culture

An unsourced cluttered and trivial list of items involving King Kong. RobJ1981 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. It seems to be spun off from the King Kong article to make that article shorter. King Kong is a cultural icon, and as such, its influence on pop culture is encyclopedic, as is the case with many other movies (and many of those do have pop culture sections or articles). The article could use cleanup and sources for sure, but it should be on Wikipedia, and the current version is a good place to start improving. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No major issues here. |Notable and sufficent WP:RS to indicate that it deserves an article of its own. Certainly needs a tidy up but seems to me that this is encyclopedic. Pedro | Chat 09:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does a mention of every reference that reminds an editor of a big monkey on a building meet notability or reliable source standards? --Calton | Talk 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {unreferenced} tag would have been sufficient for now. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as another "oh look, a big monkey!" directory of loosely associated items mixed with trivia with an unhealthy dose of original research. Seeks to capture every appearance of or reference to King Kong despite the utter triviality of many of the references along with anything that in the unsourced POV/OR opinion of the random editor who spots it reminds them of King Kong in some way. This massive list tells the reader nothing about King Kong, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about the (non-existent) relationship between the items of fiction and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. One of the worst such lists I've seen. Deor 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No non-subjective reasons for deleting this have been given, and the cure for perceived "clutter", much less "triviality", is not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia policies are created by humans and not machines, there are no "non-subjective reasons" for deleting any article, so the notion that the lack of a "non-subjective reason" qualifies an article for inclusion would effectively bring AFD to a halt. Your argument does not address the policy arguments advanced by the nomination and in support of the nomination. Otto4711 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet Another batch of bullet points disguised as an article. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not violate any policies, well-organized, concerns a notable topic, etc., but I do agree that a reference tag would be appropriate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a junk trivia list. And most of the keep arguments are trash anyways. We aren't debating if King Kong is notable, it is not necessary for WP to have a "page" like this. WP is not an indiscriminate list of info, and plenty of pages like this have been removed. And don't give that "the main page was too big" nonsense. It's garbage info that is not necessary anywhere on this site. Dannycali 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune the most trivial and indirect references and keep. Artw 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is not King Kong in popular culture, it's "every mention of the name King Kong that we can think of". Properly edited, there would be nothing left of it. MarkBul 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing inherently notable about every reference in pop culture to King Kong ever, any major topics could be discussed in the main King Kong article anyway. Criteria for inclusion in this "article" seem very loose, to say the least, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. IvoShandor 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:V failures.--JForget 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not trivia collection - Merge anything major into King Kong assuming its not WP:OR Corpx 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is mostly indiscriminate trivia, even by "In popular culture" articles' low standards. Masaruemoto 04:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completly meaningless list of trivial references, some of which are to things just named "Kong" whether they have any reference to the original film or not. I know I'm not keen on "... In popular culture" articles, but this one deserves deletion more than most. - fchd 19:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider the following references:
- Erb, Cynthia Marie. Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture. Wayne State University Press, 1998.
- Gunn, Dave. "King Kong (1933)." This well-referenced article asserts, "The impact that King Kong had on the popular culture of the 1930s is one for the history books."
- McCutcheon, Camille1. "Review of Living Dangerously: The Adventures of Merian C. Cooper, Creator of King Kong," Journal of Popular Culture 39.4 (August, 2006), 687-688.
Thus, as you can see, it is incredibly easy to find references to King Kong and popular culture. Moreover, these sources demonstrate that such an article does NOT violate any original research policy. I strongly urge nominators for these topics to search for sources first. I urge someone to use these sources to better craft the article, but if nothing else, it is certainly a notable topic that does attract serious attention in published and internet sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Roi, the original research charge still stands. It is that by watching movies, reading novels, etc. and noting cultural references, and then putting them in an article about cultural references to King Kong we're doing original research here on Wikipedia. Using individual interpretation to produce scholarly work in the field of media studies is fine, but we're not allowed to do it on Wikipedia. The reason is that we don't possess the system of peer-review and fact-checking that reliable sources, research institutions, and academic communities have. This is a problem because cultural references to King Kong by Shredderman Rules and Full House get as much coverage as many of those 1930s references that the book you cite says is so important. I trust Dave Gunn much more to tell me where King Kong made a big cultural impact than I do a mob of Wikipedia editors who have unknown credentials in media studies, and probably didn't even examine the 1930s cultural references to begin with.--Chaser - T 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Perhaps a revision of the article based on secondary sources such a those that I have found would be best? We have thousands of editors and so, hopefully, someone will be up to the task! :) Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve this giant big huge mess. :-) Bearian 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I think the Erb and Gunn references above show unquestionable that the subject is notable. Article content is dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have given the article a quick rewrite using the sources that Le Grand Roi found (thanks!). The article now has sourced assertions of the huge influence King Kong has had on popular culture. While some of the trivia in the original article was definitely unimportant, other parts of it (eg A Summer Place, Energizer Batteries & The Simpsons) have been talked about in reliable sources and are suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Bláthnaid 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent rewrite. I think you've eliminated all the problems with the previous version.--Chaser - T 20:47, 7 September 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. DS 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 17

Non-notable band. No sources, feels hoaxy. May be a candidate for a speedy. LaMenta3 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for "The 17" +"Backwards Maybe?" +band -wikipedia yields nothing related to any music band. This, plus the unsourced extraordinary claims (Top of the charts for only 15 mins?) suggest that it is a hoax.--Alasdair 06:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, almost speedy delete as blatant advertising (except no sales-links are on there, which is why I'll go with strong delete). Obviously written by a band member having some fun. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 06:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I can find nothing indicating that their ridiculous claims are true, and I looked on seven different search engines. For that matter I can't even prove this band exists. Advertising, not notable, and possibly a hoax. Hut 8.5 10:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete, utter nonsense, and tagged as such. Burzmali 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't nonsense as defined by G1 - I removed the tag. Definitely delete, but G1 doesn't quite cover this. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - were it incoherent, I would have deleted it already as nonsense. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Vanity, non-notable band. Keb25 22:13, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rulers Back

No assertion of notability, no sources. Article is just a track listing. LaMenta3 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability, unsourced. /Blaxthos 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at this point in time, probably never will be.Darkcraft 13:47, 6 September 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. --Core desat 04:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fanlistings Network

Big claims but zero sources, fails WP:WEB Deiz talk 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick check using a search engine reveals no reliable sources independent of the website, just blogs and forums. Better wait until it gets the attention of mainstream media before including it here.--Alasdair 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alasdair. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:56, 5 September 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. --Core desat 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lincoln

This person is not notable enough. He is only notable for being Abraham Lincoln's ancestor. Even though Honest Abe was famous, this is not true for his ancestor. CheckeredFlag200 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why Hingham, Massachusetts commemorated him was because he was Abe's ancestor, not because he founded the church. There must have been others who had a greater role in founding the church.CheckeredFlag200 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For me, it's almost enough that here we have a higher-than-usual amount of recorded information about a very early American colonist. Also, as the article (now) mentions, he was the ancestor not only to Abe Lincoln, but to two Massachusetts governors and a governor of Maine. Perhaps his commemoration was due to his famous line of descent, but the argument that there "must have been others who had a greater role in founding the church" is speculative in light of Lincoln being the only one who appears to have been commemorated for it. bd2412 T 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- But look, for example, at John Perkins, who founded Perkins Island near Massachusetts, and his daughter Mary Bradbury, a Salem witchcraft victim. They are probably more notable than Samuel Lincoln, but they don't have a Wikipedia page. The case you're making about two Massachusetts governors and a governor of Maine being descended from Samuel Lincoln is nothing when you see the HUGE number of descendants of John Perkins. Mary Bradbury alone was an ancestor of a writer (Ray Bradbury), a poet (Ralph Waldo Emerson), an astronaut (Alan Shepard), and two actors/actresses (Bette Davis and Christopher Reeve) - more notables than Samuel Lincoln. And John Perkins was an ancestor of THREE Presidents of the United States, not just one - Millard Fillmore, Calvin Coolidge, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Another note was that the tablet at the Old Ship Church was dedicated on the 300th anniversary of Samuel's arriving in the United States rather than the finishing of the church. I think they commemorated his arrival because he was an ancestor of who most people think was the greatest President in American history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckeredFlag200 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if you think they should have articles go ahead and make them. That other people lack an article is not a reason to remove an existing article. In any event, if this AfD is just going to be you and I spinning out wheels, no consensus will develop one way or the other. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, I don't think the Perkinses are notable myself - it's just that they're more notable than Samuel Lincoln.CheckeredFlag200 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself does not make any assertion of his notability. Clarityfiend 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Notability is not inherited (or whatever the opposite of inherited is!) Corpx 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since his notability is primarily genealogical and consequently local. Not important enough to merge into Abe's article, really. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CheckeredFlag200--Truest blue 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is an article about an early American settler who was the patriarch of the Lincoln family, it would be foolish to delete this article.--Southern Texas 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The plain fact is that virtually every aspect of Lincoln's personal life and ancestry is notable and of interest to the public. Samuel Lincoln is mentioned in David Herbert Donald's biography of Lincoln -- the most significant single volume biography of Lincoln in decades. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. See the comments of Clarityfiend and Corpx.71.92.70.77 04:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument of BD2412. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:41, 10 September 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. --Core desat 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittyloaf

Non-notable 'thing'

Comment Please note I didn't initiate this AfD, the originator did not create this discussion page so I did. Q ^{T C} 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks encyclopedic. Could use some sources to establish its notability, but I have a feeling they may well exist, so I recommend keeping the article, and slapping a {{notability}} and a {{unsourced}} on there. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very minor fictional character, I note that we do not have pages for the book it appeared in or the author who created it. Seems to be actually stealth spam for a page on YTMND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of 3rd party coverage to establish notability Corpx 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable meme. We don't even have anything to say about the topic, let alone source. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 7 September 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. --Core desat 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unforgiven (Apocalyptica Single)

A cover released as a single does not need its own article unless the song itself is somehow notable, which this one does not seem to be. Its presence on the entry for the album is plenty and this article is redundant. LaMenta3 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeeell, it is being played by four hairy Finns on cellos, but yeah, nothing that amazingly articleworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon2 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I think you just made my morning! :) LaMenta3 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless someone wants to write more of an article, maybe say why it's notable.. Rehevkor 11:32, 7 September 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. Singu larity 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Spring (90's "soft rock" band)

I'm not sure if this is notable, so I'm putting it up for a discussion. Makes possibly spurious claims about being in the top 40. Notable? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of assertions but no verification anywhere in sight. a £4m deal for a band that had only 3 EPs released, I don't think so somehow. Add to that the fact that the article looks atrocious and one has a large D vote coming from the Hamster.--WebHamster 06:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Promotional, no sources, fails WP:MUSIC badly. Realkyhick 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was hard to even verify this band existed... but they were mentioned in a Who's who of popular music [34]. Nothing on AMG or even Google News Archive... Google coverage seems to consist of people selling copies of their recordings [35] and little more. Kind of curious that a band on a major label would be so hard to find any sources on... it's not like the early 1990s was so long ago. I get the impression they were backed by a label but never really materialized in the market? Whatever the case, needs more sources, otherwise delete. --W.marsh 13:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and new material added. Grateful if this article could be saved 3seat 04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if the sources (the UK top 100 search engine linked in the article) is to be trusted, this group has had a #43 & a #53 on the UK charts and would pass WP:BAND, information not provided before the majority of the "deletes" were recorded, so relisting. Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The search engine came up with two singles placed in the top 50s. I'm thus inclined to go for a keep. However the article needs major rework, wikify for staters. 1redrun ^Talk 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They do pass WP:MUSIC on a couple of counts, even if just barely. The £4 million deal for a completely unknown act is unlikely in the extreme and should be removed unless someone can actually verify the figure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GBP4m deal was reported as fact by The Times as per the quoted article 19th January 1993, page 35. I have a hard and soft copy of the article and you can also see a copy online courtesy of The Times archive. 3seat 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two entries in the UK charts, also confirmed by listing in Guiness Book of British Hit singles. How about a less cumbersome Rename to something like Beijing Spring (band)? _ fchd 20:00, 6 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lessner, Darling Darling (film)

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Basically just a smalltime filmmaker with a couple of awards under his belt. ghits: [36] NMChico24 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one judge small time? For one I came across Mr. Lessner's forthcoming documentary regarding colony collapse disorder. To my knowledge he is the only filmmaker working on this subject. It is by the way, very important. In our current agricultural system honeybees are required for more than a third of our diet (of that is included most of the fruits and vegetables that we enjoy). Without the bees many of these are gone, period. Also I understand his films to be well received across the world. He also had the foresight to spot the talent of Michael Cera and cast him years before he hit the big time as much as he has now. I think he very much meets the notability guidelines.

Furthermore, we begin to enter very dangerous territory when the importance of individuals, subjects or ideas is judged by a simple google search or more generally its prevalence on the internet. Citing a google search as not producing enough hits to justify his notability should carry little weight. Things that are not on the internet are still important and this must not be overlooked. By the standards that you propose Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan are of greater importance and "notability" than the genocide in Darfur. Also by this standard Lohan and Hilton are astronomically more important than the fact that the United States government still uses depleted uranium munitions causing horrendous deformations, cancers and painful deaths among the young and old [37] [38] [39] (note the number of hits returned). Google is not the divine source of notability, there must be space for others things to be included. Lastly, how many hits does one need? I checked the google search and it appears that Mr. Lessner garners quite a few hits himself. When does it become "enough" to be notable.

I would stronly urge those that will be responsible for this decision to leave this page up.

--Salvor Mallow 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only edits from this contributor involve this subject. Possible conflict of interest? --NMChico24 06:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd look, though perhaps you aren't able to, I only created my account yesterday. I haven't had the time to contribute more to wikipedia and if this is the response I am likely to get (as my interests regarding contributing to this medium do not follow popular or well-known subjects) I may be discouraged from doing so in the future. That is also very speculative and doesn't address the issues raised above. I love wikipedia and think that it is an amazing, exciting and hopeful innovation but is that really the only response to the points that I raise above? --Salvor Mallow 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite what you may believe, it is pertinent. To address your concerns above, notability doesn't rub off. Colony collapse disorder is important, but a filmmaker working on the topic is not importantized by association. As for your other points, I consider them to be somewhat irrelevant. Google hits should be used, should, mark you (some editors misuse them) be used to gauge existence of information across a wide variety of sources, not as a yardstick. In other words, if something has 2 google hits, it's probably less notable than something with 20,000 hits. But if something has 20,000 hits, it's not necessarily less notable than something with 200,000 hits. And no, we don't use Google as our sole guideline, despite what some critics would tell you. For something like the genocide at Darfur, it'd be a useless guideline indeed, since there are copious amounts of media coverage, official statements from organizations running the gamut from national to global, etc. The same deal with DPUs (I didn't appreciate your blatant appeal to emotion re: the deformed, cancerous children and elderly up there, btw). But for someone like a filmmaker, whose work is by necessity disseminated in the media in one way or another, low google hits are a warning sign, doubly so in the absence of third-party sources. It is out of this concern that AFDs are raised. They're not an absolute verdict of "worthlessness", that's what WP:CSD#A7 is for. Just my two cents. --Agamemnon2 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Maybe in a few years when career is established. --WebHamster 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 22:20, 5 September 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. Carlossuarez46 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive objects

WP:NOT#IINFO; indiscriminate mix of "things"; a one-off object such as Hubble Telescope can't be compared to a mass produced object like a bottle of beer, or a film production, which can't even be considered an "object". Hubble cost $1,175,000,000 to produce, but Jackson Pollock's painting was sold for $140 million. These are different concepts of "value" which shouldn't be combined like this. Masaruemoto 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont' see how you come up with a sensible list out of this. MarkBul 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails synthesis in vague scoping and dubious interconnection and comparison. A list of most expensive auction sales would be more encyclopedic. A list of most expensive retail items (wines, perhaps) also has a shot. A list of even the most expensive construction projects is at least going somewhere verifiably comparative. I'm not saying any of these would pass AFD, but they have a better chance than this Everything2-ish article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concept lacks cohesion as a list. Delete as a indiscriminate collection of items. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list with no real relation between the entries. JIP | Talk 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft of the very worst kind. MartinDK 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does that mean that if prices drop we would have to update it here? Nonsense. A most expensive object can be a drug for a very poor person! -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I am now hungry for the £85 sandwich. Damn you, Wikipedia! --Agamemnon2 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If you get the sandwich, wash it down with a bottle of Guinness Mandsford 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn you two! Now I'm both hungry and thirsty! ;) MartinDK 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not use the world's most expensive function to delete it though. Unless some severe work was done to it, and it was organised on a common theme of say, sale cost... and even then, I'd probably still be reluctant to suggest keeping it. Pursey 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of info that could conceivably contain thousands of items that are only loosely-related based on being the most expensive item in their group. Useight 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive rock bands and musicians

This list adds nothing a category cant Corpx 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Wikipedia:Lists

"Criteria for inclusion in lists

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 who 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."

Also:

"Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying

So as I read it, you need both an explicit definition for the list and a reference for each entry. Without those, it's just original research. MarkBul 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll come back to this one later, probably tomorrow.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to Category:Progressive rock groups. Dbromage [Talk] 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Works better as a category, and progressive rock is not objectively defined.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list has been maintained by a bizzilion editors, not just one or two All of these editors seem to be able to add progressive rock musicians and groups to the list and know what the definition is. The list is also available in 5 other languages for folks who also seem to know what progressive rock consists of. So to delete on that basis seems to be undermining a lot of work by the bizzillion editors from the page history in English wikipedia as well as the list editors in the other wiki languages. If the English wikipedia list is deleted, are also all the other language lists also deleted? It appears that the article Progressive rock seems to define what musicians and bands should be included, and lists the criteria with definite musical characteristics, which are also discussed on the list's Talk page. SriMesh | talk 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does this list that the category cannot do? Corpx 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No references is always a problem with lists. "We, the fanboys, know it when we see it" isn't good enough. MarkBul 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be changed to a category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckeredFlag200 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorize. /Blaxthos 06:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize the musicians that aren't in the list of progressive rock bands into a list of prog rock musicians, and add any bands that can be verified into the existing category. As a HUGE prog rock fan and armchair authority, I find this to be a reliable source.--Sethacus 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorize it according to authentication by a reliable source. I thought it was just me, but about 90 percent of this list is nonsense. The definition of progressive rock is clearly in dispute. Yes, this kind of definition is subjective, but the description should be earned by consensus and length of history. [apsteffe at netwood dot net], 8 September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.29.190 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication of Category:Progressive rock groups and Category:Progressive rock musicians. •97198 talk 07:32, 10 September 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. CitiCat^♫ 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Carandini

AfDs for this article:

I would like to renominate this page for deletion because this person has only 30 publications, not very notable, and a definite lightweight in neuroscience. This person definitely does not meet notability per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was incorrectly renominated; I fixed it Tizio 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 publications sure sounds notable. Edward321 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 30 publications is quite a normal production for a scientist in neuroscience, nothing above average. --Crusio 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether 30 publications is notable depends not only on e field, but on how important they are. Importance is judged by what other peer scientists think of them, expressed most clearly by how often they cite them. Web of Science shows 45 peer-reviewed articles, actually, most of them in absolutely first-rate journals like Science (magazine). The most cited are cited 198, 182, 129 times. This is notable, even in neuroscience--as a rule of thumb, two or more papers over 100 times is enough, considering most published papers get cited only 1 or 2 tmes. The h-value is 16, 16 titles cited 16 or more times. This is not Nobel prize level, but it is certainly enough. DGG (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed a good solid scientist, like thousands of others.... --Crusio 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That redlink was h-index, presumably? Tizio 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROF--AmerHisBuff 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several high-quality publications with exceptionally high citations, as established by DGG, suggest subject meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see more meat on the article - but, given the research above by DGG, I'd concur that the subject is notable within his field. WP:PROF doesn't mean that membership in the academia is an argument against notability, but merely that it cannot be the only argument for notability; in this case, it is not. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:05, 12 September 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. -- John Reaves 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami Memorial

Article was created by what appears to be a single-purpose account and is written in a very promotional tone. The same information is repeated on the creator's userpage. The article is strongly POV, is unsourced and it would be very difficult to fix without starting over entirely, which I would not be opposed to if this event is in fact notable. LaMenta3 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs a side note, I came across this page while working on improving various articles and find this one to be outside of my capabilities to improve. While I could take this elsewhere to request improvement for this article (I really hate AfD'ing things), this seems the best way to get an article up to snuff if it can be done. LaMenta3 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. A badly written essay. Also, the final paragraph does not even makes sense. It's blaming human greed and abuse of the planet for... an earthquake?! Global warming? Sure. Loss of rain forest? Yup. Death of Dodos? Fo' shizzle. But is our capitalism really the root cause of making plates of the Earth's crust to collide with one another? And someone ought to tell him we are already living in the Third Millenium CE...--Agamemnon2 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a copy of this [40] Nick mallory 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 (copyvio) per Nick mallory. Hut 8.5 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like an essay.--JForget 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for COPYVIO Corpx 04:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair it has been rewritten quite a bit. It's obviously based on that webpage, but it's not a cut and paste now. The problem is in the title perhaps, it's not an actual monument memorial, more a kind of religious service and so perhaps isn't notable because of that. Nick mallory 05:50, 6 September 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 Rename to List of measuring devices. ELIMINATORJR 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of -meters

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR; the main problem with this list is the indiscriminate inclusion criterion; grouping words together just because they are "formed from the suffix -meter." These do happen to be instruments, but sharing the same sequence of letters isn't an encyclopedic way of grouping instruments. Masaruemoto 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see real use for this one. "What's that thing? It's a meter that measures chocolate sweetness, I forget what you call it. You know, it's a...." MarkBul 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utility does not warrant inclusion. While I did find the list interesting, we don't collect lists of arbitrary information ("stuff used to measure other stuff"). /Blaxthos 06:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list of things that just happen to have similar names. JIP | Talk 07:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of measuring devices, and base the inclusion criterion on the concept of measuring, rather than on the spelling of the word. While we have Category:Measuring_instruments, the list is more useful for navigation because it has annotations that are not possible in a category, and because it can have entries that don't have an article yet. While usefulness by itself is not enough reason to keep an article, navigational pages (such as disambiguation pages and some lists) exist solely because they are useful for navigation, not because of encyclopedic notability. --Itub 08:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Itub and MarkBul (who didn't vote keep, but helped make the sale for me) If there's not a list of measuring devices, then there should be. That's what this is, since it doesn't include things like kilometers, parameters, diameters or parkingmeters. Mandsford 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Itub's got a good idea. "Stuff used to measure other stuff" per Blaxthos is a drastic oversimplification. Acroterion _(talk) 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Itub. The title as given sounds like classic listcruft, but the article is not. DGG (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keahiwai

Non-notable band. Records for localized label, no evidence of charted songs or much of anything else. Fails WP:BAND. Separate articles about their albums are also up for a group AfD. Realkyhick 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND per nom. For full disclosure, I nominated the albums. Carlossuarez46 03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only external links provided are of the bands website and the label. I don't considder that an asertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. 1redrun ^Talk 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 5 September 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 dolly zoom, most of the important films (Vertigo, Marnie, Jaws) are already mentioned in the main article, though editors are obviously free to use the history to expand on this. ELIMINATORJR 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that use dolly zoom

WP:NOT#IINFO, this is a more common technique than the list implies. The first few films are well-known and notable uses of the zoom, and should be mentioned in the main article, the rest are just there for the sake of adding films. Masaruemoto 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory for camera techniques used in films Corpx 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 05:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT /Blaxthos 07:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too minor a feature to base a list on. JIP | Talk 07:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dolly zoom Mandsford 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dolly zoom. Its very helpful to be able to see it in one of the movies than try and describe it in words, and the list is helpful. I just saw it in a movie over the weekend and was trying to describe it to someone that didn't see the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:21, 5 September 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 DELETED by user:Alkivar Corpx 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gay Card

Gay cards are "mythical" according to the article. A possible treatment of a fictional "gay card" would amount to a definition of something like the expression "card-carrying" and would therefore be a dicdef. Suggest delete. Alksub 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for CSD - Nonsense/attack Corpx 04:12, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Heroes

"It's a work in progress, and I doubt it'll ever be an actual video game." When the article itself reads like an AfD nomination, I don't even think we need wait for winter. Daniel Case 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no sources or indication of being notable. John Vandenberg 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it's a fan game, which I'm reluctant to call a game. It's speculation that a fan game might exist. Isn't that qualified for speedy delete? Lychosis ^T/C 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD A7 does not apply here, as it is a hoax. Read non-criteria for speedy deletion. In any case, delete as a hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lalalalala WP:IAR... lalalalala Delete already... 1redrun ^Talk 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxy fanboyism. /Blaxthos 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the speed of Light and article for a fan game that might not even exist. The creator even says that it will probably not be a video game. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:50, 5 September 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 Nomination withdrawn — Caknuck 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Davis (halfback)

Contested speedy. Non-notable college football player. Very little context, no sources of any kind, reads like it was written by a friend or at least an avid fan. Realkyhick 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Article has been massively overhauled. I think the only thing remaining from the original version is the subject's name. Subject is now clearly notable, sources are provided, and there is no point in continuing this procedure. (I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't know about this guy before. Need to watch more ESPN.) Realkyhick 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess you didnt watch the FSU/Clemson game monday night. He had 18 rushes for 102 yards + 1 TD (Box score). A major contributor for a D1 team should be notable, plus there is plenty to write about Corpx 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, unfortunately. I was working. I'm told I missed an interesting game. (Gotta get a DVR.) If he keeps going like this, he is probably notable, but the article (as nominated) said nothing of this, and a Google search turned up all sorts of stuff that had nothing to do with this James Davis. I may have been a bit lazy in trying to sort through all of them, but a million-plus Ghits is a bit much for me. Has he been a star player for Clemson in the past, or was this his breakout game, with his notability lacking beforehand? Do we need to rush this to the Intensive Care Unit instead? Realkyhick 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1000 yard rusher last year, but probably didnt get a lot of pub last year becuase of them tanking their last few games Corpx 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current form, there is nothing in the article to demonstrate notability. I have a hard time finding something that satisfies the criteria in the draft guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports). If someone wants to add to the article to include things like last weekend's game (with verifiable sources of course), I suggest they do it before this article gets deleted. Truthanado 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prettied it up :) Corpx 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, you sure did, to put it mildly. Could I interest you in a residency in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit? You sure did a massive rescue on this article. Realkyhick 05:35, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bedroom communities

This is a list of commuter towns, of which there are potentially thousands worldwide, so it's WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate list, leaves too much to one's judgment as to what constitutes a bedroom community. Realkyhick 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate from title alone. Daniel Case 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Realkyhick says it best, and this one isn't even suitable for a merge into Commuter town. A true bedroom community is one where the vast majority of the residents are not employed in the community. The commuter town article cites Tracy, California as an example based on 80 percent of its working residents being employed elsewhere. Without percentages, however, this list is indiscriminate. In addition, it looks like original research intended to attract more O.R. Mandsford 14:36, 5 September 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 Close as duplicate nomination. Original is here. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Vocabulary

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nom. Consists of a loosely connected list of chemistry terms that are probably better defined elsewhere on wikipedia. (Basically a bad list that doesn't call itself one). It was prodded, then halfway AfD-d, but the tag was removed by a vandal. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is completed (I am original nom). Sometimes they take more than zero minutes to write...probably best to close this as a dup. DMacks 02:32, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adams-Ricci Volleyball

Non-notable, town sports organization. Few G-hits, referenced only to a blog. Alksub 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local rec league. Any league in which Rock, Paper, Scissors is an official part of league functions probably has notability issues. Realkyhick 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; with a vote like that, I don't even need to read the article. Daniel Case 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per narrow scope of notability (if any) Corpx 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I'm a big fan of Realkyhicks arguments. Delete as non-notable. 1redrun ^Talk 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep League is legitimate, is actually recognized by East Pennsboro Twp. Recreation Office. Anyone considering deletion solely based on Rock, Paper, Scissors should not be on Wikipedia. Anyone outside of East Pennsboro Township, Enola, Pennsylvania would not be knowledgeable about this league, just like most people can't name a village in Ethiopia. Doesn't mean it's not there. 144.80.232.117 21:59, 8 September 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chungliang Al Huang

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article clearly fails WP:BIO. Most of the keep arguments in the previous AFD were based on a simple Google test, which is not an acceptable barometer of notability. Though plenty of Google hits may be found, and you can find his books on Amazon, there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources to verify his biography with (no references section has been added between this AFD and the last in May 07). One reliable source (provided in the last AFD) about his performance at an Oregon music festival does not verify that he is notable within the Taijiquan or Taoist communities, which is his field according to the article. If he has not accomplished anything notable other than authoring some equally non-notable books, and no sources can be found to verify his bio, then Wikipedia should not have an article on him. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Fire Star 火星 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been around since the 70's in hippyish circles, and teaches courses throughout America, most organisations seem to use the same bio as promulgated by his own organisation, however the University of Nevada,Las Vegas amongst others seem to take this bio on face value. This is one of those people whose peak of fame did not co-incide with the rise of the internet. That better sources do not exist on the net does not mean sources do not exist, anyone still remember how to use a micro-fiche machine?KTo288 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of sources is not simply a product of the net. Newspapers such as the Oregonian regularly archive editions and articles from before net publishing on their website. Being around since the 70's, and still not having any significant reliable secondary sources is more indicative of his lack of notability. Simply being around awhile and teaching all across the country does not equal notability. There are thousands of martial arts instructors who have been around some time and taught all over, but still lack notability. Chungliang Al Huang is one of these cases. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Trawling through Google (and I better be careful with my words here) the conclusion I was coming to was someone who could be a "self promoting charlatan", the sources I've added to the article are the closest I could find to neutral sources, there were multiple institutions that repeated his bio word for word, in addition to martial arts instruction and he is credited with "religous and philisophical" lectures and appears in the transcripts of religous conferences. That he seems to have successfully convinced others of his notability, is notable in itself.KTo288 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the article, he is not notable for being a New Age charlatan, and saying so would hardly be NPOV. He is supposedly notable as a legitimate instructor of tai chi and Taoism. Reprints by unreliable sources of his PR copy is not indicative of notability. Getting your press release published isn't exactly an indicator of substantial notability. Saying so is arguing around the core issue. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I know, its not really the most diplomatic thing to say, the two bodies he claims membership of the Academia Sinica and the World Academy of Art and Science seem to be legitimate enough, though I cannot find as yet any material linking this individual with these organisations, I'm going through possible versions of his name in Chinese to see if I can dig anything up. KTo288 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 13:02, 7 September 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. Tim Vickers 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Vocabulary

Rather indiscriminate/open-ended dictionary-esque list that doesn't provide any redeeming benefit for Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Might be a school project? DMacks 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Doesn't look as though there's anything there to merge. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potpourri of redundant information. --Alksub 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More than a dicdef, it's a list of dicdefs! Oooooh! Realkyhick 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Redundant to the vastly superior articles we have on these topics. A few of the definitions are even misleading or incorrect (not all lanthanides are radioactive, as is implied by this definition of "inner transition metals"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Realkyhicks splendid (US: great, cool) reasoning. It's a list of dictionary definitions some of them in fact simply wrong. WP:NOT 1redrun ^Talk 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DICT. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (and redirect to Volvo XC60)CitiCat^♫ 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo XC50

AfDs for this article:

Renomination. Dates given for the introduction of this car have passed, and all avaliable sources suggest it has been renamed the XC60. ~~Delete~~ or Redirect. Bduddy 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking Delete vote - it is almost certainly a former name. As one voter seems to think the article should be deleted anyway, though, I will not attempt to have this closed. Bduddy 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says it should not be confused with the XC60. I see no reason to keep it unless we can find proof on the redirect Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of resources that indicate it's in development (mostly in non-English languages). [41] [42] (indicates it's for 2008) [43]. --Oakshade 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything on those webpages (except for the Infomotori article, which is unverified, and the other article sourcing it) that says XC50 is anything but a former name for the now officially announced Volvo XC60 However, I am open to more sources if you can find them - I certainly couldn't. Bduddy 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Volvo Cars. We cannot have all prototype of cars of all manufacturers of the world listed in Wikipedia. We won't have much to say about them except marketing stuff. We don't do marketing. Let them launch it first or unless it got some brand new technology. The article says it was projected for mid 07 so i don't think it would be a good idea to update the article every month until they launch it. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Redirect to Volvo? Sigh... clearly it is, at the very least, the former name of the upcoming Volvo XC60 (as per [44], [45], and [46], which took about ten seconds of Googling). Ergo merge/redirect to Volvo XC60, and make sure the XC50 is mentioned in the opening, so that WP readers unfamiliar with the new name know why they've been redirected. AfD is unnecessary; nom should have tagged the page with {{mergeto}} and the discussion should have gone on at Talk:Volvo XC50. --DeLarge 11:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild as an overview for the Volvo XC series. 132.205.44.5 22:21, 6 September 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. Eluchil404 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Isaacson

The author of one book, just published; I'm not certain whether it is even from a major publisher. Non-notable. Brianyoumans 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a nice bio, but not what Wikipedia needs. Neither the authorship of a book nor any other activity would make him notable. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:04, 5 September 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. Singu larity 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millie and Monkey

The article fails to state why this cartoon strip is notable. Google gives no hits whatsoever for its name. It also gives no hits whatsoever for the magazine it is supposed to be "currently appearing in". I did manage to find the webpage of what looks like its alleged creator, here, and it has an up-to-date CV etc., but there's no mention of the comic nor the magazine. If the cartoon strip exists, along with the magazine, then there appears to be no evidence anyone has seen it apart from its creator. In a nutshell: it's about as non-notable as a cartoon gets, but the speedy deletion guidelines don't cover comics, so that request was knocked back. Should also note that the page has already been speedily deleted once (3 Sep) and has been recreated. Thomjakobsen 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also checked out Hat Day Designs, which is run by Roberts. Nothing there, either. Even if there were, I'm not entirely certain this would meet with notability standards.--Sethacus 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable, unverifiable. Masaruemoto 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert any notability. JIP | Talk 07:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:09, 5 September 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. Singu larity 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Humpar

Delete nn band, no evidence that it meets WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Alksub 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure that there is a speedy delete criteria that applies to this unsourced, unencyclopediac garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this is what Sefringle is referring to. faithless (^speak) 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This one slipped by me. No assertion of notability at all. Realkyhick 03:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bärnis and delete, preferably speedy delete. Sander Säde 08:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:47, 5 September 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. Singu larity 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bärnis

Delete possible hoax - was tagged speedy as a hoax, but hoaxes aren't speediable - I don't have access to the reference cited but nothing much turns up on google, so if real probably fails WP:BAND. I am also nominating the band's members:

Alex Themson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Josef Pirnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Allan Honol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temul Hümpara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:BAND. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Don't know if it's a hoax (my gut feeling says it isn't, but my gut is also telling me to go fix some popcorn), but neither the band nor its members are notable by WP:BAND. Realkyhick 03:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, looks to be a hoax. Actually all pages created by Carlips (talk · contribs) seem to be hoaxes, so I'd add:
- The Soviet Grounders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arn Fitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Humpar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an Estonian and have never heard of those persons/bands. Either hoax or non-notable bands. Sander Säde 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:48, 5 September 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. Eluchil404 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern group

It's just a term - no reason to suggest why it should merit its own stand-alone article. Expansion of this would probably require synthesis violating WP:NOR. A merger could be appropriate if anyone can suggest a place. See the talk page for a minor critique of this term. There's no southern group article, and the two citations are inadequate for an encyclopedia article addressing the topic at hand.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC) h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Might be a bit of WP:NEO since the group is rather undefined even in the sources cited. However, if there are more recent EU politics sources that give it a more solid definition, I'd change to keep. Wl219 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the sources mentioned above are found. The BBC article does not mention this term at all and the pdf file gives a 1 line passing mention, which is not enough for notability Corpx 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It also includes false information, as Italy is a southern European country with a high GDP.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The EU Referendum blog has been writing about the EU for a few years in painful detail, and their site gives not hits to the term. If anyone would know, they would. MarkBul 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It's WP:NEO the term has acording to the provided sources only been used by a BBC article. This does not make this a legitimate term to describe the EU-states mentioned. What it comes down to is the list mentions nearly half the current member states of the EU. 1redrun ^Talk 11:28, 5 September 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 Fram 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMIS

Non-notable spamming group. —ptk✰fgs 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, obviously =). Seriously, non-notable; no relevant GNews archive hits [47]. cab 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Robert Soloway is also fine with me, but I don't really see anything to merge here as the entire SPAMIS article (except for the single lead sentence about Soloway's involvement) is unsourced, so material from there definitely does not belong in the biography of a living person. cab 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short paragraph into Robert Soloway, as it seems to say he started it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 5 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (Keahiwai album)

Delete nn album by barely or non notable group. I am also nominating:

Dangerous (Keahiwai album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merry Christmas (Keahiwai album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Changing (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Local Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person who applied the speedy deletion a1 template to these articles that still lack appropriate context that would do something to establish that they are notable. Erechtheus 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I will likely nominate the group itself for AfD. Realkyhick 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I just did: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keahiwai. Realkyhick 03:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All albums do not make an asertion of notability (in fact they're not even related to Ekpyrotek (just kidding)). Fails thusly WP:MUSIC. 1redrun ^Talk 09:59, 5 September 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 close - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Carolina birds

Its meaningless to have a list with only one member (admittedly more could be added, but its had only one member for over 3 months) Davidprior 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either it's a legitimate article or not. If it's a good list, then Keep and wait for someone to get off the pot. MarkBul 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the rest of the birds to the list. It needs wikifying and improving, but it's a legitimate start now. See List of Oklahoma birds for a similar article. The nominator says 'more could be added' so I wonder why he didn't add them himself, rather than nominating it for deletion. Deletion is a last resort, rather than a first option. Nick mallory 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to Intensive Care Unit. In fact, Dr. Nick mallory, one of our fine residents, is working on it there now. Realkyhick 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless somebody cares to trim it down to list of birds native to SC, but I fail to see why we should list every bird ever spotted/transplanted in SC Corpx 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define native? It's a list of birds seen in South Carolina and it's only just been started really. It can be organised into breeding, migratory, rarities etc but give me a chance here. Ten minutes ago it was a list of one bird - the house sparrow. You're welcome to help organise it but there's nothing about the entries on the list which clash with the title of the article. Nick mallory 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By native, birds who inhabit SC, but not as a result of human transplanting? I dont think I'm qualified to define the term any further :/ Corpx 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that would rule out Red Kites in England and Indian Mynahs, Starlings and House Sparrows in Sydney then. This is a discussion about whether or not such a list is valid, which is clearly is, not how that list should be organised. Nick mallory 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly cede to your judgement Corpx 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Actually your point is quite valid but like I said that's a question of the list's organisation rather than its overall legitimacy. The Oaklahoma bird list is organised with birds classed as (I) - Introduced: Birds that have been introduced to North America by the actions of man, either directly or indirectly (E) - Extinct (Ex) - Extirpated: A bird that, while it is not extinct, is no longer found in Oklahoma. The only bird marked (Ex) is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which was, until 2004 presumed to be extinct, but was rediscovered in the wild. However it is not now found in Oklahoma (A) - Accidental: Birds that have been seen only a few times, or only once. (H) - Hypothetical: Birds that have had a credible sighting reported, but have not been documented with a specimen or with a suitable photograph. That sort of organisation can be done here as well as splitting the birds up into families but Rome, or Wikipedia, wasn't built in a day.Nick mallory 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been fixed up. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why not categorize? /Blaxthos 07:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because a category couldn't tell you if the bird was native there, introduced, extinct, extirpated or whatever and the individual bird articles couldn't carry all the information for each state. There are lists of birds for countries and, increasingly, lists for US states. Why not categories for bird lists for countries? It's much more convenient this way for users. Wikipedia is not paper. Nick mallory 07:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think lists are the preferred choice for those reasons and because it sorts the birds by taxonomically and text and pictures can be added. Some times categories are used too, but I am against that because some birds would have 50+ categories attached to them and lists do a much better job because of the given reasons. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To say that it has been fixed up is an understatement. Great work. Mandsford 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Good work, Nick. Pursey 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above.--Vox Humana 8' 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Category:Regional bird lists. There are tons of these pages. They need cleaning and sourcing. We even have List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona. Corvus cornix 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would never have nominated it for deletion if it had looked anything like it does now, the improvement/expansion is so vast. Don't suppose there's some way for me to withdraw my original nomination and get this over with? Davidprior 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics in LaTeX

This content is not encyclopedic; this could (or should) be on the excellent Wikibook. +mt 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO, the lesser used sister sub-policy of WP:NOT#INFO, which states that wikipedia is not a manual. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks per nom. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have recovered anything of use, and Transwiki'ed it to Wikibooks (particularly here and here). I think the rest is safe to delete now, unless there is any further discussion/consensus. +mt 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a HOW-TO, this has apparently already been transwikied. JIP | Talk 07:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly Merge and redirect some of what can be merged w/ to LaTex. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to for one of TeX variants. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 9 September 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. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California)

Holds a Notability tag since January, and the only notable piece of information is that Tupac Shakur attended it, but that's not even verified. In fact, it also has a two-month-old Verifiability tag. The only source is the schools website. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a major high school (almost 200 students) and per long standing precedent and WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are notable. I see no reason for this is singled out for deletion. --Oakshade 02:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point bing made there is that a pattern is developing where Elementary and middle schools are being deleted in AfDs, but high schools are being kept, but it doesn't assert that Elementary and middle schools should be deleted, and high schools shouldn't. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is about high schools. There was no mention about middle and elementary/primary schools. --Oakshade 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from WP:OUTCOMES#Education: "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AFD, with high schools being kept.". This doesn't say that High schools should be kept, but that they are being kept. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment stands. I'm talking about WP:OUTCOMES as it relates to high schools. Don't know why you're so hung up on this. --Oakshade 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "hung up" on it, I'm just trying to make clear the point. WP:OUTCOMES doesn't specifically state that high schools should be kept, it's just saying that this is a pattern that is developing, it's not policy. You are entitled to your comment, but I'm saying that the point from WP:OUTCOMES isn't to be taken as a guideline or policy, it just states a fact. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is intended to be a summary showing what Wikipedia consensus is on a variety of subjects. It is this broad consensus for retention of high school articles that such articles should be kept, accompanied by the specific claims of notability for this specific school, that constitute an extremely strong case for retention of this article, and of all other high school articles. Alansohn 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't think of that. Thank you! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, OUTCOMES doesn't cite specific discussions, so it is not possible to determine whether a) the consensus is that high schools should be kept because they are high schools or b) the consensus has been that specific articles brought before AfD that happen to be about high schools meet general notability criteria. And, of course, it is also impossible to determine whether this consensus is stronger than that for WP:N itself. Jakew 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability. I believe WP:CSD#A7 may apply to this article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a high school in itself is an assertion of notability. The Tupac Shakur attendance adds to it. --Oakshade 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is that verifiable? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Stan, WP:CSD#A7 reads very clearly "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Besides, yes it is verifiable (Shakur biographies, school records, etc.). --Oakshade 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Precedent is clear that high school articles are notable and should be kept. In addition to multiple notable alumni, IB Diploma Programme participation, and California Distinguished School status, the school has been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the nation's highest recognition for a school. All of this is backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources that meet and surpass the Wikipedia:Notability standard. It's amazing what can be accomplished in 15 minutes if your interest is to improve articles, rather than destroy them. Alansohn 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per research done by Alansohn, though I can't verify that Tupac actually attended the school. Zagalejo 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blue Ribbon Award confers additional notability. Even if the school were not notable, the best solution would have been to merge it with the city/town/school district since information about a community's education system is perfectly relevant to coverage of the place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the substantial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources required by WP:N. Sources in the article are problematic. Ref 3 doesn't even mention the subject of the article, violating WP:NOR, and the same appears to be true of ref 4. Refs 2 and 5 are absurdly trivial - just entries in a table. Refs 6 and 7 are trivial mention of the school in another context (see WP:NOTINHERITED), and ref 1 is too brief for an article. Jakew 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we make common outcomes y what we do here--its just a summary of afd decisions. In the case of high schools, i think all of them are potentially notable, and the best policy to avoid these debates is to keep the articles, and work on improving them. Keep enough times, and it will be the unquestioned common outcome. I used to think we should try to differentiate, but i've become convinced that these are all mostly notable if enough work were done, and that removing the 10% of less notable ones isnt worth the effort. consensus can change. I think it is changing.DGG (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. If the notability tag ever pops up again, please do remove it as the current article clearly meets and exceeds WP:N standards. RFerreira 20:34, 9 September 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. Singu larity 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities involved in the Kabbalah Centre

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. No clear definition of how "involved in" the Kabbalah Centre a "celebrity" has to be to get added to the list, in David Beckham's case it amounts to being "seen [wearing] red Kabbalah bracelets", so hardly any involvement at all. Apart from that, it's just trivia. Masaruemoto 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST. Lists need clear inclusion parameters. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced, potential BLP violations, unclear inclusion parameters. Risker 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced unencyclopediac list.--Sefringle^Talk 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per loosely associated, and by that I mean that these people are included regardless of the level of involvement Corpx 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#DIR. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:31, 5 September 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. Singu larity 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brauerei Pöllinger

There is no relevance shown in the article, but advertise is. The brewery has only about 50 people who work there. Jón + 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you forgot to add the afd template to the article--Sefringle^Talk 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete lack of sources. Article is unencyclopediac.--Sefringle^Talk 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being from Germany I know there's a small Brewery in most bigger towns. I've never heard of their beer and the town they produce in isn't far from where I live. Article completely fails to assert notability and also reads like an ad. Thus fails: WP:N and WP:SPAM 1redrun ^Talk 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The author's only other edit was a spam link to the Provincetown article so this may have just been an elaborate bit of spam. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luchima

Delete unless real references are found, consulting google, google scholar and google books there are lots of hits for Luchima - there is a river in Africa and city in Colombia, but only one passing reference to a pre-Columbian princess in google books (Anales de Economía y Estadística - Page 23)- it's in Spanish but the snippet containing the quote "bella y heroica princesa Luchima" is probably understandable by most. But this passing reference to her does not confer notability. Yes there are 3 references cited in the article, but these are general surveys of the Columbian contact - does any one of them mention Luchima? On which page? Or is this article a subtle way to advertise the linked store? Carlossuarez46 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's right there in the article: Legend! and therefore, possible hoax. If not, this princess is certainly not notable. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:39, 5 September 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. Singu larity 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors in Kevin Smith films

View Askewniverse#Recurring actors deals with these actors in a superior way to this list, and in the correct place (the main article). This list was created after the category was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:View Askew cast members, no need for it anymore. Masaruemoto 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft listcruft listcruft. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:IINFO. i ^said 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above votes as unnecessary, fancruft and unmaintainable. Daniel Case 03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated items, as it spans across multiple films Corpx 04:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I TOTALLY agree with what J-stan said.CheckeredFlag200 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to View Askewniverse#Recurring actors. Why do people bring problems to AfD which could be solved with a simple redirect? DHowell 03:12, 8 September 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 Userfy and delete. Eluchil404 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914

Was tagged speedy as copyvio, but in the U.S. that which is published in 1914 is apparently public ___domain. However, is a list like this encyclopedic? We have categories for deaths in any particular year is it really relevant that Who's Who didn't publish the death in 1912 or 1913 until 1914? I think that question answers itself. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource. John Vandenberg 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:NOT. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With fire. This is listcruft to the nth degree. The fact that Who's Who reported it is utterly irrelevent; we already have a list of notable people who died in 1914. i ^said 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy In case the editor wants to use it as the basis for deciding who to start new biographies on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong delete. This is 1000% not material for a Wikipedia article.CheckeredFlag200 05:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was indeed to use as a basis for deciding who to start new bios on, so per Richard Arthur Norton maybe I should userfy it. As it's now up for AfD, what's the etiquette on when I can move it to my user pages? Dsp13 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the article, click on "Move" and rename it "User:Dsp13/List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914". There will be some other steps to take after that, which you can find at WP:USERFY. Or, you can save it to your hard-drive on the computer, if it's served its purpose of estalbshing who the bluelinks and redlinks are. I've been working on a similar project for people who died in the 1940s. Mandsford 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have trouble, let me know on my talkpage and I'll do it for you. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ouf! That one is brutal, listcruft.--JForget 01:42, 6 September 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. Concerns regarding sources stating the subject's notability have not been answered here. CitiCat^♫ 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport (software)

Delete was tagged speedy for copyvio but on discussion page the article's author claims to be the software developer himself. Anyway, no notability shown. Carlossuarez46 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

*DELETE No notability asserted. Not verifiable. Not one single solitary reliable source. All original research from the designer of the subject software. Blatant conflict of interest. OfficeGirl 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I'm aware, copyvios are always deleted unless there's an OTRS ticket, although I could be wrong. At any rate, nothing establishing notabiliy. i ^said 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for blatant advertising and lack of notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC) See new vote at end --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please do not delete~~: Well, this is all rather hard to follow. I have just come back from the European Smalltalk User Group meeting where I gave a talk about Sport. Many people are interested in Sport. I had put together some notes on the OpenSkills wiki but it seemed to me that the Wikipedia would be a better place to record what sport *is* and use the OpenSkills wiki and the sourceforge page to manage the development of Sport. Anyway, no sooner do I make the Wikipedia page than I get all this fuss. What do I need to do to satisfy you guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.102.62 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.86.102.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Please do not delete~~: Further thoughts ... I don't understand what you guys mean by "notability", but taking the English I can tell you that Sport is notable for having unnified the Smalltalk community. There are now more Smalltalk libraries that work across (almost) all dialects than ever before. As for the "Blatant Advertising", well it is every bit as much advertising for every other software documented in Wikipedia, so fair cop on those grounds - but then don't you need to delete all articles on software? FWIW, Sport is a FOSS projects if that helps. Ah, yes. I need to work out your "Signature" code. Informally I can tell you that I am Bruce Badger and you'll note that I am logged in as I type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbadger (talk • contribs)

REPLY Mr. Badger, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your experience participating in the encyclopedic process. One of the biggest problems with the Sport article is that all we have to go on is what you are personally telling us. As the creator of the software there is no way anyone could expect or require you to have a neutral point of view when writing about your subject. But it is absolutely important that all Wikipedia articles are presented neutrally. Also, even though you are undoubtedly an expert on the subject, Wikipedia can't just "take your word for it" on anything that you might be able to inform us about. That doesn't mean that we doubt your knowledge-- it's just the difference between an encyclopedia and a magazine. A magazine can publish Original research and can move very quickly to publish new information. An encyclopedia has to wait until other secondary sources have given the subject some coverage first, and then it reports what happened in the secondary sources.OfficeGirl 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (that seems to be the word by convention - I hope that's OK). Thank you for the reply. I guess the thing that surprised me most was the speed with which the article was marked for deletion. I had only just started writing the thing and wham marked for delete. I do understand the points you are making (I think). As with many FOSS projects while many people are interested, few people get involved. In the case of Sport, you will see that I have included links to the ESUG conference where sport was discussed (the official notes from the meeting are not out yet, but I can link to them when they are), I have linked to the SourceForge project where code contributed by many people is held, and I have linked to the OpenSkills wiki where I started putting together the documentation before thinking the Wikipedia would be a place since Sport is widely used. For an idea of how widely consider the list of supported dialects (on the Sport page). I have indeed written two of those, but all the other were written by other people - they are listed on the OpenSkills wiki page. You can see Sport being discussed on comp.lang.smalltalk and I think that supports the point that Sport is not a Bruce Badger only thing - in fact Sport is a key part of a wider programme within the Smalltalk community to re-awaken the ANSI process for Smalltalk. So, beyond all this what can I do to keep this page on Wikipedia? (I still don't get the signing thing, but I (Bruce Badger) am logged in as I type this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbadger (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY I have some suggestions for you on your talk page. You might consider userfying this article to work on it some more before publishing it in the main namespace. (to sign type four tilde "~") marks).OfficeGirl 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a member of Smalltalk community I can definitively claim that this article is worth staying on Wikipedia because Sport portability library solves such an important problem: how to easily port Smalltalk code between dialects. So maybe with a bit more work on content this article will fo a lot of good by informing other Smalltalkers about Sport mission. And this is one of goals of Wikipedia, isn't it? Mivsek 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Misvek. I hope you enjoy participating with us in the encyclopedic process. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this software, but your personal affinity for the subject isn't what we need in the way of reasons to keep this article. However, since you have some knowledge of the subject and you might know where articles about this software have been published, you can be a great help.

Please review the guidelines for reliable sources and get hold of some appropriate articles that show us cold hard proof that this software is well known and well established in the field. That's one of the most important steps to keeping this article from being deleted. And take heart, Mivsek, if the article is deleted you can still research the subject and re-create it later when there is more published work about the subject.

I just checked in our Smalltalk public repository when first version of Sport was published: 20 jan 06. I can provide more info how to prove that by yourself. And Sport was present on ESUG 07 (European Smalltalk Users Group) in at least two talks. See its mention in mine for instance, which is about Swazoo web server, which also use Sport for more than a year: Swazoo. I think that a year and half of existence and usage in projects is already a sign of notability. Also, a grand idea behind Sport is to restart the ANSI standardization process for Smalltalk.Mivsek 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Misvek. I am not an editor of the Sport article, but you can share those resources with Mr. Badger or anyone else who is working on the article, or you can edit it yourself. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia uses its own definition of the word notability that is different from the plain dictionary definition in the regular world outside Wikipedia. A year and a half of existence does not mean that something is truly notable for Wikipedia purposes, and it may be too soon to see whether Sport will have a lasting impact on the software world overall. But sources, sources, sources are key to this process. And the sources need to meet the guidelines in WP:RS. Thanks for starting to do some work on this.OfficeGirl 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator of the software is telling us he posted the article in order for more people to learn of its existence, the natural reaction is that this is an attempt at advertising in violation of WP:ADVERT. We are probably going to take a little harder stance on requiring proof that a lot of people already know about this subject. Wikipedia is not the place for new or relatively new ideas and products to be introduced to the world. Not even the greatest new idea in the world. Get us the secondary sources and that will be a really big help. thanks. OfficeGirl 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep This project/software is important to Smalltalk. This project allows portability not easily achievable with its use. You may not be aware but Smalltalk is pretty much the father of most Object Oriented languages, including C++, Java, C#, and more. Actually the faux cutting edge technology or Java and Dot Net are just bad copies of what Smalltalk has done for 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining our discussion. We welcome your input. But the fact that the Sport software is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't help us qualify this article for inclusion in Wikipedia. "It is useful" is not a reason we can use to keep an article here. See WP:USEFUL We need sources, sources, sources. See WP:RS. Articles, books, treatises, etc. We have to meet a standard on Wikipedia that is called NOTABILITY. To learn about what notability is for Wikipedia purposes, see WP:N. You can help Mr. Badger work on the article and get it ready for publication at a later date, but it does not meet Wikipedia standards at this time. OfficeGirl 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It's a copyright violation. I gave Mr. Badger pointers on what he needed to do in order to verify that he is the copyright holder, and he has yet to do so. Regardless of the merits of the subject, until and unless the creator proves that he is the copyright holder, it must be deleted. There is nothing to discuss. Corvus cornix 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Hey, the last is not true and is unfair. You asked that I explain on the original wiki page that the Wikipedia page was an OK use of the text that *I* wrote. I have done that. I know it's not a *vote* BTW. I hoped to demonstrate notability which I was told was very important. I am having trouble in keeping up with the discussions because you are using a wiki as a messaging system which is very confusing to me. Also, in my attempts to to exactly what you are asking for I seem to be digging deeper into some hole. This is very frustrating. Could you please explain in plain English what you need us (because now you know it is the Smalltalk community that wants this page) to do. Thanks. (and here is an attempt at a signature) Bbadger 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is on your Talk page: If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Sport (software) with a link to the details. . Did you do that? I also left the following on your Talk page: Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, the section labeled Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia. This helps Wikipedia editors to determine the validity of claims of copyright. We get lots of people who claim copyright whose claims are false. I'm not saying that your claims are false, but Wikipedia needs verification Did you do that? Corvus cornix 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a note to the original wiki page that makes it clear that it is OK for me to use my own copyright material on the Sport page. I am willing to take the time to add to the content of Wikipedia, but frankly I do not have the time to play these games. I am sure that someone will revive the Sport page, but you've ground me down so that person will not be me.Bbadger 07:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ you ask for "cold hard proof". I have added references to an international conference at which Sport was discussed (ESUG). In fact several of the talks mentioned Sport as it is becoming a widely used portability tool. The people on the comp.lang.smalltalk list are not "meatpuppets" thank you very much. comp.lang.smalltalk is a news group with a very high signal to noise ratio frequented by people who use Smalltalk professionally. So you have professional bodies and international conferences and source management systems and expert opinion - what more can we do to convince you? Bbadger 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the references added adequately establish notability. The article topic does not appear to be discussed in detail in the conference notes; the third reference only mentions Sport briefly in passing as part of a list; and the last reference is obviously not a third-party source. —ptk✰fgs 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I deny saying that I created the article in order to promote Sport. I said that I created the article because Wikipedia seemed like a more sensible place for non-implementation details of sport (what it does rather than how it does it). I *did* note that articles in Wikipedia do promote things in general - they all promote ideas and points of view etc. Bbadger 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other crap exists. We should delete all of it, rather than letting the encyclopedia disintegrate into a pile of software documentation. The Free and Open Source Software Wiki is probably a more appropriate place for general-interest software documentation. —ptk✰fgs 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a copyvio tag on the article and blanked the page as per instructions at WP:CP, but the edits are all still in the history. Corvus cornix 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now you have blanked the page as a copyright infringement despite the fact that I have done what you asked. You are not supporting the creation of great entries in the Wikipedia with this kind of action. Frankly I am very disappointed that a positive action taken to move the technical world forward a bit has been brushed aside without any reasonable discussion - and I don't call the things you have said discussion by any means. How on earth can you expect people to contribute when you treat them in this way? If you had given us just a few days to actually work on the page rather than sucking us into this pseudo legalistic debate you might have a positive addition to Wikipedia - instead you have just wasted our time and your time. Good job there. Bbadger 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Badger, your article is undergoing several very routine processes in Wikipedia. there is nothing personal against you or your work as a software designer. You can have more than just a few days to work on your article if you userfy it. Please check your user talk page. I have given you information on how to userfy there. An article needs to meet Wikipedia's standards before it can be published. Try reviewing Wikipedia:Your first article. Give some thought to this quotation from an old edit by Dpbsmith about going out of the house without one's bathrobe on:

"The other side of that coin is that if people would wait four minutes to write one decent paragraph before creating an article, they wouldn't be so apt to get listed on VfD. Posting something like the first version of this article is like walking out the front door naked, and then complaining that people didn't even give you a chance to get dressed. Maybe the neighbors shouldn't be so quick to call the cops, but if someone doesn't want that hassle it's pretty easy just to throw on a bathrobe first."

I know this process can be frustrating, but the rules and procedures are here for a reason, and they are very important. OfficeGirl 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. Author should read WP:SOFTWARE. —ptk✰fgs 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ the page you referenced says it is obsolete right there at the top of the page. Am I to follow obsolete advice? Bbadger 07:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't particularly care what the maintenance template says. At this point, you need broad guidance in the area of notability, not specific nuances. —ptk✰fgs 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at this discussion I can see that several people really have tried to help. Office girl stands out as trying to be helpful. Others have been more inclined to go for the big stick and drowning the issue in procedure such that the obvious simplicity of this situation was lost. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks to those people who were helpful and thanks to Wikipedia as a whole for providing such an excellent resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.102.62 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Badger. Well, it looks like you've gotten yourself a baptism by fire learning the way things work in Wikipedia the hard way. It's different than many people expect. Sorry about the culture shock. If I understand well enough what Sport is, I think you can find other Wikipedians to help with your article here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Free_Software#Participants. Take heart. This process really works to make all the articles turn out properly in due time if the subject is qualified. OfficeGirl 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Badger has added a GFDL release on the original page, and I have therefore removed the copyvio tag from the article. Since there is now no longer a copyvio issue, I change my participation in this discussion to delete, no notability established. Corvus cornix 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Firstly, many thanks to OfficeGirl for directly addressing the copyright issue. Your help was very much appreciated. Next, I have added in references to conferences dating back to 2004 where Sport (not by that name at that time) had it's first public airing. I have re-worded some of the text too. I would appreciate an indication of whether we are heading in the right direction here, and if not then why not. Thanks. Bbadger 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop !voting multiple times. Corvus cornix 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was voting. I guess this is by saying "keep" that I "voted" - is that right? I'm sure you can understand my mistake because I got a message saying that this process was definitely *not* a vote. Now you say it is. Confusing or what? I would appreciate more your view on whether the changes that we are making to the Sport page are trending in the right direction and addressing the issues that you have raised. Thanks. Bbadger 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the current trend is a good one. We still have the author of the software working on an article about his own project and that needs to stop ASAP. —ptk✰fgs 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This process is not a vote, however it is a chance for people to register a (policy-backed) opinion. That should be done once per user. And I concur with Ptkfgs: your continued editing will not help. Especially since the sources added do not seem to address the concerns raised about notability. Also, on an unrelated note, I'd like to register a request for a snowball close to this AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVIEW I have reduced this article to a stub with one valid assertion of notability which can be verified by a reliable source and is properly cited. I have tagged it for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Free_Software and I have posted a note about the article on their TO-DO list. It's not what Mr. Badger envisioned, but it might be worth keeping now. Please let me know what other editors think of these changes. Thanks. OfficeGirl 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per officegirl's changes. (Striking earlier vote above). --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software. Keb25 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate OfficeGirl's efforts, it's still not notable. Being the subject of one lecture to a user group is far from notability: the speaker wasn't notable, the conference wasn't notable, the group for whom the conference was given wasn't notable. I go to lots of seminars at a university where panels and individuals (some notable enough to have articles here) spiel on about their various theories, discoveries, inventions - some of which are based on papers published in journals (again notable enough to have articles at WP) but that does not make their theories or discoveries or inventions notable. Same too, in the software world I'm afraid. If I present my design for a better paper airplane to a paper airplane users group do I get an article here? does my plane? nope & nope. Or is every topic covered at a notable convention inherently notable - whether's it's the shriners, a Trekkie thing, a scout jamboree, or some group of academics letting their hair down in Vegas - conventions such as these cover 100s of topics, plenary sessions, break out groups, multiple tracks, etc. They just aren't all notable. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still support the deletion of this page. The lecture was given by the creator of the software. Thus, the article still lacks notability asserting coverage by independant third parties. i ^said 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a totality of the circumstances, I interpreted the available information in the light that an independent third party which is knowledgeable in the field chose to have the subject of this article featured in its international symposium, analogous to when a third party publication chooses to print a word-for-word interview from a primary subject. The information given does come from the mouth of the primary source, but the independent third party used its judgment to feature that speaker talking about the questions and topics of their choosing and approval, and that's third-party coverage. OfficeGirl 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Carlos said, if the event was notable, maybe, just maybe. However, the even was not a notable event, and not third party enough in my mind, to qualify it as notability creating coverage. A 45 minute speech given among 35 others by the creator of the software does not grant notability. i ^said 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the changes to the article and see no reason to alter my position. Notability is still not established by third-party sources. —ptk✰fgs 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to KEEP (stub) I wanted to see the reasoning that editors might have for any negative response on the notability question now that the article is a stub. I don't agree with the reasons given by Carlossuarez46, because my choice to demonstrate that an assertion of notability can be made and documented was based on a totality of the circumstances.

Mr. Badger is in fact the founder and leader of a non-profit group of Free Open Source Software developers (OpenSkills) which has been determined to be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia well before Mr. Badger ever signed on to Wikipedia. The European association brought him from Australia to Switzerland to give his lecture, and he is an annual lecturer with them. Mr. Badger is telling the truth when he says that Sport is well known among SmallTalk users, and it is widely discussed on user forums-- in fact it is mentioned in a ho-hum "everyone knows that software" tone. Those are not sources we can use in a Wikipedia article, but their existence was persuasive to me that the software actually is well-known and has a somewhat wide usage in the field. In addition, this is free software-- not a for profit sales venture, which makes it a lot less like an ad and more like an instance of zealous actions by a confused newbie acting in good faith. Remember WP:BITE. I am inclined to think that a stub is perfectly appropriate in this case.OfficeGirl 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard WP:BITE cited to keep articles which fail our WP:N guidelines. Many people are leaders of something and they produce things: software, widgets, ideas - heck there are over 5,000,000 US patents is each of those inventions that can be verified to the USPTO website notable if a newbie puts up an article? nope. There are 1000s of journals, with 10s or 100s of thousands of articles, is each notable? is the subject of each notable? Is that true if done by a newbie? Is every software that is the subject of a 1/2 hour speech at some non-notable conference notable? Only for newbies? Nowhere has anyone bitten anyone, or acted contrary to good faith. The simple application of WP:N standards to all articles equally leads to the indisputable conclusion that this so far fails WP:N that were this authored by anyone else, no one would really be defending this. Carlossuarez46 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stub that is in place presently was primarily authored by me, since nothing is left of the article pretty much other than my changes. I have said before and for clarification I will say again, the reason I made reference to "don't bite the newbies" is that I sense a bit of a punitive attitude against Mr. Badger as a person for the mistakes he made (mostly) in good faith, even though those mistakes can be cured. We shouldn't punish the article for the mistakes of a newbie editor, if the article can be salvaged by other editors. I'm not a mind reader, and I am just saying it is possible for such a coloration to influence the votes in part or in full, and that's why I mention "don't bite the newbies." I am not judging your conscience or accusing anyone, just making a general reminder. You are entitled to your views and I respect them. I am convinced that the stub that is here present is now an appropriate expansion of the Wikipedia knowledge base.OfficeGirl 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, I had added referenced to two earlier conferences. One in 2004 and one in 2005 which both had talks about Sport, though the first one did not use that name. Also, again in response to this notability thing, I asked on comp.lang.smalltalk for people to help out with this article but that backfired because the people from comp.lang.smalltalk were deemed to be "meatpuppets". The "meatpuppet" epithet probably also scared off people from editing the article too. The article (as I last edited it) currently:

significantly covers what Sport is (and I should know)
Can be verified with reference to discussions since early 2006 on comp.lang.smalltalk (and other lists)
Has been presented and discussed at international conferences since 2004 (I linked to the conference notes) which I would have thought would be sound sources
Independence is the tricky one. Sport is only directly interesting to the Smalltalk community and people who want to use Smalltalk. But then, the same might be said of Seaside which is of a similar vintage.

Is Wikipedia now saying that "notability" is the next big stumbling block now that the copyright thing is out of the way? ... and that, the only real issue is that the article should be edited by more people but that we must just let that kind of happen withot any action on my part?81.86.102.62 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank OfficeGirl to take the time to try to make something useful out of this article, but I still don't see anything that makes it notable. We need something besides a talk at a SmallTalk gathering. Corvus cornix 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though to be fair it is three international Smalltalk conferences over four years, one of which was part of Linux World in Toronto - per the links I added to the article before it was made into a stub. As it happens it has been presented at smaller local Smalltalk user group meetings but I didn't mention that because, well, it hardly seemed notable. Bbadger 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This process reminds me of a line in the film Clockwise in which the character played by John Cleese says, IIRC, "It's not the despair. I can handle the dispair. It's the hope I can't stand.". I feel much like a spectator watching all this happen, but not feeling very sure that I understand any of it. I hope it all works out, and sometimes it looks like it will. But then there is another blow. Unexplained and confusing. Quite an experience. Bbadger 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but could someone please tell me how long this process lasts? I see that a few people have had a nibble at the page now, though nobody has yet re-applied the links to all the conferences that I had, but the threat of deletion is still there. Thank you. Bbadger 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will evaluate the current condition of the article and the arguments given in this discussion which are based on Wikipedia guidelines (not just personal likes and dislikes), and will decide whether a consensus has been reached. If there is determined to be a consensus based on Wikipedia policy, then the administrator will close the debate and report the result. Mr. Badger, even if you don't like the result please remember that you are welcome to remain a part of our community, learn more about Wikipedia guidelines and participate in editing other articles using a neutral point of view and reliable sources.OfficeGirl 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit History of Article A note to admin and anyone wishing to comment further on this AfD: It appears that User:Grshiplett (who has been a user on Wikipedia for more than a year) has expressed opinions and arguments on this AfD but has included those thoughts in Edit Summaries while trying to improve the article-- see both comments here: [48]. He is expressing a keep opinion. I am just pointing it out so that it can be weighed in the analysis of the totality of the discussions according to the Admin's discretion.OfficeGirl 20:59, 11 September 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 and WP 3:16. — Caknuck 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling slang

Violates WP:NOT#DICT. It's a list of terms, though long, it's more suited for Wikitionary if anything (though some may think it's not period). Also, I don't know of a place to request transwiki'ing, either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will admit it looks like a superfluous list of terms, but they're are lots of pro-wrestling lists out there and divided accurately. These terma, valid or not only fit here. Some of the terms are redundant, but there is a lot that are good. I have no clue what to say yet? I will respond later. Showmanship is the key 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (tries in vain to decipher Supershow's comments) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - *is lost too* Kwsn(Ni!) 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Nikki311 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list is (mostly) sourced. Moreover, the following Good Articles use the list to keep the writing "out-of-universe": Candice Michelle, Kurt Angle, Nora Greenwald, John Cena, Rena Mero, and Shelton Benjamin. Deleting the list would be a major set-back for the project, as all the current Good Articles would have to be reworked, every term would have to be defined in every article, and a new method for taking the articles "out-of-universe" would have to be devised. Moreover, there are hundreds of incoming links, with many of the articles having dozens of links to it. Nikki311 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikki311. The deletion of this list would lead to a huge mess that is best avoided. Another thing to keep in mind is that if these terms aren't in one ___location then I can see some users creating stubs to explain them. Instead of a nice concise list, we could possibly see a mass of stubs, that will always be stubs. Stephen Day 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that is very true. I've already merged and redirected several stubs into the list, and I just put Turn (professional wrestling) up for AfD with the rationale that it is not notable enough for an article of its own, but could be covered in a few sourced sentences on the list. Nikki311 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per WP:DICDEF, WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. i ^said 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the list could be trimmed, but I think it serves a valuable function. And it's certainly not the only article that lists terms (see List of glossaries). GaryColemanFan 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikki311. Deleting this list would be a major setback for WP:PW. - Eggy49er 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikki311 and Stephen Day. A lot of work has gone into this list in an attempt to get rid of a mass wrestling term stubs. Again, being able to link to the terms on this page is very much needed to keep pro wrestling articles "out of universe." --Naha|^(talk) 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikki311 and GaryColemanFan. --ProtoWolf 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly do not like the usage of glossaries to get pass WP:NOT#DICT. I can understand for medical terms etc, but not when everything is cited to a non-reliable source Corpx 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe I'm voting to keep a wrestling topic, but this list is far, far better than individual articles on each slang term, which has been the case before. Needs more varied sources, though. Realkyhick 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from the "Not a dictionary" section In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate - this is one essential article about a lot of "slang" that's essential to wrestling, beats having them all be individual pages that quickly get filled up with crufty "examples". Keep this instead of opening the floodgates on individual pages. MPJ-DK 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needed to help us distinguish between in-universe and real life events in many other articles, and to prevent wrestling substub proliferation hell. I would settle for a transwiki to wiktionary if feasible, however. — Gwalla | Talk 05:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, glossaries are the exception that makes the rule. However, there are some terms on the page that don't have a place in the formal-voice writing used in encyclopedias (ie, "clusterfuck"). Not coincidentally, many (if not all) of these terms are unsourced. Those should be removed. hateless 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 'carny' terms are an integral part of the wrestling community. --Endlessdan 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sometimes, it is necessary to have glossary-type articles to help aid the reader in defining terms essential to a topic. It doesn't matter if the central topic is professional wrestling page (which this one happens to be), or baseball, medical terms, whatever. Glossaries are meant to clarify terms that the reader might not otherwise be able to derive from the context. In professional wrestling, there are many "slang" terms that the average reader might not be able to figure out. [[Briguy52748 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep' - this needs to be closed now per WP:SNOW. Davnel03 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a glossary. There are lots and lots of glossarys in Wikipedia, and this is one of them. If you're going to put this page up for deletion, at least try to do so for all the other glossaries. MITB LS (t·c) 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please avoid WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. All I'm really trying to say that: a lot of the PW articles use these terms. Sure, terms such as "kayfabe" and "turn" and "face" and "heel" have their own articles. But... there's lots of other terms (such as "angle", "bury", "card" and "dark match") where it's terminology would be appropriate on this page. Said above: the GAs (and even the FAs) use the list to keep the writing "out-of-universe". The page is rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. I think the page should be kept for these reasons, as well as the reasons above. MITB LS (t·c) 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hah, yeah, I know a lot do, I've gotten lost in the wrestling pages before, but the thing is, wouldn't something like this be more suited for wikitionary? Kwsn(Ni!) 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you were to move the words to WT, where would you put them? Likely, separtate pages for each single term (if you were to do that, it would be a huge hassle for 100+ terms). The point of this page is to compile the slang terms to one central place where someone new could easily go to and learn it without having to move between pages. It's technically the point of any glossary (glossary = a list of specialized or technical words with their meanings). I think it would be best if the page would be kept. MITB LS (t·c) 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikki311. What I would say has already been said various times above, the list is a good guide for all terms as many of them show up amongst many wrestling angle articles and wrestlers' pages themselves, it's good to keep them all in one place. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just went through the list and deleted OR terms, terms without sources, and terms that will probably never be used in an individual article. It looks a lot better now. Nikki311 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I just reviewed all the deltions and it looks good to me. I'd like to find sources for "Ropebreak" and "Rub" and add them back at some point, however all the removals were appropriate. --Naha|^(talk) 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nikki13. The article does look better now than it did and it is a vital part of the wrestling Wikiproject. Deleting this would do the same as deleting lists of moves - cause nearly every wrestling article to have to be re-written. Gavyn Sykes 18:20, 5 September 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. NawlinWiki 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOXML Ballot Results

Non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, and clearly unencyclopediac trash--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - maybe move to wikisource? Corpx 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedias of Wikipedia's scope contain scores of information, not just information that's also in Britannica (this is a result of Wikipedia being online and therefore not incurring printing costs). Furthermore, the presence of original research can be repaired by citing sources, so there is no need to delete it. SteveSims 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sefringle is objectively wrong about it being original research - it's a vote tally. How can that be OR? Raul654 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, and perhaps WP:ADVERT. Who will care in a century? Michaelbusch 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is this an advert, it's a record of votes taken during a standardization process? As to who will care, inclusion is about notability, not whether you or I will care. As long as something is notable & verifiable, it doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not. KTC 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the summary section into OOXML and throw the detailed votes into the bit bucket. The result of the vote is worth noting. JIP | Talk 07:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims. WLD^talk|edits 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of history --elgaard 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wikisource. Even the tally (individual votes) seem to be interesting (and notable) enough.--Imz 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OR claim can be remedied with proper sourcing. How each country voted, and especially their comments, may have a significant impact on the future of document standards. This is also one of the highest profile ISO votes in recent history. That makes it notable to me. — jmorgan (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardisation part of OOXML should split off into a more detailed separate article, with content from this merge into that new article. KTC 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims. --Ciao 90 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the standardization process should be split from OOXML into its own page... this vote should be included in that page. The reports of possible ballot tampering and sudden influx of upgraded member status, along with other controversies are interesting and significant, with no precedent in ISO history. --the previous comment was made by Jonathan888 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC) who forgot to log in.[reply]
Keep this, until OOXML is Split and then Merge into Standardization of Office Open XML --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. ISO ballot results should only be referenced from an ISO site or even not at all. hAl 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, and certainly. • Lawrence Cohen 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/split/merge per Michalis Famelis and KTC. Han-Kwang (t) 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list can not be found at iso.org so it is needed here. Chlor 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims and Michalis Famelis. Tange 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Voting (with votes structured by countries) is standard ISO procedure. I see no reason why a voting about a relative obscure standard should be on WP. Should we include votings on programming languages? All of them? Perhaps WP could mirror ISO website then. Pavel Vozenilek 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non admin closure). John Vandenberg 07:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uludağ University

Doesn't assert notability, but school articles connot be speedily deleted. Arky ^¡Hablar! 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a concern for universities. Fg2 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, universities are notable, but It really needs to be expanded.--JForget 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed! It's not yet a stub. Fg2 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Deletion is based on whether the article in concern meets notability criteria or not. If the topic in concern clearly meets notability criteria, then the article should be improved, not deleted. KTC 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~And if you're so concerned that it be at least a stub, it is now. KTC 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Apology, I thought that was an agree on delete. KTC 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I think the fact that university meets notability is pretty much already clearly established. But for those wanting to cite policy, from Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations : "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." A nationally recognized and accredited university would be considered as having its scope of activities that are national (or international) in scale, and hence notable for inclusion. KTC 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing this up to a stub. Fg2 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would agree that all proper universities are notable as said above. Davewild 07:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per KTC. Not only are all universities considered notable, unless shown otherwise, this one is located in one of the oldest cities in the world, and this is interesting and encyclopedic in itself. Bearian 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, it is a university. This should have already been closed imo. It is a 32 years old university with more than 30 thousand students (according to the Uni website), and it has among other things 11 eleven research centers. Deniz^T_C 06:42, 9 September 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsline

It may not meet WP:CORP. It's probably a unverifiable, and maybe not even notable. Best to discuss it here at articles for deletion rather than delete it outright. Notability is weak at best. Lightningjay53 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero Ghits. Hellosandimas 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Maralia 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not immediately clear that such a telephone line ever existed, but if it did it lacks notability (not referenced in indpendent sources, not particularly significant even to FHM, no longer in existence and unlikely to achieve future notability or ever be referred to again outside of this contested article). Euryalus 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Twenty Years 03:57, 8 September 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. The last four nominations were also closed as "speedy keep" for lacking a valid deletion rationale, for being disruptive, and for violating WP:POINT. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided by the nominator that the subject wants the article deleted. In addition, the subject's notability (multiple appearances in reality TV shows, numerous awards by magazines) is abundantly clear, and the nature of it does not suggest that the person is trying to avoid public attention which would even raise the suggestion of a courtesy "do no harm" deletion. Non-admin close (though I used to be one, and think this case is clear enough.)Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Conrad

AfDs for this article:

This should be deleted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) and the subject wanting her article to disappear, as with Mr. Brandt. Not notable, except within British radio circles (well, for anyone who works at EMAP or GCap Media. Should be deleted. --Lightningjay53 20:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Survived all previous 4 Afds; how has it changed since the 4th Afd?? Georgia guy 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Again.' As per the last four AfD's, and the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good enough. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable, not remotely borderline. Everyking 04:03, 6 September 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. DS 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms in architecture

A rambling, unreferenced essay that appears to be entirely unrelated to the actual topic. Circeus 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting idea, probably encyclopedic and notable, but this essay does not come close to even being a stub. I think the nom probably meant to write that it is unrelated to the topic. Bearian 18:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ACK! yes *fixes*. I would honestly not nominate it if it actually, y'know made sense, but this is, as far as the topic is concerned, absolutely unsalvageable, so a clean slate is probably the best course. I probably could have speedied it, but I felt safer going through AFD. Circeus 18:48, 6 September 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.